m Un3%r 

ig$nduMtial  V.\ 


ILLINOIS. 


BOOKS  ARE  NOT  TO  BE  TAKEN  FROM  THE  LIBRARY  ROOM. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/reportoftariffco1188unit 


REPORT 


OF 


THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION, 


APPOINTED 


UNDER  ACT  OF  CONGRESS  APPROVED  MAY  15,  1882. 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 


VOLUME  I. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 


ERRATA. 


On  page  10,  next  to  last  line  in  third  paragraph,  for  “ each”  read  “finch.” 

On  page  69,  Schedule  L — Silk  and  Silk  Goods,  first  line,  for  “particularly”  sub- 
stitute “partially.” 

On  page  69,  Schedule  L — Silk  and  Silk  Goods,  in  paragraph  third  of  said  sched- 
ule, for  “dried”  read  “dyed.” 

On  page  72,  Schedule  N — Sundries,  after  the  paragraph  commencing  “ Osier”  and 
before  the  paragraph  commencing  “ Papier-mache,”  insert — 

Paintings,  in  oil  or  water-colors,  and  statuary,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  forty  per 
centum  ad  valorem.  But  the  term  “statuary,”  as  used  in  the  laws  now  in  force  im- 
posing duties  on  foreign  importations,  shall  be  understood  to  include  professional  pro- 
ductions of  a statuary  or  of  a sculptor  only. 


Uyn-^r 


47th  Congress,  \ HOUSE  OE  REPRESENTATIVES.  ( Mis.  Doc.  6, 
2d  Session.  ( \ Part  i . 


THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION, 


APPOINTED  UNDER  ACT  OF  CONGRESS  APPROVED  MAY  15,  1882. 


December  4,  1882. — Referred  to  tlie  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  and  ordered  to 

be  printed. 


The  honorable  Speaker 

of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States : 

Sir  : The  undersigned,  constituting  the  Tariff  Commission  established 
by  the  act  of  Congress  of  May  15,  1882,  have  the  honor  to  submit  the 
final  report  of  the  results  of  its  investigations,  and  the  testimony  taken 
in  the  course  of  the  same,  the  presentation  of  which  by  you  to  the  honor- 
able House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  on  the  first  Mon- 
day of  December,  1882,  in  compliance  with  the  requirements  imposed 
upon  the  Commission  by  said  act,  is  respectfully  requested. 

The  terms  of  the  law  under  which  the  Commission  has  acted  are  as 
follows : 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  Rouse  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled , That  a Commission  is  hereby  created,  to  be  called  the  “Tariff 
Commission,”  to  consist  of  nine  members. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall,  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  appoint  nine  commissioners  from  civil  life,  one  of  whom,  the 
first  named,  shall  be  the  president  of  the  Commission.  * * * 

Sec.  3.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  Commission  to  take  into  consideration  and 
to  thoroughly  investigate  all  the  various  questions  relating  to  the  agricultural,  com- 
mercial, mercantile,  manufacturing,  mining,  and  industrial  interests  of  the  United 
States,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  necessary  to  the  establishment  of  a judicious  tariff, 
or  a revision  of  the  existing  tariff,  upon  a scale  of  justice  to  all  interests,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  fully  examining  the  matters  which  may  come  before  it.  Said  Commission, 
in  the  prosecution  of  its  inquiries,  is  empowered  to  visit  such  different  portions  and 
sections  of  the  country  as  it  may  deem  advisable. 

Sec.  4.  That  the  Commission  shall  make  to  Congress  final  report  of  the  results  of  its 
investigation,  and  the  testimony  taken  in  the  course  of  the  same,  not  later  than  the 
first  Monday  of  December,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-two ; and  it  shall  cause  the 
testimony  taken  to  be  printed  from  time  to  time  and  distributed  to  members  of  Con- 
gress by  the  Public  Printer,  and  shall  also  cause  to  be  printed  for  the  use  of  Congress 
two  thousand  copies  of  its  final  report,  together  with  the  testimony. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  act  above  recited  that  the  first  duty  which  de- 
volved upon  the  Commission  was  an  investigation,  or  prosecution  of 
inquiries,  in  relation  to  all  the  various  questions  bearing  upon  the  es- 
tablishment of  a judicious  tariff,  by  means  of  taking  testimony  in  rela- 
tion to  the  agricultural,  commercial,  mercantile,  manufacturing,  mining, 
and  industrial  interests  of  the  United  States,  and  that  for  this  purpose 
the  Commission  was  empowered  and  impliedly  directed  to  visit  such 
different  portions  and  sections  of  the  United  States  as  it  might  deem 
advisable. 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


REPORT 


OF 


2 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


It  is  proper  that  a brief  recital  condensed  from  the  daily  records  of 
the  Commission  should  be  given  of  the  course  of  procedure  in  this  pre- 
liminary work,  the  results  of  which,  in  the  volumes  of  printed  testimony 
herewith  submitted,  form  a material  portion  of  this  report. 

The  first  session  of  the  Commission  was  held  at  Washington,  on  the 
6th  of  July,  1882,  and  the  sessions  were  continued  in  that  city  seven 
days,  during  which  all  the  details  of  administrative  organization  were 
completed.  The  first  series  of  sessions  for  hearing  testimony,  commenc- 
ing on  the  19th  of  July,  were  held  at  Long  Branch,  1ST.  J.,  that  place 
having  been  selected  for  such  hearings  on  account  of  its  easy  access 
from  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  comparative  accessi- 
bility from  the  principal  business  centers  of  the  East.  The  opportunity 
was  also  afforded  by  the  proximity  to  New  York  to  obtain  the  testimony 
of  the  principal  experts  of  the  custom-house  in  that  city,  in  relation  to 
the  amendments  desirable  in  the  administrative  portions  of  our  customs 
laws. 

The  methods  pursued  in  subsequent  hearings  were  here  adopted, 
viz,  of  having  the  sessions  for  receiving  testimony  open  to  the  public, 
while  ample  facilities  for  reporting  were  given  to  the  press;  of  pub- 
lishing general  invitations,  but  of  making  no  personal  requests  for  the 
reception  of  testimony  except  to  official  persons ; of  assigning  by  letter 
or  telegraph  the  time  when  each  witness  desiring  an  appointment  should 
be  heard ; of  hearing  with  absolute  impartiality  persons  of  all  shades  of 
economical  opinion,  and  of  submitting  for  publication  all  written  or 
printed  statements  read  to  the  Commission,  as  well  as  oral  statements 
which  were  faithfully  reported  by  its  official  stenographer. 

After  a series  of  sessions  continuing  for  twenty-nine  days,  including 
two  days  occupied  in  visiting  the  custom-house  in  New  York  and  one 
day  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  and  hearing  all  the  witnesses  who  were  prepared 
to  give  testimony,  the  Commission  deemed  it  advisable  to  prosecute  its 
inquiries  in  other  portions  and  sections  of  the  country.  After  a session 
of  three  days  in  the  city  of  Boston,  Mass.,  the  other  New  England 
States  not  being  visited  on  account  of  their  comparative  proximity  to 
the  two  last-named  places  of  session,  a route  of  travel  was  laid  out  to 
embrace  the  principal  business  centers  of  the  Middle  States  and  of  the 
West  and  South. 

The  Commission  originally  contemplated  visits  to  the  Pacific  and  Gulf 
States,  which  were  abandoned  for  want  of  time.  Appointments  were 
duly  published  for  the  hearings  in  the'  different  cities  hereafter  named, 
and  every  appointment  was  kept  with  absolute  punctuality.  This  could 
have  been  accomplished  only  through  provisions  of  exceptional  facili- 
ties for  traveling  and  an  indifference  to  the  fatigue  attending  rapid 
transit.  Within  a period  of  less  than  five  weeks,  public  sessions  for  hear- 
ing testimony  were  held  in  the  following-named  cities,  a session  having 
been  held  on  every  working  day  during  that  period,  and  during  which 
over  6,000  miles  were  traversed,  principally  at  night,  with  the  addition 
of  1,000  miles  in  visiting  the  last  three  places. 

The  cities  visited  during  the  route  of  travel  above  referred  to  were : 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  one  day’s  session,  August  29. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  one  day’s  session,  August  30. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  one  day’s  session,  August  31. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  one  day’s  session,  September  1. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  one  day’s  session.  September  2. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  two  days’  session,  September!,  5. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  one  day’s  session,  September  6. 

Chicago,  111.,  three  days’  session,  Sejitember  7,  8,  9. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


3 


Milwaukee,  Wis.,  one  day’s  session,  September  11. 

Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  two  days’  session,  September  12, 13. 

Minneapolis,  Minn.,  one  day’s  session,  September  14. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  two  days’  session,  September  15, 16. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  two  days’  session,  September  18, 19. 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  one  day’s  session,  September  20. 

Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  one  day’s  session,  September  21. 

Atlanta,  Ga.,  two  days’  session,  September  22, 23. 

Savannah,  Ga.,  one  day’s  session,  September  25. 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  one  day’s  session,  September  26. 

Wilmington,  N.  C.,  one  day’s  session,  September  27. 

Bichmond,  Va.,  one  day’s  session,  September  28. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  two  days’  session,  September  29, 30. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  six  days’  session,  October  2, 3,  4, 5,  6,  7. 

Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  three  days’  session,  October  9, 10, 11. 

Wheeling,  W.  Va.,  one  day’s  session,  October  12. 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  three  days’  session,  October  13,  14, 16. 

The  public  sessions,  for  hearing  testimony,  closed  at  the  latter  city 
on  the  16th  of  October. 

The  official  announcement  of  the  prevalence  of  a dangerous  epidemic 
in  the  Gulf  States  having  rendered  the  proposed  visit  to  those  States 
inexpedient,  Commissioner  Kenner,  of  Louisiana,  consented  to  dis- 
charge the  duty  of  personally  obtaining  such  testimony  in  that  section 
of  the  country  as  might  be  offered  after  due  publication  of  his  presence 
for  that  purpose,  an  arrangement  which  the  Commission  has  reason  to 
believe  w as  satisfactory  to  the  interests  of  that  section.  The  proposed 
visit  to  the  Pacific  States  having  proved  impracticable  within  the  brief 
time  at  the  command  of  the  Commission,  formal  official  communications 
were  addressed  to  each  of  the  governors  of  the  States  of  California, 
Colorado,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  and  Oregon,  and  of  the  Territories  of 
Arizona,  Dakota,  Idaho,  Montana,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  Washington, 
and  Wyoming,  requesting  them  to  give  notice  of  the  desire  of  the  Com- 
mission to  receive  statements  from  their  respective  States  and  Terri- 
tories. Such  statements  as  have  been  transmitted  in  pursuance  of 
these  requests  have  received  the  same  consideration  as  if  personally 
submitted,  and  are  embodied  in  the  published  testimony.  Upon  this, 
the  first  and  least  difficult  part  of  its  work,  the  Commission  permits 
itself  to  look  with  satisfaction,  as  it  may  do  with  propriety,  since  the 
only  merit  claimed  for  this  work  is  diligence  and  impartiality  in  its  per- 
formance. The  number  of  witnesses  examined  and  statements  made 
was  604.  The  number  of  places  visited  was  29.  The  number  of  days 
occupied  in  taking  testimony  was  78,  and  the  testimony  taken  oc- 
cupies 2,625  printed  pages.  This  testimony  presents  a faithful  pho- 
tograph of  the  various  economical  opinions  of  the  great  business  cen- 
ters of  the  country,  at  least  so  far  as  the  interests  in  question  were 
willing  to  present  them.  It  is  believed  that  no  exhibit  of  such  opin- 
ions, or  of  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  vast  and  varied  industrial  develop- 
ment of  the  country,  so  condensed  and  yet  so  vivid,  or  so  responsible, 
from  the  publicity  of  the  hearings  and  the  personal  accountability  of 
the  w itnesses  to  the  Commission  and  the  public,  has  ever  been  pre- 
sented. Of  the  character  of  this  testimony  it  is  needless  to  speak,  ex- 
cept in  these  general  terms,  as  it  speaks  for  itself  in  the  printed  pages; 
and  of  the  great  variety  of  subjects  which  it  embraces,  as  more  fully 
shown  in  the  index  of  testimony,  it  would  be  useless  to  attempt  a com- 
plete abstract.  The  Commission  has,  however,  made  an  abstract  of 
the  testimony  relative  to  labor  and  wages  in  the  United  States  and 


4 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Europe,  combined  with  facts  and  statistical  exhibits  from  other  sources, 
which  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  to  this  report.  The  testimony  has 
been  invaluable  to  the  Commission  for  the  determination  of  the  imme- 
diate questions  under  their  consideration. 

The  most  grave  and  responsible  duty  which  has  devolved  upon  the 
Commission  has  been  its  further  work  of  considering  and  investigating 
the  testimony  above  referred  to,  and  such  other  information  as  has 
come  within  its  cognizance  in  reference  to  the  establishment  u of  a 
judicious  tariff,  or  a revision  of  the  existing  tariff  upon  a scale  of  jus- 
tice to  all  interests.”  The  principal  object  of  this  report  is  to  state  the 
results  of  this  investigation.  Before  proceeding  to  such  a statement 
in  detail  the  Commission  deems  it  proper  to  declare  the  spirit  in  which 
it  has  conducted  its  deliberations,  the  principles  by  which  it  has  been 
governed,  and  the  methods  by  which  it  has  arrived  at  its  results. 

In  performance  of  the  duty  devolved  upon  them,  all  the  members  of 
the  Commission  have  aimed,  and,  as  they  believe,  with  success,  to  divest 
themselves  of  political  bias,  sectional  prejudice,  or  considerations  of  per- 
sonal interest.  It  is  their  desire  that  their  recommendations  shall  serve 
no  particular  party,  class,  section,  or  school  of  political  economy. 

In  arriving  at  results  individual  opinions  have  been  made  subordinate 
to  the  object  of  uniting  upon  a general  system  which  shall  commend 
itself  to  the  country  and  Congress  as  a whole,  notwithstanding  the  minor 
objections  which  must  inevitably  occur  to  any  general  measures  of  rev- 
enue reform. 

The  Commission  has  found  itself  face  to  face  with  the  most  practical 
questions  within  the  range  of  national  economics — the  question  of  the 
national  revenue  and  the  relations  of  the  existing  national  industries 
with  the  labor  depending  upon  them  to  the  methods  of  collecting  that 
revenue.  The  practical  question  presented  to  the  Commission  is  that  of 
reconciling  the  interests  of  revenue,  including  the  considerations  of  its 
sufficient  maintenance  or  possible  reduction,  with  justice  to  the  interests 
of  the  nation  involved  in  the  preservation  of  its  industries  and  the  se- 
curity of  its  labor.  The  legislation  to  be  recommended  is  for  the  pres- 
ent, and  not  for  posterity,  which  must  meet  its  own  emergencies,  and 
the  determination  of  this  question  involves  considerations  of  expediency 
not  the  least  of  which  is  that  the  measures  recommended  be  such  as 
shall  be  acceptable  to  the  country  and  its  representatives  in  Congress. 
It  must  accept  the  facts  that  discrimination  in  the  imposition  of  import 
duties,  a discrimination  for  the  most  part  positive  and  avowed,  and 
always,  at  least,  with  an  incidental  reference  to  the  defeuse  of  the  na- 
tional industries,  has  been  the  policy  of  the  country  for  generations; 
that  in  consequence  of  this  policy  thousands  of  millions  of  dollars  have 
been  invested  in  special  pursuits ; that  the  whole  business  of  the  country 
has  been  adjusted  to  the  conditions  of  things  growing  out  of  this  policy, 
and  is  inseparably  identified  with  it;  and  that  a subversive  or  radical 
change  in  the  present  economic  system  would  throw  labor  out  of  employ- 
ment, ruinously  depreciate  values,  and  create  a general  industrial  and 
commercial  disaster.  With  these  views,  with  the  unmistakable  evidences 
of  public  opinion  against  radical  changes,  with  the  whole  current  of  the 
testimony  before  the  Commission  in  recognition  of  the  necessity  of  pre- 
serving the  general  structure  of  our  tariff  system,  with  the  clear  sanction 
of  the  law  creating  this  body  and  its  injunction  to  render  justice  to  all 
interests,  the  Commission  has  deemed  it  proper  to  limit  its  work  to  a 
revision,  although  a substantial  revision,  of  the  existing  tariff. 

The  Commission,  in  making  the  existing  tariff  the  basis  of  its  work, 
has  waived  any  attempt  to  construct  a system  upon  an  original  and 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


5 


scientific  basis,  such  as  the  tariff  of  France  is  said  to  be  founded  on,  not 
only  because  such  an  attempt  would  have  been  presumptuous  in  the 
brief  time  at  command,  but  because  of  the  practical  objections  to  such 
a course.  If  constitutions,  as  has  been  said,  are  not  the  creations  of 
councils  and  legislatures,  but  the  expression  of  the  results  of  the  slow 
and  gradual  growth  of  the  political  opinions  of  the  people,  how  much 
more  truly  may  it  be  said  of  a national  tariff  system  like  ours,  that  it 
is  the  result  of  the  gradual  growth  of  the  necessities  for  the  time  for 
each  of  the  new  industries,  or  interests  of  production,  springing  from 
year  to  year  into  existence,  and  each  in  its  way  securing  by  discrimi- 
nating duties  the  national  defense  from  undue  foreign  importations.  A 
reference  to  the  existing  tariff,  the  gradual  growth  of  generations  of  de- 
fensive legislation,  to  its  discriminations,  its  phraseology,  and  its  desig- 
nations, has  been  found  essential  for  preserving  the  general  structure  of 
the  existing  system,  and  although  in  some  cases  widely  departed  from, 
has  always  been  kept  in  view  by  the  Commission  in  the  changes  rec- 
ommended. For  the  same  conservative  reasons  the  views  of  the  au- 
thorized representatives  and  experts  in  the  several  industries  in  rela- 
tion to  objects  of  discrimination,  phraseology,  and  designations  have 
been  carefully  considered,  and  have  had  great  weight  with  the  Com- 
mission in  determining  the  measures  of  revision  to  be  recommended. 
In  a theoretically  scientific  tariff  scheme  it  would  have  been  impossible 
to  preserve  the  features  of  the  existing  system  to  which  the  business 
and  industries  of  the  country  have  become  adapted. 

While  giving  all  the  consideration  implied  in  the  foregoing  statement 
to  the  interests  affected  by  revision,  in  determining  the  rates  to  be 
recommended  the  Commission  has  been  governed  solely  by  its  own 
views  of  justice,  expediency,  and  a regard  for  the  interests  of  consumers 
and  the  public  sentiment  of  the  country.  Early  in  its  deliberations  the 
Commission  became  convinced  that  a substantial  reduction  of  tariff 
duties  is  demanded,  not  by  a mere  indiscriminate  popular  clamor,  but 
by  the  best  conservative  opinion  of  the  country,  including  that  which 
has  in  former  times  been  most  strenuous  for  the  preservation  of  our 
national  industrial  defenses.  Such  a reduction  of  the  existing  tariff 
the  Commission  regards  not  only  as  a due  recognition  of  public  senti- 
ment and  a measure  of  justice  to  consumers,  but  one  conducive  to  the 
general  industrial  prosperity,  and  which,  though  it  may  be  temporarily 
inconvenient,  will  be  ultimately  beneficial  to  the  special  interests  af- 
fected by  such  reduction.  No  rates  of  defensive  duties,  except  for  the 
establishment  of  new  industries,  which  more  than  equalize  the  conditions 
of  labor  and  capital  with  those  of  foreign  competitors  can  be  justified. 
Excessive  duties,  or  those  above  such  standard  of  equalization,  are 
positive^  injurious  to  the  interest  which  they  are  supposed  to  benefit. 
They  encourage  the  investment  of  capital  in  manufacturing  enterprise 
by  rash  and  unskilled  speculators,  to  be  followed  by  disaster  to  the 
adventurers  and  their  employes,  and  a plethora  of  commodities  which 
deranges  the  operations  of  skilled  and  prudent  enterprise.  Numerous 
examples  of  such  disasters  and  derangements  occurred  during  and 
shortly  after  the  excessively  protective  period  of  the  late  war,  when 
tariff'  duties  were  enhanced  by  the  rates  of  foreign  exchange  and  pre- 
miums upon  gold.  Excessive  duties  generally,  or  exceptionably  high 
duties  in  particular  cases,  discredit  our  whole  national  economic  system 
and  furnish  plausible  arguments  tor  its  complete  subversion.  They 
serve  to  increase  uncertainty  on  the  part  of  industrial  enterprise, 
whether  it  shall  enlarge  or  contract  its  operations,  and  take  from  com- 
merce, as  well  as  production,  the  sense  of  stability  required  for  ex- 


6 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


tended  undertakings.  It  would  seem  that  the  rates  of  duties  under  the 
existing  tariff — fixed,  for  the  most  part,  during  the  war  under  the  evi- 
dent necessity  at  that  time  of  stimulating  to  its  utmost  extent  all  do- 
mestic, production — might  be  adapted,  through  reduction,  to  the  present 
condition  of  peace  requiring  no  such  extraordinary  stimulus.  And  in 
the  mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries,  especially  those  which 
have  been  long  established,  it  would  seem  that  the  improvements  in 
machinery  and  processes  made  within  the  last  twenty  years,  and  the 
high  scale  of  productiveness  which  has  become  a characteristic  of  their 
establishments,  would  permit  our  manufacturers  to  compete  with  their 
foreign  rivals  under  a substantial  reduction  of  existing  duties. 

Entertaining  these  views,  the  Commission  has  sought  to  present  a 
scheme  of  tariff  duties  in  which  substantial  reduction  should  be  the 
distinguishing  feature.  The  average  reduction  in  rates,  including  that 
from  the  enlargement  of  the  free  list  and  the  abolition  of  the  duties  on 
charges  and  commissions,  at  which  the  Commission  has  aimed  is  not 
less  on  the  average  than  20  per  cent.,  and  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Com- 
mission that  the  reduction  will  reach  25  per  cent.  The  reduction,  slight 
in  some  cases,  in  others  not  attempted,  is  in  many  cases  from  40  to  50 
per  cent.  The  actual  amount  of  the  total  reduction  cannot  be  stated 
with  precision,  partly  from  want  of  time  to  make  the  calculations  re- 
quired for  such  details  in  the  brief  period  intervening  between  the  final 
determination  in  particular  cases  and  the  preparation  of  this  report ; 
and  there  is  no  exact  standard  by  which  to  estimate  the  amount  of  re- 
duction in  revenue,  on  account  of  the  varying  character,  amount,  and 
prices  of  commodities  in  the  importations  of  different  years.  If  the 
reduction  reaches  the  amount  at  which  the  Commission  has  aimed,  and 
if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  allegation  of  the  opponents  of  the  present 
economic  system,  that  a duty  on  articles  such  as  are  produced  iu  this 
country,  whether  in  manufactures  or  agriculture,  enhances  the  price  to 
the  consumer,  not  only  of  what  is  imported,  but  of  the  whole  domestic 
production,  to  an  amount  of  which  the  duty  is  a measure,  the  reduction 
proposed  by  the  Commission  would  benefit  consumers  to  the  extent  of 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.  As  the  amount  of  reduction  cannot 
be  stated  with  precision,  it  follows  that  no  statement  can  be  safely  made 
as  to  the  effect  of  the  proposed  reduction  upon  the  total  volume  of  the 
revenue  from  import  duties.  The  amount  of  the  reduction  in  the  total 
volume  of  the  revenue  could  be  stated  absolutely  onty  by  showing  the 
income  that  would  be  lost  by  the  enlargement  of  the  free  list.  Al- 
though the  free  list  is  considerably  enlarged  in  the  scheme  proposed, 
this  list  has  already  been  so  enlarged  by  previous  legislation  (to  such 
an  extent  as  to  embrace  nearly  one-third  in  value  of  the  merchandise 
imported  in  1881)  that  little  room  is  left  for  reform  in  this  direction.  It 
is  probable  that  the  reduction  of  the  total  volume  of  the  revenue  would 
not  be  proportionate  to  the  reduction  of  the  duties,  for  the  reason  that 
the  reduction  may,  temporarily  at  least,  increase  importations,  and 
greater  revenue  for  a time  may  result  from  the  lower  duties. 

The  adoption  of  an  inflexible  rule  of  horizontal  reduction  would  have 
made  the  work  of  the  Commission  in  this  direction  comparatively  easy ; 
but  such  a method  would  have  been  unskillful,  timid,  and  unjust.  The 
essential  feature  of  our  existing  tariff  system  for  generations  has  been  dis- 
crimination, and  nothing  but  disaster  has  attended  the  temporary  depart- 
ures from  this  rule.  A horizontal  reduction  would  have  been  a violation  of 
the  injunction  in  the  law  creatiug  the  Commission  to  make  the  revision 
upon  a scale  of  justice  to  all  interests.  In  the  exercise  of  this  discrimi- 
nation the  Commission  has  found  its  most  responsible,  delicate,  and 


ERRATUM. 


On  page  7,  eighth  line  from  close  of  first  paragraph,  for  “ latter”  read  “former. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


7 


difficult  task.  In  the  use  of  its  best  discretion,  and  in  the  light  of  the 
testimony  upon  which  it  was  authorized  by  law  to  found  its  conclusions, 
it  has  not  hesitated  to  withhold  the  application  of  the  general  rule  of 
reduction  in  many  cases,  and  in  some,  though  comparatively  few,  cases 
to  recommend  an  increase  of  duties  where  such  increase  seemed  to  be 
required  to  preserve  the  u scale  of  justice.”  It  has  been  the  effort  of 
the  Commission  to  make  the  reduction  apply  to  commodities  of  neces- 
sary general  consumption,  and  to  diminish  or  withhold  the  reduction 
upon  commodities  of  high  cost,  requiring  more  labor,  and  which  being  con- 
sumed principally  by  the  more  wealthy  classes  could  bear  higher  duties, 
at  the  same  time  supplying  revenue  and  encouraging  the  higher  arts  with- 
out being  oppressive  in  their  operation.  Some  of  the  proposed  discrimi- 
nations are  made  without  reference  to  considerations  of  revenue,  as  that 
in  the  duty  on  books,  reduced  in  the  interests  of  the  diffusion  of  knowl- 
edge, and  the  advance  in  the  duties  on  works  of  art,  made  for  the  en- 
couragement of  original  American  art.  It  has  been  sought  invariably 
to  make  a discrimination  in  the  rate  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  a manu- 
factured product  and  the  raw  material  or  partially  manufactured  prod- 
uct of  which  it  is  made,  the  object  being  to  impose  a higher  duty  upon 
the  latter/  With  but  a few  exceptions  a less  reduction  has  been  applied 
to  the  products  of  agriculture  than  to  those  of  the  mechanical  and 
manufacturing  industries,  for  the  reason  that  the  former  are  less  benefited 
than  the  latter  by  the  improvements  in  machinery  and  processes,  and 
the  economies  resulting  from  a high  scale  of  productiveness.  In  the 
reduction  applied  to  the  latter,  however,  it  has  been  earnestly  kept  in 
view  not  to  make  it  so  great  in  any  case  as  to  diminish  the  compensa- 
tion of  labor. 

The  methods  by  which  the  Commission  arrived  at  its  results,  in  con- 
sidering the  details  embraced  in  the  tariff  schedule,  may  be  here  briefly 
described.  After  finishing  its  labors  of  investigation  on  the  10th  of 
October,  the  Commission  commenced  its  work  of  deliberation  in  the  city 
of  New  York  on  the  17th  of  October,  which  work  has  been  continued 
without  interruption  in  full  session  of  all  its  members. 

Schedules  having  been  prepared,  and  amendments  to  the  adminis- 
trative sections  drafted  by  the  several  members  of  the  Commission,  these 
were  submitted  to  the  entire  Commission,  and  considered,  amended,  and 
finally  adopted ; the  Commission  giving  to  each  the  closest  attention, 
and  the  whole  time  of  the  Commission  having  been  devoted  to  their 
careful  consideration,  it  is  confidently  believed  that  the  proposed 
amendments  have  been  as  carefully  £>repared  as  the  limited  time  at  the 
command  of  the  Commission  would  permit.  Whatever  defects  or  errors 
of  judgment  the  work  of  the  Commission  may  present,  the  country  and 
Congress  are  assured  that  the  most  earnest  and  definite  attention  has 
been  given  to  the  execution  of  the  work. 

While  aiming  to  diminish  the  burdens  upon  the  people  which  inevitably 
attend  any  system  of  collecting  the  national  revenue,  the  Commission 
has  not  lost  sight  of  the  relations  of  a wise  tariff'  system  to  the  attain- 
ment of  the  highest  possible  material  life  of  the  nation;  its  security  in 
times  of  war,  both  in  its  means  of  defense  and  industrial  independence; 
its  position  among  other  nations;  its  acquisition  of  all  the  arts  which 
fortify,  enrich,  and  adorn ; its  attractiveness  for  the  skilled  labor  of  other 
lands,  and  the  comfort  and  means  of  support  of  all  its  people.  To  show 
how  momentous  to  these  interests  are  the  questions  involved  in  a tariff 
revision,  the  Commission  presents  statements  of  the  productive  indus- 
tries of  the  country  for  four  decades,  classified  in  accordance  with  the 
fourteen  schedules  in  the  tariff  scheme  herewith  submitted.  In  the 


8 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


detailed  observations  upon  each  of  these  schedules  the  statements  per- 
tinent to  each  will  be  given  in  full. 

The  subjoined  table  shows  the  industrial  progress  of  the  United  States 
for  the  last  four  decades. 


Census  year. 

Number  of  estab- 
lishments. 

Capital. 

Average  number 
hands  employed. 

Total  amount 
wages  paid 
during  year. 

, 

Value  of  ma- 
terials. 

Value  of  prod- 
ucts. 

1850 

123,  025 

$533, 245,  351 

957,059 

$236,755,464 

$555, 123.  822 

$1,019, 106,  616 

1860 

140, 433 

1,009,  855,715 

1,311,246 

378,  878,  966 

1,031,  605,  092 

1,  885,  861,  676 

1870 

252, 148 

2,118,  208,  769 

2,  053,  996 

775,  584,  343 

2,  488,  427,  242 

4,  232,  325,  442 

1880 

253,  840 

2,  790,  223,  506 

2,  738,  950 

947,  919,  674 

3,  394,  340,  026 

5,  369,  667,  706 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  figures  given  for  1870  are  upon  the  basis  of 
the  then  depreciated  currency,  while  the  figures  for  1880  are  upon  a gold 
basis. 

The  above  table  shows  that  capital  increased  in  the  decade  ending  in 
1860  about  90  per  cent.  During  the  period  between  1860  and  1870, 
about  110  per  cent.,  and  for  the  last  decade  only  about  32  per  cent.,  to 
which  should  be  added  the  difference  in  the  standard  of  values.  That  at 
the  close  of  the  first  decade  referred  to,  the  number  of  hands  employed 
increased  37  percent.;  between  1860  and  1870,  75  per  cent.;  and  be- 
tween 1870  and  1880,  about  33  per  cent. 

From  1850  to  1860  the  wages  paid  increased  60  per  cent.;  from  1860 
to  1870,  105  per  cent.;  and  from  1870  to  1880,  as  we  come  down  again 
to  a gold  basis,  22  per  cent. 

The  materials  used  from  1850  to  1860  increased  86  per  cent.;  from 
1860  to  1870,  141  per  cent.;  and  from  1870  to  1880,  36  per  cent. 

The  value  of  the  products  of  these  manufactures  increased  from  1850 
to  1860,  85  per  cent.;  from  1860  to  1870,  124  per  cent.;  from  1870  to 
1880,  27  per  cent. 

The  progress  of  the  nation  in  manufactures  during  the  last  forty 
years  has  been,  for  capital  invested,  423  percent.;  for  hands  employed, 
180  per  cent. ; for  wages  paid,  300  per  cent.;  for  materials  used,  511  per 
cent. ; and  for  value  of  products,  427  per  cent. 

The  growth  of  industries  during  the  last  decade,  upon  the  whole,  has 
been  a healthy  and  prosperous  one,  and  yet  it  has  not  more  than  kept 
up  with  the  growth  of  population.  The  increase  in  population  during 
the  last  ten  years  has  been  about  thirty  per  cent.,  whereas  it  has  been 
shown  that  the  increase  of  capital  invested  in  manufactures  has  been 
32  percent.;  in  the  number  of  hands  employed,  33  per  cent.;  in  the 
amount  of  wages  paid,  22  per  cent. ; in  the  value  of  materials  consumed, 
36  per  cent.;  and  in  the  value  of  the  products,  27  per  cent. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that,  great  as  has  been  the  prosperity,  the  in- 
crease in  manufacturing  in  the  United  States  during  the  last  decade 
does  not  more  than  keep  pace  with  the  population,  and  is  not  more  than 
proportionate  to  the  home  demands  for  our  domestic  products. 

According  to  Mr.  Mulhall,  an  English  statistician  of  recognized  author- 
ity, the  total  value  of  the  products  of  English  manufactures  for  1880 
was  about  $4,000,000,000.  The  table  above  given  shows  the  value  of 
the  products  of  our  own  manufactures  to  be,  in  round  numbers, 
$5,370,000,000,  givingtheUnited  States  the  eminence  of  being  the  great- 
est manufacturing  country  in  the  world. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


9 


Tt  is  by  such  figures  as  the  above  that  the  impression,  of  which  the 
Commission  is  deeply  conscious,  may  be  convened  to  Congress  and  the 
public  of  the  grave  responsibility  involved  in  a tariff  revision  which 
may  so  seriously  affect  the  material  interests  of  the  nation. 

Reference  has  hitherto  been  made  only  to  the  interests  of  production 
as  affected  by  the  work  of  revision  intrusted  to  the  commission.  The 
character  of  the  proposed  revision  in  the  interests  of  American  com- 
merce must  next  receive  consideration.  It  is  an  error  to  suppose  that 
there  is  any  real  antagonism  between  the  interests  of  production  and 
of  commerce.  Gnr  internal  commerce,  the  most  important  of  our  com- 
mercial interests,  depends  mainly  upon  domestic  production. 

There  are,  moreover,  but  few  of  our  domestic  industries  which  are 
not  more  or  less  dependent  upon  foreign  commerce  for  the  supply  of 
materialfor  manufacture,  eitherin  araw  state  or  partially  manufactured. 
Any  amelioration  of  the  unnecessarily  burdensome  restrictions  bearing 
upon  the  importations,  provided  the  duties  required  for  the  equaliza- 
tion of  the  different  conditions  of  capital  and  labor  here  and  abroad 
are  preserved,  is  a boon  not  only  to  commerce,  considered  as  a separate 
national  interest,  but  to  production.  In  this  view  the  Commission  has 
earnestly  considered  whether,  in  the  work  intrusted  to  it,  it  might  not 
propose  some  salutary  reforms  in  the  administrative  portions  of  our  tariff 
laws,  and  to  this  end  has  directed  extensive  inquiries — the  only  testi- 
mony directly  solicited— to  a great  number  of  experts  in  the  custom- 
house administration,  and  to  others  engaged  in  commerce.  These  in- 
quiries were  largely  guided,  and  the  deliberations  upon  them  aided,  by 
their  late  esteemed  associate,  Commissioner  McMahon,  whose  practical 
knowledge  in  relation  to  the  subjects  of  this  special  inquiry  was  per- 
haps unequaled,  and  whose  sudden  death  near  the  close  of  its  labors 
may  render  more  impressive  the  statement  of  this  part  of  the  work  of 
the  Commission,  to  which  he  materially  contributed. 

Among  the  administrative  measures  recommended  by  the  Commis- 
sion are,  the  substitution  of  a single  entry  fee  at  the  custom-house  for 
the  present  numerous  and  annoying  small  fees;  giving  authority  for 
certain  procedures  now  adopted  without  the  sanction  of  law ; giving 
facilities  for  the  importation  of  the  personal  effects  of  emigrants;  giving 
authority  that  weights  and  measures  in  invoices  shall  be  those  of  gen- 
eral use  in  the  country  of  exportation  ; requiring  that  invoices  of  mer- 
chandise subject  to  ad  valorem  duty  be  made  out  in  currency  actually 
paid  therefor,  as  well  as  that  of  the  place  from  which  importation  is 
made  ; limiting  the  requirements  of  triplicate  invoices  to  articles  subject 
to  ad  valorem  duties  only,  making  it  imperative  that  before  certifying 
to  an  invoice  the  consular  officer  shall  require  an  oath,  affirmation,  or 
declaration  that  the  invoices  are  correct;  providing  more  equitable, 
rigid,  and  efficient  penalties  for  under  valuations ; providing  for  an 
appraisement,  separate  and  distinct,  in  all  cases;  permitting  the  exam- 
ination of  bulky  goods  for  appraisement  at  other  places  than  the  public 
stores;  and  other  changes,  which  will  be  more  particularly  referred  to 
in  another  portion  of  this  report. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  and  radical  change  recommended  is  the 
repeal  of  the  sections  of  the  existing  law  requiring  the  addition  of  in- 
land transportation  costs  and  charges  to  the  basis  of  an  ad  valorem 
duty.  Although  the  repeal  of  these  sections  will  effect  a large  reduction 
of  duties,  especially  on  bulky  goods,  such  repeal  was  strongly  recom- 
mended, both  by  custom -house  experts  and  importers,  as  a measure  of 
relief  from  the  greatest  source  of  annoyance  in  the  liquidation  of  duties 
on  imported  merchandise. 


10 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Another  important  measure  recommended  by  the  Commission,  in  the 
form  of  a proposed  bill  for  the  purpose,  is  the  establishment  of  a customs 
tribunal  for  the  determination  of  disputed  questions  arising  under  our 
tariff  laws  as  to  the  classification  of  duty  of  imported  merchandise.  At 
present  these  questions  are  first  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and,  in  many  cases,  are  not  finally  determined,  except  on  ap- 
peal to  the  highest  courts  of  the  United  States,  involving  great  delay 
and  uncertainties  as  to  the  duties  payable.  The  necessity  of  a prompt 
decision  in  respect  to  questions  of  classification  can  hardly  be  overesti- 
mated, and  it  is  most  desirable  that  every  aid  should  be  given  to  make 
the  machinery  for  collecting  the  duties  work  as  easily  and  simply  as 
possible,  so  as  to  avoid,  so  far  as  may  be,  all  that  may  make  the  practi- 
cal working  of  the  tariff  unpopular  and  unnecessarily  onerous. 

The  Commission  believes  that  the  measure  proposed  would  provide 
effectual  relief  from  one  of  the  greatest  sources  of  annoyance  to  which 
merchants  are  now  subjected  in  their  importations. 

As  in  many  cases  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  are  imported  which 
are  made  for  this  market,  and,  therefore,  without  an  established  mar- 
ketable value  in  the  country  of  their  production,  and  a large  proportion 
of  the  imports  are  sent  on  consignment  to  agents  of  the  manufacturers 
in  the  United  States  on  mere  arbitrary  invoices,  and  as  in  all  these  cases 
it  is  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  ascertain  the  dutiable  value 
of  such  goods  with  any  reasonable  precision,  the  Commission  recom- 
mends that  by  law  provision  be  made  for  ascertaining  their  value  as 
nearly  as  may  be,  by  adding  to  the  value  of  their  component  materials, 
at  the  place  of  manufacture,  the  expense  of  manufacture  and  a reason- 
able profit  on  the  manufactured  goods,  and  providing  that  in  no  case  the 
dutiable  value  shall  be  less  than  the  amount  of  each  cost  of  material  ex- 
pense of  manufacture  and  profi  t so  ascertained. 

The  Commission  submits  the  following  observations  in  detail,  appli- 
cable to  each  of  the  proposed  schedules  of  duties,  and  the  recommenda- 
tions as  to  the  administrative  portions  of  the  tariff  laws. 

The  proposed  schedules  and  the  recommendations  last  referred  to 
are  appended  to  this  report,  and  are  to  be  regarded  as  a portion  thereof. 

Schedule  A. — Chemical  Products. 

The  progress  of  the  chemical  industry  in  the  United  States  during 
the  last  decade  has  been  one  of  the  most  marked  in  our  industrial  pro- 
gress. From  the  statistical  table  given  below  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
capital  invested  and  number  of  persons  employed  during  the  last  ten 
years  has  increased  nearly  200  per  cent.,  the  amount  paid  in  wages 
more  than  doubled,  while  the  product  was  $70,000,000  more  in  1880 
than  in  1870. 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

Number. 
400 
514 
740 
1,  349 

Number. 
3,  936 
6,  048 
11,995 
29,  500 

$7,  001,  860 
13,  579,  597 
31,681,714 
85, 486,  856 

$1, 275,  564 
2,  078,  290 
5,  4 27,  696 
11,820,728 

$8,  935,  381 
13,  029,  057 
29,  668,  643 
77,  344,  281 

$14,  501,341 
22, 161,983 
47,  397,  388 
117, 407,  054 

1860 

1870 

1880 

The  facts  used  in  the  preparation  of  the  above  table,  so  far  as  they 
relate  to  1880,  were  obtained  from  the  recent  reports  of  the  Census 
Office,  and  those  for  1850,  I860,  and  1870  were  taken  from  the  census 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


11 


volumes  on  manufactures  for  the  respective  years.  As  these  reports 
differ  from  each  other  in  the  articles  named  and  the  methods  of  collect- 
ing the  information,  the  Commission  has  combined  what  in  its  judg- 
ment seemed  to  be  the  several  branches  of  industry  which  should  prop- 
erly be  classed  under  the  generic  term  u Chemical  products.” 

It  was  apparent  at  the  outset  of  this  inquiry  that  an  industry  employ- 
ing nearly  thirty  thousand  hands,  with  an  annual  product  of  nearly 
$120,000,000,  was  entitled  to  a separate  schedule.  In  the  peparation  of 
this  schedule  the  testimony  before  the  Commission  of  every  witness 
on  drugs  and  chemicals  has  been  consulted,  and  the  Commission  has 
profited  by  the  suggestions  of  manufacturers  of  chemical  productions 
and  of  what  might  be  called  the  allied  products,  such  as  colors,  paints, 
essential  oils,  and  soap;  and  of  druggists  and  metallurgists,  on  ores, 
minerals,  earths,  and  clays. 

Some  difficulty  was  experienced  in  deciding  as  to  the  articles  to  be 
classified  under  the  generic  term  of  “ chemical  products,”  and  though 
great  care  has  been  exercised,  the  classification  can  hardly  be  claimed 
to  be  perfect.  In  addition  to  those  articles  which  are  unquestionably 
chemicals,  it  is  found  necessary  to  include,  in  order  to  make  a more  har- 
monious schedule,  such  crude  vegetable  substances  and  minerals  as  are 
largely  used  in  chemicals.  Also  in  some  cases  it  has  been  thought  ad- 
visable to  place  on  the  chemical  schedule  metals  that  are  almost  entirely 
used  in  this  branch  of  industry. 

In  the  classification,  the  suggestion  of  chemical  experts,  that  this 
schedule  be  arranged  under  the  three  heads  of  animal,  vegetable,  and 
mineral,  has  been  followed.  The  aim  has  been  throughout  to  place  all 
the  raw  material  used  in  this  industry  on  the  free  list,  and  only  to  make 
it  dutiable  when  advanced  in  value  by  grinding,  refining,  or  other  pro- 
cess of  manufacture  in  which  labor  becomes  an  element  for  considera- 
tion. A few  exceptions  to  both  these  rules  may  be  found,  but  in  these 
cases  as  in  that  of  sumac  (a  raw  material),  a great  injury  would  result 
to  a large  number  of  persons  whose  daily  subsistence  depends  upon  the 
gathering  and  sending  to  market  of  this  plant.  On  the  other  hand,  per- 
haps it  might  be  urged  that  the  Commission  is  subject  to  the  charge  of 
inconsistency  in  leaving  quinine  (an  advanced  product)  on  the  free  list; 
but  in  view  of  the  recent  action  by  Congress  in  relation  to  this  article, 
no  change  is  recommended.  The  system  of  graduating  duties  with  re- 
gard to  the  stages  of  advancement  in  the  manufacture  of  an  article  has 
been  incorporated  into  the  general  clauses  of  both  the  free  and  dutiable 
lists. 

The  free  list  has  been  very  largely  increased  by  the  sweeping  clauses 
introduced  in  regard  to  chemicals,  and  while  a less  number  of  articles 
is  enumerated,  the  list  is,  in  reality,  very  much  larger,  practically  mak- 
ing all  crude  drugs,  indeed  all  substances  not  edible,  and  in  a crude 
condition,  free.  A large  proportion  of  these  articles  in  the  existing  law 
are  subject  to  rates  of  duty  varying  from  20  to  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
In  another  clause  all  crude  minerals  not  enumerated,  and  now  bearing 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  are  proposed  to  be  made  free.  The  same  pro- 
ducts, advanced  in  manufacture,  have  all  been  reduced  from  20  to  10 
per  cent,  ad  valorem ; also  all  non-dutiable  crude  minerals,  but  which 
have  been  advanced  in  value  or  condition,  from  various  rates  to  a uni- 
form rate  of  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Following  this  same  principle,  it  has  been  deemed  in  the  line  of  sim- 
plification of  the  tariff’  to  provide  similar  clauses  embracing  all  earths 
or  clays,  proprietary,  alcoholic,  and  medicinal  preparations,  and  colors 


12 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


and  paints;  and,  to  some  extent,  oils  have  in  tliis  same  manner  been 
included  under  a general  clause,  as  well  as  aniline  dyes. 

In  the  few  cases  where  an  advance  of  duties  is  proposed,  it  has  been 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  classifying  an  article  in  the  10  or  20  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  clause;  and  in  cases  where  a 5 per  cent,  advancement  or 
reduction  is  of  little  importance  one  way  or  the  other,  this  has  been 
done  to  preserve  general  harmony  through  the  schedule.  It  is  difficult 
to  estimate  the  average  reduction  proposed,  which  ranges  from  5 and  10 
per  cent,  to  over  200  per  cent.  Counting  the  additions  to  the  free  list, 
the  schedule  has  been  subjected  to  a reduction  of  25  to  30  per  cent. 
The  schedule  has  been  condensed  and  arranged  so  that  it  will  be  easily 
understood,  and  as  far  as  possible  all  ambiguities  of  expression  are 
abolished,  so  that  protests  and  appeals  resulting  from  official  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  relation  to  construction  of  the  law  may  be  avoided 
and  its  administration  simplified. 

Schedule  B. — Earthenware  and  Glassware. 


An  examination  of  the  following  tables  in  relation  to  earthenware  and 
glassware,  as  furnished  by  the  Census  Office,  indicates  that  these  two 
industries  have  not  been  very  prosperous  during  the  last  ten  years: 


POTTERIES , STONEWARE,  AND  PORCELAIN. 


Census  year. 

Estab- 

lish- 

ments. 

1 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

1 

Products. 

1850 

484 

2. 289 

$777,544 

1,701,774 

$607,418 
1,044,598 
2,247, 173 

$275,083 

598,308 

1,702,705 

$1,466,063 
2,706,681 
6,045,  536 
7,943,229 

1860 

660 

3,144 

6,116 

1870 

777 

5,294,398 
6,380,  610 

1880 

686 

9,494 

3,279,535 

2,564,259 

GLASSWARE. 

Census  year. 

Estab- 

lish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

94 

5,668 
9,  016 

15.822 

23.822 

$3,402,350 

6,133,666 

14,111,642 

$2,094,576 

2,903,832 

7,906,425 

9,112,301 

$1,566,833 

2.914.303 
6,133, 168 

7.991.303 

$4,641,676 

8,775,155 

I860  

112 

1870 

201 

19,235,862 

1880 

194 

19,415,599 

21,013,464 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  exhibits  that  in  the  manufacture  of 
earthenware  during  the  last  decade  the  capital  employed  has  increased 
20  per  cent.;  the  wages  46  per  cent.;  and  the  production  only  31  per 
cent.;  and  in  the  manufacture  of  glassware  during  the  same  period  the 
capital  employed  has  increased  37 £ per  cent.;  the  wages  15  per  cent.; 
and  the  production  only  9J  per  cent. 

The  Commission  has  not  recommended  any  change  in  the  duties  on 
brown  earthenware  and  common  stoneware,  as  these  duties  are  already 
low,  and  the  progress  of  manufacture  in  this  country  is  such  that  not- 
withstanding the  proposed  abolition  of  the  duties  on  packages,  charges, 
and  commissions,  it  is  believed  that  the  old  rates  will  afford  a reasonable 
protection  to  the  manufacture  here. 

On  white  and  printed  earthenware,  and  on  white  and  decorated  china, 
porcelain,  and  Parian  ware,  the  Commission  recommends  an  increase  of 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


13 


duty  in  each  instance  of  15  per  cent.,  and  also  a change  in  the  wording 
of  the  schedules,  which,  it  is  believed,  is  necessary  for  the  purpose  of 
more  clearly  describing  the  articles  subject  to  duty. 

This  recommendation  as  to  increase  of  duties  is  largely  more  appar- 
ent than  real,  as  it  will  be  observed  that  the  proposed  abolition  of  du- 
ties upon  packages,  inland  freights,  charges  and  commissions,  affects 
this  species  of  earthenware  in  general  use — perhaps — more  seriously 
than  any  other  article  embraced  in  the  Tariff  Schedules,  so  that,  as 
will  be  apparent  from  the  statement  of  the  president  of  the  Pottery 
Dealers’  Association,  and  substantially  all  statements  made  to  the 
Commission  which  bears  upon  the  question,  a duty  of  40  per  cent,  under 
the  present  tariff  is  substantially  equal  to  a duty  of  50  per  cent,  on 
these  goods  with  the  proposed  abolition  of  dutiable  charges. 

To  illustrate,  taking  the  “calculations  on  one  hundred  crates  of 
earthenware,  being  a fair  average  of  the  goods  as  imported,”  in  the 
statement  of  the  president  of  the  Pottery  Dealers’  Association,  the 
original  cost  is  given  at  $3,019.00,  on  which  the  duty  at  50  per  cent, 
would  be  $1,509.50,  while  the  dutiable  basis  on  the  same  importation 
under  the  present  tariff  with  dutiable  charges  and  commissions  added, 
is  $3,763.00,  which  at  40  per  cent,  gives  $1,505.20  as  the  amount  of 
duty ; so  that  the  duty  under  the  proposed  rates  is  substantially  only  5 
per  cent,  higher  than  those  under  the  present  tariff,  because  of  the  pro- 
posed abolition  of  the  duty  on  charges  and  commissions. 

The  Commission’s  justification  for  recommending  this  increase  is  that 
the  condition  of  this  industry  is  such  as  to  make  the  increase  absolutely 
necessary  to  its  maintenance,  and  we  are  convinced  that  without  the 
relief  proposed  there  must  be  a very  material  reduction — if  not  an  abso- 
lute destruction — of  the  manufacture  of  earthenware  in  the  United 
States. 

The  statements  made  before  the  Commission  show  that  this  industry 
is  one  of  very  recent  introduction ; that  at  the  time  the  present  duties 
were  imposed  it  had  substantially  no  existence  in  this  country,  and 
that  its  establishment  under  the  present  rates  could  hardly  have  been 
accomplished  but  for  the  premium  on  gold  which,  during  and  after  the 
war,  operated  as  an  incidental  protection.  Under  the  stimulus  of  the 
incidental  protection,  the  manufacture  of  white  earthenware  commenced 
less  than  twenty  years  ago,  preceding  attempts  having  resulted  in 
failure. 

The  present  tariff  on  this  class  of  goods  was  not  intended  as  protect- 
ive in  any  sense,  as  there  was  not  at  the  time  of  its  passage  any  such 
industry  to  protect,  and  the  rate  of  duty  was  increased  from  24  per  cent, 
to  40  per  cent,  as  a revenue  measure  only.  Referring  again  to  the  com- 
parative statement  of  the  earthenware  business  presented  above,  we  find 
that  although  the  manufacture  of  white  ware  did  not  commence  until 
1863,  the  growth  up  to  1870  was  very  much  in  excess  of  the  growth  of 
the  succeeding  ten  years  ; while  we  believe,  as  indicated  in  the  state- 
ments made  before  us,  that  at  present  it  is  on  the  decline;  and  the  small 
value  of  the  product  in  comparison  with  the  capital  and  labor  employed 
seems  to  indicate  very  severe  competition  in  the  business. 

This  is  also,  as  we  think,  shown  in  the  fact  that  although  the  foreign 
cost  of  production  has  actually  increased  since  1860,  the  prices  to  the 
retail  dealer  and  consumer  have  decreased,  which  we  think  is  fully  es- 
tablished by  the  clear  statements  which  have  been  presented  by  the 
representatives  of  the  industry,  accompanied  by  actual  invoices  of  sales 
to  retail  dealers ; and,  we  may  add,  that  we  think  a careful  examina- 


14 


EEPOET  OF  THE  TAEIFF  COMMISSION. 


tion  of  the  statements  of  the  importers  and  dealers  will  lead  to  the  same 
conclusion,  for  while  some  of  these  think  prices  are  now  higher  than  be- 
tween 1850  and  1860,  many  of  them  admit  that  they  are  about  the  same 
or  somewhat  lower. 

The  reason  of  the  reduction  of  prices  since  1860  is  proper  matter  for  con- 
sideration, and  the  Commission  is  unable  to  indicate  any  cause  except  the 
competition  occasioned  by  manufacture  in  this  country.  The  machinery 
used  in  this  business,  unlike  that  used  in  almost  all  others,  seems  to  be 
incapable  of  material  improvement ; the  potter’s  wheel  of  to-day  is  sub- 
stantially that  in  use  at  the  commencement  of  the  century,  and  even  of 
much  earlier  times.  A very  large  proportion  of  the  work  has  been,  and 
must  be,  hand  labor;  and  the  fact  of  an  increase  in  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion within  the  last  thirty  years  clearly  shows  that  the  reduction  in  price 
cannot  be  attributed  to  any  of  the  usual  causes  for  reduction,  viz.,  im- 
provement in  machinery  and  appliances,  and  consequent  decrease  of 
cost  of  production;  so  that  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
competition  occasioned  by  the  establishment  of  the  industry  here  has 
resulted  in  a reduction  of  the  profits  of  the  foreign  manufacturer  and  of 
the  importer  and  dealer,  which  has  lowered  the  price  to  the  consumer  in 
this  country,  until  now  it  is  probable  that  as  to  foreign  goods  there  is 
very  little  margin,  if  any;  and  the  statements  show  that  as  to  domestic 
goods  the  price  has  been  reduced  so  low  that  there  is  no  margin  to  war- 
rant a continuance  of  the  business  at  present  rates. 

The  difference  of  wages  in  Staffordshire,  England,  and  in  this  country 
is,  we  think,  clearly  shown  to  be  113  per  cent,  without  allowing  for  the 
fact  that  in  England  the  production  of  each  workman  is  counted  “ good 
from  kiln,”  and  in  this  country  u good  from  hand.”  That  is,  the  work 
being  mainly  piece-work,  in  England  the  workman  is  only  paid  for  such 
articles  as  are  good  when  burnt,  while  in  this  country  he  is  paid  for  the 
articles  which  he  delivers  good  before  burning;  so  that  here  the  em- 
ployer pays  for  and  loses  the  ware  spoiled  in  firing,  which,  as  the  state- 
ments show,  makes  a difference  of  about  12  per  cent.,  and  makes  the  ac- 
tual difference  in  wages  about  125  per  cent. 

We  think  the  statements  as  to  wages  may  be  fairly  assumed  to  be 
correct.  The  foreign  statement  was  made  in  the  progress  of  a wage-arbi- 
tration proceeding,  and  apparently  admitted  to  be  correct  both  by  work- 
men and  employers,  and  is  confirmed  by  other  statements  before  the  Com- 
mission ; while  the  home  statement  is  for  the  same  articles,  as  shown 
by  the  books  of  a like  number  of  potteries  at  Trenton,  N.  J. 

As  to  the  relative  value  of  American  as  compared  with  the  same 
grades  of  foreign  wares,  we  think  that  while,  in  the  earlier  manufacture 
here,  there  was  just  cause  of  complaint,  because  of  the  greater  liability 
of  the  American  product  to  u craze,”  this  has  now  been  overcome,  and 
the  American  ware  is  at  least  as  good  as  the  foreign  of  the  same  class. 

In  less  than  twenty  years  this  industry  has  been  established  to  such 
an  extent  that  it  produces  about  one-half  of  the  $10,000,000  of  these 
wares  used  in  the  country ; it  is  now,  as  we  think,  languishing,  and,  in 
view  of  all  the  facts  appearing  in  the  statements  made  to  ns,  the  small 
increase  of  duty  recommended  is  necessary  to  its  continued  existence 
in  this  country. 

Decorated  china  we  regard  as  a luxury  which  can  afford  to  pay  lib- 
erally to  the  support  of  the  government,  and  in  our  opinion  it  is  prob- 
able that  under  the  rates  proposed  there  will  be  a material  increase  in 
the  production  of  this  class  of  goods  in  the  United  States. 

In  the  matter  of  glass  manufactures,  we  have  recommended  a change 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


15 


in  the  wording  of  the  paragraph  covering  plain,  mould,  and  pressed 
glass,  and  flint  or  lime  glassware,  and  the  adoption  of  a specific  instead 
of  an  ad  valorem  duty,  which  we  believe  to  be  as  low  as  it  can  be  put, 
and  permit  the  continuance  of  the  manufacture  here. 

On  cut,  engraved,  painted,  colored,  &c.,  glassware,  we  recommend 
that  the  duty  be  changed  from  40  per  cent,  to  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
because  we  regard  this  class  of  wares  as  luxuries,  which  can  afford  to 
pay  the  higher  rate. 

On  common  window  glass  we  have  preserved  the  old  rates  and  clas- 
sification, with  a proviso  as  to  glass  coming  in  the  ordinary  50-foot 
packages,  which  will,  as  we  believe,  save  the  trouble  now  experienced 
at  the  custom-house  by  reason  of  the  variance  in  weight  in  the  contents 
of  these  boxes — “50  feet  single  thick”  is  intended  to  weigh  50  pounds, 
but  ordinarily  weighs  from  49  to  54  pounds,  while  “ 50  feet  double  thick  ” 
is  intended  to  weigh  80  pounds,  but  not  infrequently  runs  as  high  as  87 
pounds,  and  sometimes  even  more.  We  recommend  that  these  boxes 
be  admitted  as  if  weighing  50  and  80  pounds  only,  which  will  make  a 
reduction  in  the  duty,  and  save  the  trouble  at  the  custom-house  result- 
ing from  the  varying  weights,  while  the  limits  as  to  weights  in  boxes 
will  prevent  the  introduction  of  higher  grades  of  window  glass  without 
its  paying  the  corresponding  proper  increase  of  duty. 

Polished,  cylinder,  and  crown  glass,  and  fluted,  rolled,  or  rough  plate 
glass,  we  have  remitted  to  the  general  clause,  in  the  belief  that  it  will 
afford  adequate  protection  and  not  be  difficult  of  administration. 

On  plate  glass,  both  silvered  and  unsilvered,  we  have  retained  the 
classification  and  rates  of  the  present  tariff,  which  seem  to  be  quite  low 
on  the  smaller  sizes,  while  the  larger  sizes  can  well  bear  heavy  rates  of 
duty,  as  they  are  articles  only  used  by  the  wealthy,  and  may  certainly 
be  properly  classed  as  articles  of  luxury. 

The  manufacture  of  plate  glass  in  this  country  appears  to  have  begun 
about  1870,  and  it  is  only  during  a very  few  years  past  that  it  has  paid 
anything  in  the  way  of  profit.  It  now  seems  to  be  established  on  a 
reasonably  firm  basis,  and  this  has  been  accomplished,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  at  least  two  reliable  and  competent  witnesses,  with  far  less 
of  arbitrary  protection  than  in  other  countries,  and  without  the  aid  of 
subsidies,  such  as  were  given  in  both  France  and  England. 

The  establishments  now  existing  and  in  process  of  construction  will, 
we  think,  in  the  coming  year  be  able  to  supply  4,000,000  square  feet 
per  annum  at  present  consumed.  As  since  the  establishment  of  the 
industry  the  price  is  claimed  to  have  been  reduced  to  the  consumer 
about  00  per  cent.,  we  think  it  of  moment  that  such  rates  should  be 
maintained  as  will  warrant  the  continuance  of  the  industry. 

We  propose  to  raise  the  percentage  in  the  general  clause  from  40  per 
cent,  to  45  j>er  cent.,  to  make  it  more  consistent  with  the  general  rates 
upon  glass,  and  permit  the  transfer  to  the  general  schedule  of  the  pol- 
ished window  glass  and  rough  plate  glass,  as  suggested  above;  and  we 
recommend  that  glass  plates  for  use  in  the  manufacture  of  optical  instru- 
ments and  pebbles  for  spectacles  be  placed  upon  the  free  list. 

Schedule  C. — Metals. 

This  section  of  the  tariff  represents  a greater  aggregate  of  products 
than  any  of  the  schedules  excepting  provisions  and  sundries.  The  fol- 
lowing table  comprises  the  principal  items  represented  in  Schedule  C. 


16 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Large  as  the  aggregate  product  is,  it  does  not  represent  all  the  articles 
embraced  in  this  important  schedule : 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

1860. 

1870 

1880 

1, 434 
1,510 

2,  926 

3,  532 

22,  370 
52,  854 
167,  818 
298,  862 

$16,  370,  760 
59.  748,  011 
239,  363,  565 
416,  041,643 

$7, 165,  248 
17,  069,  210 
88,194,122 
122,  648, 191 

$43,  797,  854 
99,  458,  696 
294, 128,  246 
380,  304,  990 

$83,  954,  529 
182,  376,  930 
455,  698,  387 
604,  553,  460 

From  a little  over  22,000  persons  employed  in  1850,  we  find  now 
nearly  300,000,  while  the  products  have  increased  from  $83,000,000  to 
nearly  $605,000,000  in  forty  years. 

The  metal  schedule  has  probably  given  rise  to  more  serious  contro- 
versies between  the  people  and  the  government  than  any  other  section 
of  the  present  law.  The  revolution  in  the  manufacture  of  steel,  result- 
ing from  the  inventions  and  improvements  of  Bessemer,  Siemens,  and 
others,  made  the  progress  of  this  branch  of  manufacture  during  the  last 
decade  greater  than  that  of  any  other  of  our  industries.  The  ambi- 
guities and  inconsistencies  of  the  present  law  are  more  numerous  and 
apparent  in  the  provisions  relating  to  metals  than  in  any  other  part  of 
the  law. 

The  country  and  trade  have  outgrown  the  legislation  of  eighteen 
years  ago.  New  processes,  new  terms,  new  articles  are  now  in  existence, 
and  in  no  part  of  the  tariff  law  is  revision  more  necessary  than  in  this 
schedule.  The  anomaly  of  the  finished  article  bearing  only  half  the 
duty  levied  on  the  material  out  of  which  it  is  made  is  one  instance  of 
the  numerous  inconsistencies.  Many  of  the  articles  enumerated  in  this 
schedule  have  become  obsolete,  and  their  places  have  been  taken  by 
substitutes  of  better  material  and  the  nomenclature  has  been  changed. 
Metal  products  which  twenty  years  ago  were  of  so  little  importance 
as  not  to  merit  special  enumeration  were  in  1881  imported  to  the  value 
of  thirteen  millions  of  dollars. 

No  line  of  demarkation  between  iron  or  steel  is  now  fixed  by  law. 
Decisions  of  Treasury  officials  or  of  the  courts  have  undoubtedly  re- 
versed the  intentions  of  the  framers  of  the  existing  tariff.  On  nearly 
the  same  dates  appraisements  at  different  ports  have  been  made  so 
widely  at  variance  as  to  seriously  involve  the  fortunes  of  some  of  our 
business  houses.  Our  courts  are  blocked  with  innumerable  cases  aris- 
ing from  customs  decisions,  and  litigation  seems  to  be  a natural  se- 
quence to  importation.  The  terminology  and  general  provisions  of  the 
law  are  entirely  inapplicable  to  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  present 
day.  All  these  causes,  and  many  others  suggested  in  the  testimony,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  Commission  make  a revision  of  this  schedule  im- 
perative. 

The  testimony  of  the  Treasury  officials,  importers,  and  manufacturers 
has  shown  that  in  nothing  has  there  been  greater  trouble  or  more  mis- 
conception in  regard  to  classification  than  in  iron  and  steel.  The  Com- 
mission has  therefore  aimed  to  formulate  a schedule  which  will  be  uni- 
form in  its  rates,  from  the  crude  material  to  the  most  highly  finished 
article ; which  is  careful  and  exact  in  its  wording ; which  is  harmonious 
in  the  relations  that  the  different  articles  bear  toward  each  other;  and 
which  has  clauses  of  definition  and  termination  so  drawn  as  to  preclude 
the  possibility  of  the  recurrence  of  the  troubles  between  the  government 
and  importers  that  have  occurred  during  the  past  fifteen  years.  The 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


17 


Commission  recommends  in  this  schedule  the  abolition  of  compound  and 
the  adoption,  so  far  as  possible,  of  specific  duties;  also  that  the  rates 
on  iron  and  steel  be  in  the  main  concurrent — that  is  to  say,  so  that  the 
rates  on  manufactures  of  common  Bessemer  steel  shall  be  the  same  as 
those  on  similar  articles  when  made  of  iron.  The  numerous  decisions 
of  the  Treasury  Department  have  been  examined,  and  the  changes  pro- 
posed are  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  law  as  at  present  admin- 
istered. 

In  adopting  specific  duties,  the  Commission  has  been  guided  by  the 
following  reasons : 

First.  That  specific  rates  secure  equal  assessments  of  duty  at  all  ports. 
It  is  a rare  occurrence  for  the  invoices  presented  by  importers  at  in- 
terior or  minor  ports  of  entry  to  be  increased  in  value,  while  in  New 
York  and  other  important  ports  invoices  are  raised  to  conform  with  for- 
eign values.  This  is  a hardship  to  importers  in  the  great  commercial 
cities  of  the  seaboard,  where  the  government  officials  have  greater 
experience  and  make  closer  scrutiny  of  the  consular  invoices  presented, 
and  constantly  and  carefully  compare  the  prices  thereon  with  the  mar- 
ket rates  of  the  countries  of  the  world.  Specific  rates  will  secure  pay- 
ment of  the  same  duties  at  all  ports. 

Secondly.  That  ad  valorem  duties  are  excessive  when  prices  are  high, 
and  inadequate  when  values  are  low  and  in  times  of  depression.  On 
the  other  hand,  reasonable  specific  duties  do  not  stimulate  an  unnatural 
growth  of  our  manufacturing  industries,  and  when  a great  and  unex- 
pected demand  arises  for  any  of  the  staples  of  trade,  it  can  be  supplied 
from  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  thus  undue  expansion  is  avoided. 

No  radical  change  in  the  existing  duty  on  iron  ore  is  proposed. 

The  Commission  recommends  a specific  rate  of  fifty  cents  per  ton,  in- 
stead of  the  present  rate  of  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem.  The  rea- 
sons that  have  led  to  this  conclusion  are  that  there  has  been  great  diffi- 
culty in  ascertaining  the  exact  value  of  ores,  particularly  those  exported 
from  Spain  and  the  Mediterranean. 

The  importation  of  iron  ores  in  large  quantities  commenced  in  the 
last  half  of  the  year  1879.  The  ad  valorem  rate  of  20  per  cent,  during 
the  past  three  years  has  on  the  average  equaled  a specific  rate  of  54 
cents  per  ton.  The  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the  foreign  value  of  such 
a low-priced  article  ; the  difference  in  valuation  for  the  same  kind  of 
ore,  at  the  same  period,  in  the  main  ports  of  importation,  allowing  an 
importer  to  make  a profit  in  Philadelphia,  while  the  appraisement  in 
New  York  would  result  in  an  actual  loss;  the  fact  that  there  are  a great 
many  cases  now  in  litigation  between  the  government  and  importers  in 
regard  to  the  appraisement  of  iron  ores,  make  it,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Commission,  a necessity  to  adopt  specific  duties.  The  Commission  is 
also  of  the  opinion  that  under  a specific  duty  a higher  grade  of  iron  ore 
low  in  phosphorus  would  be  brought  to  this  country,  while  ad  valorem 
rates  tend  to  induce  the  importation-of  the  lower-priced  ores. 

The  Commission  recommends  that  pig  iron  and  all  kinds  of  sera])  iron 
be  classified  at  the  same  rate  of  duty,  viz,  three-tenths  of  one  cent  per 
pound.  The  slightly-increased  duty  upon  cast  scrap  iron,  which  this 
change  of  classification  necessitates,  is  of  little  moment,  for  the  reason 
that  a small  quantity  of  cast  scrap  iron  is  now  imported,  and  the  amount 
in  the  future  will  in  all  probability  be  much  less.  The  rates  on  wrought 
scrap  and  on  old  iron  railway  bars  (which  have  been  the  heaviest  item 
of  sera])  importation)  have  been  reduced  from  eight  dollars  per  ton  to 
three- tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

It  is  believed  by  the  Commission  that  a further  reduction  of  the  duty 
H.  Mis.  G 2 » 


18 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


on  pig-iron  than  that  recommended  would  result  disastrously  to  that 
important  industry.  The  large  amount  imported  last  year  (520,162 
tons,  about  one-eighth  of  our  total  consumption),  shows  that  the  present 
duty  is  not  highly  protective.  The  duty  on  importations  of  pig-iron  in 
1881  averaged  only  thirty-four  per  centum  ad  valorem.  The  manufac- 
ture of  pig-iron  is  widely  spread,  extending  through  twenty-five  States, 
and,  considering  the  present  depressed  condition  of  the  industry,  a radi- 
cal reduction  would  be  neither  wise  nor  politic. 

A specific  duty  on  steel  ingots  and  steel  blooms,  or  what  are  generally 
known  as  rail  blooms,  will  settle  the  disputes  which  have  continued  for 
years  between  the  Treasury  Department  and  importers,  relating  to  £lie 
clause  under  which  they  should  be  classified. 

The  Commission  has  given  special  consideration  to  the  question  of 
the  tariff  on  steel  rails.  The  present  duty  has  served  its  purpose  in  a 
protective  sense;  it  is  now  excessive  and  should  be  reduced.  The  argu- 
ment before  the  Commission  for  a'more  radical  reduction  than  that  recom- 
mended was,  with  one  exception,  made  by  witnesses  advocating  the 
abolition  of  customs  laws,  or  their  modification  to  an  extent  that  in  our 
belief  would  endanger  the  existing  system  of  manufactures  and  com- 
merce. The  testimony  does  not  show  that  the  consumers  of  steel  rails 
advocated  a decrease  of  the  present  duty.  Under  the  existing  tariff  the 
price  of  steel  rails  has  decreased  from  $120  in  1873  to  $40  at  the  present 
time.  The  grow  th  of  this  important  industry  has  been  unparalleled  in 
the  economic  history  of  any  country,  and  in  a great  measure  may  be 
attributed  to  the  high  rate  of  duties. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  American 
competition  the  consumers  during  the  past  ten  years  would  have  paid 
prices  proportionately  as  high  as  those  paid  for  foreign  steel  rails  be- 
fore the  imposition  of  the  present  duty  of  $28  per  ton.  It  might  have 
been  to  the  manufacturers’  interest,  considering  the  present  condition 
of  this  industry,  if,  during  the  last  half  of  that  period,  the  duty  had 
not  been  so  highly  protective.  This  would  have  allowed  the  abnormal 
demand  during  the  early  part  of  the  year  1880  to  have  been  supplied 
by  England  and  the  continent,  w^ould  have  raised  prices  abroad,  pre- 
vented the  rapid  doubling  of  the  capacity  of  the  works  in  this  country, 
and  avoided  the  fluctuation,  within  a period  of  six  months,  of  the  price 
of  steel  rails  from  $40  to  $80  per  ton.  Under  this  impulse  extensive 
steel  works  have  been  erected  in  the  United  States,  having  an  aggre- 
gate capacity  of  one  million  eight  hundred  thousand  tons  per  annum, 
nearly  equal  to  seven-eighths  of  the  total  product  of  Europe,  which  last 
year  amounted  to  two  million  two  hundred  thousand  tons. 

It  does  not  seem  just,  after  by  law  encouraging  the  building  of  the 
Bessemer  rail  mills,  to  make  a change  that  would  stop  them,  and  affect 
by  sympathy  all  other  branches  of  the  metal  trade,  throwing  out  of  em- 
ployment the  large  number  of  people  dependent,  directly  and  indirectly, 
upon  this  industry  for  support.  The  Commission  has  therefore  deemed 
it  a proper  course  to  recommend  a rate  that  may  be  permanent,  enter- 
taining the  belief  that  the  products  of  minerals  are  gradually  decreas- 
ing in  value.  In  uniting  in  the  recommendation  made,  the  Commis- 
sion is  conscious  of  the  fact  that  it  may  not  agree  with  the  radical 
views  of  those  who  have  asked  that  the  duty  be  fixed  at  from  $12  to  $15 
per  ton,  nor  is  it  supposed  that  the  proposed  rates  will  meet  with  the 
approval  of  those  at  this  time  most  interested— the  steel  manufacturers. 
The  Commission,  however,  not  only  in  the  spirit  of  compromise,  but 
from  the  conviction  that  the  maintenance  of  our  steel-rail  works  are 
essential  to  the  consumer,  consider  that  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


19 


will  be  subserved  by  adopting  the  rate  of  duty  named  in  the  schedule, 
viz,  eight-tenths  of  a cent  per  pound.  The  adoption  of  this  rate  it  is  be- 
lieved will  prevent  extravagant  advances  in  price,  will  induce  economy 
in  the  manufacture,  and  tend  to  discourage  the  erection  of  works  in  ad- 
vance of  the  wants  of  trade. 

Steel  railway  bars  are  fast  taking  the  place  of  iron  railway  bars,  and 
the  manufacture  of  the  latter  will  probably  cease  in  the  near  future. 
Makers  of  iron  bars  in  this  country  are  struggling  against  the  inevita- 
ble, with  the  superior  quality  and  longer  life  of  the  better  article  fast 
crowding  them  out  of  the  market.  The  importations  of  new  iron  rails 
for  the  years  1880  and  1881  were  in  excess  of  the  amount  of  new  iron 
rails  (not  taking  into  account  the  rerolling  of  old  rails)  pro*  1 need  in  the 
United  States.  The  Commission,  therefore,  does  not  deem  it  wise  to 
hasten  the  end  of  a dying  industry  by  recommending  a reduction  of  the 
present  duty  on  iron  rails. 

The  reduction  of  duties  recommended  on  bar  iron  are  as  great  as 
should  be  made,  ranging  from  10  to  20  per  cent.  The  arrangement  of 
the  classification  is  in  the  line  of  simplification.  Iron  flat  bars,  rounds 
and  squares,  and  the  smaller  and  finer  sizes  have  been  placed  in  differ- 
ent classifications  respectively,  and  graded  as  to  rates  more  in  accord 
with  their  cost  of  production  and  market  value. 

The  Commission  does  not  recommend  any  material  decrease  in  the 
duties  on  sheet  iron.  The  average  is  a low  ad  valorem  percentage ; 
and,  considering  the  increasing  importations,  the  adoption  of  the  rates 
suggested  is  recommended. 

On  hoop,  band,  and  scroll  iron  a reduction  is  recommended  on  the 
three  classes,  of  five,  ten,  and  fifteen  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds, 
respectively.  This  class  of  iron  is  not  in  the  present  law  dutiable  at 
rates  proportionate  to  other  lines  of  merchant  iron,  and  considering  the 
additional  labor  over  bar  iron  required  for  rolling  hoops  and  bands,  as 
great  a reduction  is  recommended  as  would  be  equitable  or  just.  The 
rates  recommended  are  in  a just  ratio  between  bar  iron  and  sheet  iron. 

The  Commission  has  endeavored,  in  scaling  the  duties  on  the  various 
grades  of  merchant,  plate,  and  sheet  iron,  to  arrange  them  so  that  the 
different  sizes  and  qualities  should  bear  a true  relation  to  each  other, 
according  to  the  original  cost  both  at  home  and  abroad. 

For  the  purpose  of  simplification  and  to  avoid  the  many  complications 
that  arise  from  the  difficulty  in  designating  the  exact  differences  be- 
tween iron  and  steel  we  have  placed  iron  and  common  steel  as  far  as 
possible  at  the  same  rates.  It  is  a very  difficult  matter,  in  articles  of 
hardware  or  in  fine  sheet  iron,  to  distinguish,  except  by  analysis,  between 
iron  and  common  steel.  The  commoner  grades  of  steel  are  gradually 
becoming  cheaper,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  in  the  near  future 
the  value  of  Bessemer  steel  and  that  of  iron  will  be  identical.  The  ad- 
vantage of  placing  them  at  the  same  rate  will  be  obvious  when  the  diffi- 
culty in  distinguishing  between  the  articles  is  considered.  Articles 
made  from  low  carbon  steel,  when  coated  or  painted,  cannot  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  same  article  made  of  iron.  Steel  railway  fish-plates 
are  being  largely  adopted  in  Europe,  and  will  in  time  supplant  the  iron 
fish-plates  in  this  country.  Boiler  tubes  of  steel  are  gradually  dividing 
the  trade  with  those  made  of  wrought  iron.  Steel  axles,  low  carbon 
sheet  steel,  steel  beams  and  girders,  and  steel  locomotive  tires  are  taking 
the  place  of  the  above-named  articles  of  iron.  In  this  view  it  is  deemed 
by  the  Commission  of  the  highest  importance  to  have,  as  far  as  possible, 
uniform  duties  upon  iron  and  common  (not  crucible)  steel.  If  it  were 
not  for  this  fact,  apparently  greater  reductions  could  have  been  made 


20 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


upon  iron,  but  in  that  view,  and  considering  the  difference  in  value  of 
the  two  metals  to-day,  it  was  not  thought  advisable  to  bring  the  steel 
down  to  the  lower  level. 

Reductions  are  recommended  on  iron  and  steel  hardware,  railway 
splices,  tools,  saws,  nails,  and  spikes,  malleable  iron,  wood  screws,  iron 
and  steel  wire,  tubes  and  pipes  of  from  twenty  to  fifty  per  centum. 

The  present  duty  upon  tin  plates  is  an  anomaly ; the  sheet  iron  out 
of  which  tin  plates  are  made  being  dutiable  under  the  present  law  at 
one  and  three  quarter  cents  per  pound,  and  then  finished  tin  plate,  after 
being  sheared,  coated  with  metal,  and  boxed,  being  dutiable  atone  and 
one-tentli  cents  per  pound.  On  account  of  the  difference  between  the 
cost  of  labor  in  England  and  the  United  States,  it  is  now  impossible  to 
manufacture  tin  plates  in  this  country,  and  the  few  tin  plate  establish- 
ments have  been  struggling  for  an  existence. 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  a moderate  rate  of  duty  will 
develop  this  important  industry,  and  that  wise  public  policy  dictates 
that  at  least  a part  of  the  amount  consumed  in  this  country  of  so  esseniial 
an  Article  as  tin  plate  should  be  produced  here.  The  testimony  shows 
that  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  act  of  1864  was  to  place  a duty 
upon  what  is  commercially  known  as  tin  plates,  of  two  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound,  but  by  an  error  of  punctuation  and  the  transposition  of  a 
comma,  they  were,  by  Treasury  decision,  placed  at  a much  lower  rate. 

The  reduction  which  the  Commission  recommends  on  steel  ranges 
from  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound  on  the  lower  class  to  about  thirty 
per  cent. — caused  by  the  abolition  of  the  compound  duties — on  the 
higher  grades  of  crucible  steel.  Attention  has  been  given  to  the  com- 
prehensive enumeration  of  known  articles  and  manufactures  of  steel. 
New  shapes  and  wares  of  steel  manufacture  formerly  made  from  iron 
are  properly  classified  according  to  their  value.  General  clauses,  cov- 
ering the  advanced  processes,  such  as  cold  rolling,  polishing,  &c.,  and 
galvanizing  and  coating  with  metal,  are  recommended  in  a form  drawn 
so  as  to  cover  both  iron  and  steel. 

The  Commission  recommends  reductions  ranging  from  20  to  30  per 
cent,  on  iron  and  steel  wire,  and  also  the  abolition  of  the  present 
compound  duties.  It  is  also  proposed  to  unite  iron  and  steel  wire  in 
one  class,  the  rates  of  course  to  be  concurrent. 

The  assimilation  of  iron  and  steel  wire,  as  to  cost  and  market  value, 
and  the  difficulty  of  distinguishing  between  them,  in  the  finer  gauges, 
appear  to  be  conclusive  reasons  for  this  decision. 

The  Commission  recommends  the  reduction  of  the  rates  upon  many 
miscellaneous  manufactures  of  metal,  and  a reduction  of  the  rates  upon 
copper,  lead,  zinc,  and  other  metals  of  from  15  to  25  per  cent.  The 
present  rate  upon  steel  wire  rods  would  appear  from  reading  paragraph 
No.  1428,  page  165  of  Heyl’s  Digest,  to  be  two  and  one  fourth  cents  per 
pound  as  “steel  in  coils,”  but  under  a decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  the  duty  is  levied  at  30  per  centum  ad  valorem.  It  is  pro- 
posed that  the  duty  be  made  one  cent  per  pound,  which  is  in  harmony 
with  the  rates  suggested  for  the  other  products  of  Bessemer  steel.  In 
recommending  the  comparatively  high  rate  of  45  per  cent,  for  the  gen- 
eral “not  otherwise  provided  for”  clause,  the  Commission  is  influenced 
by  the  idea  that  this  “unenumerated”  provision  should  be,  on  the  aver- 
age, higher  than  the  general  rates  in  the  schedule.  A reference  to  the 
testimony  will  show  conclusively  that  a great  many  of  the  disputes  that 
have  heretofore  arisen  between  the  importers  and  the  government  have 
been  caused  bjT  the  attempts  of  consignees  to  have  new  articles  or  old 
articles  under  new  names  made  dutiable  under  the  low  ad  valorem  rates 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


21 


of  the  present  u not  otherwise  provided  for”  clause.  It  is  believed  that 
a close  examination  of  tlie  subject  will  show  that  this  suggestion  is  of 
the  utmost  importance,  and  that  the  ad  valorem  rates  for  this  clause 
should  be  placed  at  the  figure  named,  and  in  all  cases  should  be  higher 
than  the  average  rate  of  duty  on  other  articles  in  the  schedule. 

One  of  the  most  important  changes  recommended  is  the  definition  of 
what  is  iron  and  what  is  steel.  This  clause  has  been  thoroughly  ex- 
amined by  experts  in  classification,  and  by  many  of  our  noted  metal- 
lurgists. The  annoyance  and  trouble  which  the  public  and  the  officers 
of  the  government  have  had  during  the  past  ten  years  in  regard  to  the 
appraisement  of  low-carbon  steels  and  the  litigation  caused  thereby, 
demand  the  passage  of  a law  defining  their  character.  The  definition 
recommended  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  plain  and  simple, 
and  it  accords  fully  with  mercantile  custom  both  in  this  country  and 
abroad,  and  its  adoption  is  strongly  urged.  The  products  of  the  new 
processes,  the  Bessemer,  Siemens-Martin,  Thomas-Gilclirist,  and  the 
like,  or  combinations  of  any  of  them,  are  now,  and  have  been,  known 
to  all  who  make,  buy,  sell,  and  use  the  same  as  “steel.” 

This  is  clearly  defined  in  the  proposed  enactment.  The  definition  of 
iron  remains  as  recognized  by  science  and  trade  for  centuries. 

The  Commission  is  impressed  with  the  desire  of  the  people  of  the 
country  for  stability  and  an  assurance  of  permanence  in  tariff  legislation. 
Constant  agitation  of  the  question  creates  trouble  and  excites  distrust, 
prevents  the  development  of  the  resources  of  the  country,  causes  wide 
fluctuations  in  values,  alarms  capital — always  sensitive — and  if  the 
question  is  not  speedily  settled  may  cause  wide  spread  business  dis- 
aster. 

Schedule  D. — Woods. 

The  duties  in  this  schedule  have  not  been  changed.  The  following 
table  includes  the  annual  product  of  lumber,  as  well  as  the  several 
branches  of  wood  manufactures,  and  illustrates  the  importance  and  pro- 
gress of  this  industry  in  the  United  States : 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850  

28,  787 

107,  119 

$58,  749,  647 

$31,264,  784 

$48,  948,  043 

$111,  700,  307 

1860 

26,  905 

129,  135 

106,  928,  358 

41,  230, 191 

73,422  939 

164,  401,  328 

1870 

42,  561 

281,746 

270,  224,  932 

100,  219,  050 

209,  552,  855 

430,  615,  381 

1880 

52,  561 

334,  764 

326,  969,  214 

105,  861,  337 

289,  895,  174 

509,  485,  611 

Schedule  E. — Sugar. 

The  importance  of  the  sugar  schedule  is  shown  by  the  very  large  re- 
turns of  revenue  obtained  from  the  duty  on  sugar,  exceeding  in  amount 
the  revenue  collected  from  any  other  article  on  the  dutiable  list,  and 
yielding  a national  income  of  forty-five  to  fifty  million  dollars. 

This  schedule  has  received  the  earnest  consideration  of  the  Commis- 
sion, and  has  elicited  much  valuable  testimony  from  the  refiners,  im- 
porters and  dealers,  as  well  as  the  producers  and  consumers  of  sugar; 
in  fact,  from  all  those  classes  usually  supposed  to  be  specially  interested 
in  legislation  affecting  the  product. 

The  Commission  has  considered  the  sugar  schedule  from  different 
standpoints.  Firstly,  with  a view  to  simplification.  Secondly,  with  a 
view  to  the  reduction  of  the  rate  of  duties.  Thirdly,  with  the  view  of 


22 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


recommending  to  Congress  a system  of  assessing  the  duties  and  deter- 
mining the  commercial  value  of  the  different  grades  of  sugar  which  can 
be  less  easily  evaded  in  its  application  than  the  present  system,  par- 
ticularly when  applied  to  the  lower  grades  of  sugar. 

All  the  witnesses  who  appeared  before  the  Commission,  with  singu- 
lar unanimity,  testified  to  the  fact  that  in  all  wholesale  commercial 
transactions  (meaning  the  buying  or  selling  of  raw  or  low  grade  sugar) 
the  polariseope  is  used  by  both  buyer  and  seller  to  ascertain  the  sac- 
charine richness  and  true  value  of  the  sugar;  that  the  custom  prevails 
among  all  the  nations  of  Europe  as  well  as  in  tbe  United  Stab  s;  and 
when  asked  if  they  knew  of  any  reason  why  the  use  of  the  polariseope, 
so  satisfactory  in  commercial  transactions  as  to  be  uniformly  relied  on 
by  both  buyer  and  seller,  could  not  also  be  equally  relied  on  by  the  gov- 
ernment to  determine  the  saccharine  richness  and  true  value  of  sugar 
with  the  view  of  affording  a basis  on  which  to  assess  customs  duties  in 
proportion  to  that  value,  without  an  exception,  these  witnesses — well 
versed  in  the  methods  of  buying,  selling,  refining  and  producing  sugars — 
testified  unhesitatingly  that  they  knew  of  no  reason  why  the  polariseope 
test  should  not  be  used  by  the  government  as  a basis  for  applying  cus- 
toms duties. 

It  was  also  proven  by  some  of  those  witnesses  who  had  informed 
themselves  on  the  subject,  that  in  France  the  polariseope  had  super- 
seded the  use  of  the  Dutch  standard  in  determining  the  classification 
of  sugars  in  order  to  determine  the  rates  of  duties,  and  that  in  Ger- 
many, and  even  in  Holland,  where  the  use  of  the  Dutch  standard  origi- 
nated, custom-house  officers  are  instructed  that  when  they  have  reason 
to  believe  sugars  have  been  artificially  colored,  or  their  color  degraded, 
to  assess  the  duties  according  to  their  saccharine  richness  or  true  value, 
to  be  determined  by  the  polariscopic  test,  regardless  of  their  color. 

One  of  the  witnesses  testified  that  it  was  proven  beyond  a doubt  or 
cavil,  that  it  is  a common  practice  to  degrade  the  natural  color  of  Ger- 
man beet-root  sugars  by  artificial  means,  when  intended  for  the  Dutch 
or  American  markets,  the  business  of  coloring  sugar  being  regularly 
carried  on  as  a distinct  pursuit  at  a fixed  price  per  one  hundred  pounds. 

It  is  an  acknowledged  fact  that  this  degrading  the  color  of  cane  sugars 
in  the  West  India  Islands  is  being  constantly  done  to  suit  the  Ameri- 
can tariff  laws,  and  the  practice  is  justified  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
merely  taking  advantage  of  the  language  of  the  laws. 

Deferring  to  the  language  of  only  two  of  the  witnesses,  one,  the  chem- 
ist in  charge  of  the  United  States  laboratory  at  Dew  York  City,  and 
whose  duties  have  been  mostly  the  testing  of  sugars,  says  that — 

The  polariseope  is  one  of  the  most  exact  instruments  known  to  chemical  science  ; 
the  sugar  fairly  registers  itself. 

The  other,  a very  large  importer,  also  of  Dew  York  City,  says  that — 

The  polariseope  is  the  most  perfect  means  of  ascertaining  the  commercial  value  of 
sugars  yet  iound.  We  cannot  put  any  limit  to  invention,  and  something  better  may 
he  found  hereafter. 

The  polariseope  test,  in  the  first  place,  enables  us  to  assess  a specific 
duty.  In  the  second  place  it  is  ad  valorem,  because  it  is  fixed  upon  the 
value  of  sugar  by  polariscopic  strength,  which  is  its  value  for  sweeten- 
ing, and  that  value  is  determined  by  tbe  polariseope. 

The  Commission  therefore  recommend  to  Congress  the  use  of  the 
polariscopic  lest  as  a basis  for  assessing  customs  duties  on  all  sugars 
below  Do.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  above  Do.  13  adhering  to  the 
present  classification  and  the  Dutch  standard  as  a measure  of  value. 


\ 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION.  23 

The  rate  of  reduction  in  the  proposed  schedule  is  21.70  per  centum  on 
all  sugars  below  No.  13  Dutch  standard,  as  tested  by  the  polariscope, 
and  10  per  centum  on  all  sugars  above  No.  13,  or  an  average  of  14.25  on 
the  whole  schedule. 

Schedule  F.— Tobacco. 

The  Commission  recommends  no  changes  in  this  schedule,  except  to 
abolish  the  compound  duty  on  cigars,  making  the  duty  $3  per  pound. 
According  to  the  census  returns,  the  value  of  the  tobacco  and  cigar 
product  has  increased  from  thirteen  and  a half  million  in  1850  to  nearly 
one  hundred  and  thirteen  million  dollars  in  1880. 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

1,418 

14,  236 

$5,  008,  295 

$2,  420,  208 

$7.  341,728 

$13, 491, 147 

1860 

2, 104 

26,  856 

12,  529,  960 

6, 102,  648 

16.  536,  300 

30,  889,  313 

1870 

5,  20 1 

47,  848 

24,  924,  330 

14,  315,  342 

34,  656,  647 

71,  762,  044 

1880 

7,  674 

57,  587 

39,  995.  292 

25,  041,  257 

65,  368,  308 

118,  665,  366 

Schedule  GL — Provisions. 

The  growth  of  the  population  of  the  country  since  1850  can  hardly  be 
better  exemplified  than  in  the  remarkable  increase  in  the  value  of  the 
products  which  may  be  called  u provisions”,  and  which,  as  will  be  seen 
by  the  following  table,  have  increased  in  value  from  about  $160,000,000 
in  1850  to  $1,037,000,000  in  1880. 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

25.  325 

51,  275 

$66,  788,  808 

$12,  279,  768 

$121,  475,  585 

$159, 407, 128 

1860  

17,  768 

64,  579 

106,  114, 152 

16,  885,  216 

223,  433,  863 

279,  844,  782 

1870 

28,  727 

96,  883 

198,  874,  861 

25,  786,  682 

482, 462,  974 

600,  365,  571 

1880 

37, 089 

164,  069 

314,  289,  399 

48,  261,  356 

978,  277,  586 

1,  036,  572,  580 

As  the  duties  on  the  schedule  are  very  low,  but  few  recommendations 
of  decrease  have  been  made.  The  testimony  in  regard  to  retention  of 
the  duty  on  rice  was  very  strong,  and  it  was  shown  that  the  cultivation 
of  this  cereal  gives  employment  to  large  numbers  of  the  colored  popu- 
lation in  three  of  the  Southern  States,  arid  that  a radical  reduction  of 
the  rates  might  result  in  the  abandonment  of  this  industry,  which  has 
been  resuscitated  since  the  war,  and  the  consequent  deprivation  of  the 
means  of  subsistence  of  thousands  of  colored  laborers  in  these  States. 
The  testimony  also  brings  out  the  fact  that  rice-planting  rescues  the  low- 
lands, by  the  extensive  system  of  ditching,  from  an  almost  valueless  con- 
dition. Rice  cultivation  can  hardly  be  classed  with  the  ordinary  culti- 
vation of  cereals,  as  it  requires  a much  greater  outlay  and  a longer  time 
to  fit  the  lands  for  this  crop,  and  in  addition  to  this  it  is  much  more  sub- 
ject to  vicissitudes  of  weather.  Intelligent  witnesses  in  the  rice  grow- 
ing sections  advocate  an  increase  in  the  duty,  but  in  this  recommenda- 
tion the  Commission  was  unable  to  agree,  and  a reduction  of  one-quarter 
of  one  cent  a pound  is  recommended.  The  rates  on  the  other  items 
enumerated  in  this  schedule  have  been  made  more  harmonious.  It  is 
recommended  that  the  duties  ou  all  green  fruits,  with  the  exception  of 
oranges,  lemons,  limes,  and  grapes,  be  either  reduced  in  duty  or  that 


24 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


they  be  placed  upon  the  free  list ; that  the  duties  on  dried  fruits,  mustard, 
and  several  other  minor  articles  be  reduced,  and  that  the  ad  valorem 
duty  on  oranges  and  lemons  be  abolished  and  a specific  duty  substituted. 
Nearly  all  the  oranges  and  that  class  of  fruit  from  the  Mediterranean 
are  consigned  fruits,  and  it  lias  been  almost  impossible  to  determine  the 
market  value.  The  specific  rates  proposed  are  believed  to  be  the  equiv- 
alents of  the  present  duties  ad  valorem,  taking  the  average  of  the  values, 
as  shown  in  the  invoices  for  the  year. 

In  the  direction  of  simplification  the  Commission  has  proposed  a 
change  in  the  barrel  rate  on  fish  to  a rate  per  pound,  as  the  weights  of 
barrels  differ  in  different  countries,  the  difference  varying  from  50  to  75 
pounds  on  a barrel. 

It  is  proposed  that  many  items  be  taken  from  Schedule  M,  sundries, 
and  properly  classified  in  the  schedule,  making  the  law  more  easy  of 
administration. 

Schedule  H. — Liquors. 

Including  distilled  wines  and  malt  liquors,  the  total  value  of  the  prod- 
uct of  the  manufactures  in  this  schedule  was,  in  1880,  nearly  $145,000,000. 
The  subjoined  exhibits  show  the  growth  of  the  distilled  and  malt  liquor 
industries  during  the  last  four  decades  : 


LIQUOR,  DISTILLED. 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

i's 

it 

H 

Capital. 

Wages 

paid. 

Value  of 
material 
paid. 

Products. 

3850 

968 

4,  008 

5,  409,  334 

$1,  089,  864 

$10,  543,  201 

$15,  770,  240 

I860 

1, 193 

5,416 

11,  548,  675 

1,  753.  445 

18,330,713 

26,  768,  225 

1870 

719 

5, 131 

15,  545, 116 

2,019,810 

I 19,729,432 

36, 191, 133 

1880 

844 

6,  492 

24,  247,  595 

2,  663,  967 

27,744,245 

42,  063,  663 

LIQUOR,  MALT. 


1850 

1 

431 

2,  347 
6,  433 

1 4,  072,  380 

$654, 144 

$3,  055,  266 
9,  997,  293 
28, 177,  684 

$5.  728,  568 

1860 

1,269  j 
1,972 
2,191  i 

i 15,  782,  342 

2,  305,  970 
6,  758,  602 

21,  310,  933 

1870. 

12,  443 
26,220 

48,779,435 

91,208,224 

55,  706,  643 

1880 

12, 198,  033 

56,  836,  500 

101,058,385 

A few  verbal  changes  have  been  made  in  the  schedule.  The  proposed 
schedule  embraces  all  that  is  essential  in  the  provisions  of  the  existing 
tariff. 

Of  the  two  classes  providing  for  spirituous  liquors  under  proof,  one 
was  stricken  out  because  there  was  a double  provision  for  the  same  thing. 
The  Commission  has  made  no  proposed  changes  in  duties,  excepting 
that  allowance  for  breakages  be  abolished. 

The  schedule  has  been  rearranged,  and  some  items  which  properly 
belong  to  the  liquor  schedule  have  been  taken  from  sundries  and  placed 
therein. 

Schedule  I. — Cotton. 

Few  industries  have  enjoyed  such  a steady  and  healthy  growth  in 
this  country  as  that  of  cotton  manufacture.  The  following  statistical 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION.  25 

exhibit  from  the  census  reports  shows  the  progress  of  cotton  manufact- 
ures in  the  United  States  for  40  years : 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

1,094 

1,091 

956 

1,005 

92,286 

122,028 

185,869 

185,472 

$74,500,981 

98,585,269 

140,706,291 

219,504,794 

Hot  obtainable. 
$23,940  108 
89,044  132 
45,614,419 

$34,835,056 

57,285,534 

111,736,936 

113,765,537 

$65,501,687 

115,681,774 

177,489,739 

210,950,383 

I860 

1870 

1880  

While  the  other  great  industries,  representing,  as  they  do,  hundreds 
of  millions  of  dollars  of  annual  products,  have  sent  their  representative 
men  to  furnish  information  for  an  intelligent  inquiry  into  their  present 
condition  and  needs,  the  cotton  industry,  with  an  annual  product  of 
$210,000,000,  has  only  been  represented  by  one,  and  that  the  smallest,  of 
its  branches. 

In  pursuance  of  the  work  of  simplification  the  Commission  has  found 
many  of  the  paragraphs  in  the  present  schedule  apparently  conflicting, 
difficult  to  construe,  and  causing  the  practice  in  different  ports  to  vary 
greatly.  Attention  might  be  called  to  the  use  of  the  words  “ finer  and 
lighter”  (922  Heyl),  “ finer  or  lighter”  (925),  “like  description”  (923), 
“ lighter  description”  (926),  “ goods  of  like  description”  (921),  and 
“goods  of  like  description  or  for  similar  use”  (par.  924).  Paragraph 
921,  providing  for  all  manufactures  of  cotton,  with  certain  exceptions, 
“except  jeans,  denims,  drillings,  bed  tickings,  ginghams,  plaids,  cot- 
tonades,  pantaloon  stuffs,  and  goods  of  like  description” — which  excep- 
tions are  provided  for  under  paragraphs  924, 925,  and  926  of  the  schedule, 
at  a different  rate,  seems  to  be  unnecessary.  There  can  be  no  necessity 
for  designating  the  manner  in  which  goods  are  woven  and  the  uses  to 
which  they  are  applied ; that  only  makes  the  matter  more  confusing 
and  complicated. 

There  is  a variance  of  language  in  all  these  paragraphs  above  referred 
to,  and  they  are  very  difficult  to  understand.  This  incongruity  results 
in  great  difference  in  the  practice  in  the  several  ports  of  the  country, 
and  even  on  the  part  of  officers  of  the  same  port,  and  leads  to  litigations 
and  confusion,  and  at  all  times  to  troublesome  differences  between  offi- 
cers and  importers — importers  in  most  instances  being  unable  to  know 
what  rates  of  duty  they  would  be  obliged  to  pay  until  after  final  liqui 
datiou  of  their  invoices. 

The  new  schedule  will  operate  to  simplify  the  present  tariff,  first,  by 
the  abolition  of  all  #ompound  duties;  secondly,  by  the  abolition  of  all 
contradictory  sections  and  ambiguous  expressions,  such  as  those  alluded 
to,  and  the  substitution  of  six  divisions — two  each  for  unbleached, 
bleached,  and  printed  cottons.  It  has  been  necessary,  in  order  to  make 
an  adequate  specific  duty  on  the  higher  priced  cloths,  to  make  a dis- 
tinction in  the  unbleached  goods  at  above  eight  cents  per  square  yard, 
in  the  bleached  goods  valued  at  above  ten  cents  per  square  yard,  and 
in  the  printed  goods  valued  at  above  fifteen  cents  per  square  yard,  and 
on  these  goods  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  40  per  cent,  is  recommended. 

Instead  of  four  divisions  m the  sections  relating  to  cotton  thread, 
yarn  warps,  or  warp  yarns,  the  Commission  proposes  seven  divisions; 
below  twenty-five  cents  a pound,  above  twenty-five  and  not  exceeding 
forty,  above  forty  and  not  exceeding  fifty,  above  fifty  and  not  exceeding 
sixty,  above  sixty  and  not  exceeding  seventy,  above  seventy  and  not 


26 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


exceeding  eighty,  and,  finally,  all  cotton  yarns  valued  at  over  eighty 
cents  a pound. 

In  regard  to  this  latter  paragraph  the  commission  would  state  that 
it  has  made  inquiry  from  the  leading  cotton  yarn  manufacturers  of  the 
country,  which  has  resulted  in  bringing  out  the  fact  of  great  difference 
in  the  amount  and  value  of  the  labor  required  in  spinning  the  coarser 
and  finer  yarns.  For  example,  taking  the  reports  of  the  day’s  markets, 
it  is  found  that  the  cotton  used  in  spinning  the  coarser  yarns  sold  at  be- 
low 25  cents  per  pound  is  quoted  at  10J  cents  per  pound.  A pound  of 
this  cotton  will  make  seven  yards  of  cloth,  which  is  quoted  in  the  same 
paper  at  3J  cents  per  yard,  making  a total  value  of  about  24  cents,  the 
value  of  the  raw  material  having  been  increased  about  133  per  cent. 
On  the  other  hand,  a pound  of  cotton,  such  as  is  used  in  spinning  the 
finer  qualities  of  yarn,  costs  30  cents  per  pound,  and  the  value  of  the 
yarn  per  pound,  when  spun,  is  $1.50,  or  an  increase  of  530  per  cent., 
and  this  great  enhancement  of  value  is  almost  wholly  caused  by  labor. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  the  latter  case  the  pound  of  yarn  is 
yet  to  be  manufactured  into  sewing  thread.  One  pound  of  this  class  of 
cotton  yarn  will  make  eight  dozens  No.  70  cotton,  200  yards  to  the 
spool,  and  this  cotton  is  sold  at  a net  price  of  45  cents  per  dozen,  mak- 
ing $3.60  for  the  product  of  one  pound  of  yarn.  In  brief  we  have  a 
poundgOf  raw  material,  in  the  one  case  valued  at  10^  cents,  finally  placed 
upon  the  market  at  24  cents ; and  a pound  of  Sea  Island  cotton,  valued 
at  30  cents,  placed  upon  the  market  at  $3.60. 

These  fine  yarns  are  made  from  combed  cotton,  the  combing  process 
being  very  expensive,  both  on  account  of  the  cost  of  machinery  and  the 
requirement  for  experienced  and  skilled  workmen  in  the  manipulation. 
As  the  yarns  increase  in  fineness,  the  number  of  work-people  employed 
in  their  manufacture  is  largely  increased. 

The  testimony  of  a firm  manufacturing  in  this  country  and  in  Great 
Britain  brings  out  the  fact  that  wages  here  are  somewhat  more  than 
double  the  amount  paid  on  the  same  kind  of  work,  with  the  same  ma- 
terial, manufactured  on  the  same  machinery. 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  as  the  average  ad  valorem  duty 
on  cotton  embraced  in  the  first  classification  of  paragraph  927,  Heyl,  is 
now  little  over  48  per  cent.,  it  was  not  advisable  to  reduce  these  grades 
of  yarns  in  the  same  proportion  as  some  of  the  finer  goods  on  which  the 
average  ad' valorem  duty  runs  up  as  high  as  60  per  cent.  This  will 
make  the  average  ad  valorem  rate  on  coarse  yarns  about  45  per  cent. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  the  class  of  yarns  at  present  embraced  in  the 
second  classification  of  the  same  paragraph  in  Heyl  (valued  at  over  40 
cents  a pound,  and  not  exceeding  60  cents  a pound),  and  upon  which 
the  proposition  of  the  Commission  makes  two  separate  rates  of  duty, 
bears  an  average  ad  valorem  rate  of  58-^f0-  per  cent.,  it  is  believed 
that  a reduction  from  the  existing  rate  of  20  cents  per  pound  and  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  to  20  cents  per  pound  on  the  first  grade,  and  25 
cents  per  pound  on  the  second  (new  classification),  would  be  fair  and 
equitable,  as  that  would  give  a protection  to  this  class  of  yarns,  esti- 
mating the  average  value  of  the  first  class  at  45  cents  per  pound,  and 
the  average  value  of  the  second  class  at  55  cents  per  pound,  of  44  per 
cent,  and  45  per  cent.,  respectively. 

Again,  the  third  clause  of  927  Heyl  (valued  at  over  60  cents  per  pound 
and  not  exceeding  80  cents  per  pound,  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  which 
has  averaged  nearty  61 J per  cent,  at  the  existing  rate  of  30  cents  per 
pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem),  the  Commission  has  divided  into 
two  classes.  On  the  first,  yarns,  valued  at  over  60  and  not  exceeding 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


27 


70  cents  per  pound,  30  cents  a pound  or  46  per  cent,  average  ad  va- 
lorem is  recommended,  for  the  reason  already  stated,  that  it  would  be 
absolutely  disastrous  to  these  industries  to  reduce  the  rate  of  duty  be- 
low the  average  ad  valorem  rate  of  45  per  cent.  For  the  second  class, 
valued  at  over  70  cents  a pound,  and  not  exceeding  80  cents,  a specific 
duty  of  36  cents  a pound  is  recommended,  making  this  also  an  average 
ad  valorem  rate  of  about  48  per  cent. 

If  the  rate  of  duty  on  yarns  costing  over  80  cents  is  placed  below  50 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  it  will  be  impossible  for  mills  now  in  operation  to 
continue  the  manufacture  of  these  numbers,  excepting  at  a reduction  in 
the  wages  to  the  working  people  that  will  be  oppressive,  the  average 
ad  valorem  rate  on  these  goods  being  now  54  per  cent.;  and  the  Com- 
mission suggests  that  all  this  yarn  be  placed  at  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  unit  of  value  on  imported  spool  cotton  (per  100  yards)  is  13.6  cents 
per  dozen.  Calculated  on  this  basis  the  duty  of  6 cents  per  dozen 
recommended  will  be  the  equivalent  of  something  less  than  45  per  cent.; 
an  apparent  discrepancy  when  compared  with  the  duty  recommended 
for  thread  not  on  spools,  valued  at  above  80  cents  per  pound.  The  ap- 
parent discrepancy  disappears  when  the  practical  application  of  a spe- 
cific duty  as  compared  with  an  ad  valorem  duty  is  taken  into  the  esti- 
mate. 

Schedule  J. — Flax,  Hemp,  &c. 

It  is  gratifying  to  observe  that  the  hemp, jute,  and  flax  industry,  which 
at  present  has  not  assumed  very  great  importance  in  the  United  States, 
shows  a steady  increase  during  the  last  decade,  and  that,  as  will  be  seen 
from  the  following  statement,  the  value  of  the  products  is  over  five 
and  a half  million  dollars.  The  product  has  increased  nearly  100  per  cent, 
during  the  past  decade. 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands  em- 
ployed. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

8 

325 

132 

$167,  700 
62,  636 

$76, 812 
34, 579 

$211,  500 
119,  488 
1,  504,  001 
3,  323,  354 

$351,  808 

1860 4 

34 

233,  404 

1870 

100 

2,111 
4,  753 

2,  849,  951 

3,  526,  955 

634, 889 
1,238,158 

1 

2,  993,  785 

18b0 

110 

5,  518,  866 

While  practically  the  Commission  has  proposed  no  change  in  the  rates 
except  to  reduce  the  rate  on  cotton  bagging  under  7 cents  per  square 
yard  from  2 cents  to  1J  cents,  and  above  7 cents  per  square  yard  from 
3 to  2 cents,  it  has  to  some  extent  simplified  the  schedule  and  removed 
some  of  the  ambiguities  in  the  phraseology  of  the  law. 

Schedule  K. — Wool  and  Woolens, 
wool. 


Statement  showing  the  number  of  sheep  and  the  product  of  wool  and  imports  of  wool  in  the 
United  States  in  the  years  1860,  1870,  and  1880. 


Census  year. 

Sheep. 

Wool. 

Produced. 

Imported. 

1860  

Number. 
22,  471,275 
28,  477,  951 
43,  576,  899 

Pounds. 
60,264,913 
100,  102,  387 
240,  000,  000 

Pounds. 
*42, 131,  061 
49,  230, 199 
128,131,747 

1870  

1880  : 

Imports  of  1862. 


28 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


The  first  phase  of  the  industry  of  wool  production  that  arrests  the 
attention  of  the  economist  is  its  general  distribution.  Not  a State  in 
the  Union,  and,  in  some  of  these,  net  a count}7,  but  has  some  portion  of 
its  wealth  invested  in  wool  production. 

This  results  from  the  twofold  impulse  of  choice  and  necessity — 
choice,  in  those  favored  localities  adapted  to  general  farming ; neces- 
sity, where,  from  the  character  of  the  surface  or  sparseness  of  vegeta- 
tion, sheep  are  the  only  domestic  animals  that  can  be  profitably  em- 
ployed— while  experience  'has  demonstrated  that  some  kind  of  animals 
must  be  employed.  This  for  two  reasons  : 1.  The  people  must  have 

meat  food  ; and  2.  Farming  cannot  be  successfully  prosecuted  over  any 
large  area  under  a system  that  does  not  return  to  the  soil  a fair  equiva- 
lent for  the  inevitable  tax  which  crop-bearing  entails. 

The  Commission,  recognizing  this  prominence  of  sheep  husbandry  in 
its  relation  to  agriculture,  and  its  additional  importance  as  the  source 
of  supply  of  material  for  an  important  manufacture,  were  impelled  to 
seriously  consider  the  effect  of  any  change  in  the  existing  duties  on  for- 
eign wools.  The  law  fixing  these  duties  was  passed  in  18G7,  with  the 
approbation  of  the  entire  body  of  producers,  so  far  as  any  expression 
could  be  secured,  and  the  wisdom  which  guided  its  promoters  has  found 
substantial  vindication  in  the  growth  of  sheep  husbandry  during  the 
past  fifteen  years,  as  indicated  in  the  figures  above  given.  Asa  result 
of  augmented  production  the  price  of  wools  has  been  reduced  to  the 
consumer,  while  at  the  same  time  the  producer,  by  improving  his  stock, 
has  been  enabled  to  realize  as  much  money  from  individual  animals  as 
he  secured  in  former  years.  The  average  price  of  the  United  States 
wool  clip,  in  the  Boston  market,  in  currency,  was — 


1867  $0  51 

1870  46 

1875  43 

1880  48 

the  equivalent  of  a value  per  head  of  sheep : 

I860  t..  $1  40 

1870  1 61 

1880  • 2 68 


Certain  elements  entering  into  the  expense  of  producing  wool  at  the 
time  the  existing  duties  were  laid  have  been  removed  by  Congres- 
sional action — notably,  the  tax  on  incomes — and  the  discharge  by  com- 
munities of  heavy  local  indebtedness  incurred  during  the  war  period 
then  so  recently  terminated.  In  view  of  these  considerations,  as  well  as 
those  that  apply  to  the  business  of  wool  production  in  common  with  all 
other  industries,  the  Commission  was  of  opinion  that  some  reduction 
could  be  made  in  existing  wool  duties  without  working  serious  incon- 
venience to  the  wool  producers  of  the  country. 

The  reduction  suggested  is  the  removal  of  the  11  per  cent,  and  10  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty  on  wools  of  the  first  and  second  class  respectively, 
and  a reduction  of  one-half  cent  per  pound  on  wools  of  the  third  class 
valued  at  less  than  12  cents  per  pound,  and  one  cent  per  pound  if  valued 
at  above  12  cents  per  pound.  This  arrangement,  while,  as  is  believed, 
not  seriously  interfering  with  the  defense  of  the  domestic  wool-grower, 
will  tend  to  simplify  the  operation  of  the  law,  by  making  duties  specific 
instead  of  compound,  thus  facilitating  enforcement,  while  insuring  col- 
lection of  the  entire  duty  for  which  importations  are  liable. 

The  classification  of  wools  for  duty  under  the  existing  law  has  been 
retained.  This  classification,  based  on  blood  of  the  animals  bearing  the 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


29 


wool,  has  been  found  to  meet  all  requirements — being  easily  understood 
by  the  customs  officers,  and  reducing  opportunities  for  evasion  to  the 
minimum. 

The  omission  of  the  word  “like”  from  the  sentence  enumerating  hairs 
subject  to  the  same  duty  as  wools  of  the  second  class,  is  intended  to 
have  the  effect  of  imposing  the  same  duty  on  hairs  of  the  camel  and 
other  animals,  used  for  mixing  with  wool,  as  is  imposed  on  the  class  of 
wool  which  they  displace. 

The  discrimination  against  wools  of  the  second  class  when  imported 
in  an  unwashed  condition  has  been  removed,  and  these  wools  placed 
on  the  same  footing  as  wools  of  the  first  class  when  imported  in  like 
condition. 

The  duty  recommended  on  wools  of  the  third  class  (carpet  wools), 
which  find  quite  limited  competition  in  the  flock  products  of  this  coun- 
try, and  which  comprised  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  wool  importations  for 
1881,  calculated  on  the  average  prices  for  that  year,  is  about  24  per 
cent.,  and  is  believed  to  be  at  a fair  revenue  standard. 

The  removal  from  32  cents  to  30  cents  of  the  division  between  wools 
paying  the  respective  duties  of  10  and  12  cents  per  pound  will  be  found 
to  more  nearly  represent  the  average  between  the  values  of  those  grades 
imported  which,  for  the  year  1881,  were,  on  wools  of  the  first  class, 
22.5  and  38  cents  respectively,  averaging  30.2  cents.  The  average  value 
of  imported  wools  of  the  second  class,  32.3  cents  for  1881,  would  doubt- 
less have  been  considerably  lower  had  not  the  law  discriminated  in  favor 
of  wools  imported  in  a washed  condition. 

No  change  is  recommended  in  the  duty  on  shoddy,  mungo,  waste,  &c., 
as  these  substitutes  are  already  admitted  at  a lower  rate  than  is  required 
on  the  wools  they  displace,  the  former  being  imported  in  condition  suit- 
able for  manufacturing,  while  the  latter  lose  a greater  or  less  percent- 
age in  the  process  of  cleansing  before  they  can  be  worked. 


WOOLENS. 

The  comparative  statistics  of  the  wool  manufacture  are  as  follows: 


Census  year. 

Establish- 

ments. 

Hands. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Materials. 

Products. 

1850 

1,  559 
1,  673 
3,  456 

39,  252 

$28, 118,  650 
42,  849,  932 

$25,  755,  991 
46,  649,  365 
134, 154,  615 
164,  342,  099 

$49,  726,  881 
80,  734,  606 
217,  668,  826 
267, 182,  914 

I860 

59,  522 

$i3,  36i,  602* 
41,  357,  235 

1870 

110,  869 
161,  489 

132,  382,  319 

1880 

2,  686 

159,  061,  270 

47,  351,  628 

No  part  of  the  existing  tariff  law  has  been  arranged  with  so  much 
deliberation  and  care  as  that  relating  to  the  manufactures  of  wool.  The 
present  tariff*  on  wool  and  woolens,  substantially  that  passed  in  1867, 13 
the  result  of  the  recommendation  of  the  Revenue  Commission  in  1866, 
after  prolonged  consultations  with  the  representative  wool  growers  and 
wool  manufacturers  of  the  United  States.  While  largely  reducing  the 
rates  in  the  woolen  schedule,  the  Commission  has  deemed  it  expedient 
to  make  no  material  change  in  its  general  structure.  Iii  relation  to  this 
portion  of  the  tariff*,  the  Commission  adopts  the  views  and  explanations 
of  a minority  report  of  a former  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  written, 
as  is  well  known,  by  General  Garfield.  That  report  says: 

There  are  articles  in  the  tariff  on  wool  and.  woolens  that  may  be  reduced,  and  per- 
haps the  whole  group  may  bear  some  reduction.  But,  on  the  whole,  no  part  of  our 
tariff  system  has  been  more  amply  vindicated  by  experience  than  that  which  relates 


30 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


to  wool  and  woolens.  The  foundation  of  these  provisions  was  laid  in  1881 ; but  in 
1887  the  existing  rates  were  established,  after  a Jong  and  exhaustive  investigation, 
and  with  concurrence  of  the  two  interests  which  had  theretofore  been  in  opposition. 
The  ba>is  of  that  legislation  was  this:  That  upon  the  several  grades  of  imported 
wool  a duty  should  be  imposed  sufficient  to  promote  the  growth  of  sheep  husbandry  in 
the  United  States.  A specific  duty  was  then  imposed  on  woolen  goods,  as  near  as 
possible  equal  to  the  duty  put  upon  the  wool  which  entered  into  the  manufacture. 
This  was  not  protection,  but  simply  aa  equivalent  duty,  which  placed  the  woolen 
manufacturer  on  the  free-trade  level.  To  this  specific  duty  was  then  added  a duty 
of  35  per  centum  ad  valorem  on  woolen  goods,  as  a protection  to  the  manufacturer 
against  foreign  competition.  This  adjustment  of  the  laws  liis  remained  substan- 
tially unchanged  for  thirteen  years  (now  fifteen),  and  during  the  six  years  preceding 
the  adjustment  the  law  contained  similar,  though  less  complete,  provisions. 

Tlie  characteristic  feature  of  this  adjustment  is  the  application  of 
compound  duties.  While,  iu  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  compound 
duties  are  generally  objectionable,  and  their  elimination  is  recommended 
in  all  the  other  schedules,  there  seems  to  be  exceptional  reasons  for 
their  retention  in  the  schedule  of  woolens,  although  four  commis- 
sioners, viz,  Messrs.  Ambler,  Porter,  Underwood,  and  McMahon,  refused 
to  assent  to  the  retention  of  compound  duties  in  this  schedule,  or  in  any 
case.  The  woolen  industry  is  the  principal  and  the  only  one  of  any 
magnitude  burdened  by  a duty  on  raw  material,  and  is  therefore  pecu- 
liarly entitled  to  the  facilities  for  the  arrangement  of  its  defensive 
duties  found  in  the  system  of  compound  duties  for  overcoming  this 
difficulty.  Besides,  no  system  of  specific  duties  could  be  devised  to  ade- 
quately cover  the  vast  variety  of  fabrics  produced  in  this  branch  of 
manufacture,  while  on  the  other  hand  a system  of  pure  ad  valorem 
duties,  it  is  believed,  would  admit  an  injurious  competition  of  foreign 
low  shoddy  goods  with  the  sounder  American  fabrics,  thus  displacing 
the  consumption  of  domestic  wools,  a competition  equally  obnoxious  to 
the  wool  grower  and  manufacturer.  Moreover,  besides  the  general  ob- 
jection to  ad  valorem  duties  growing  out  of  the  prevalent  system  of 
undervaluation  in  the  importation  of  foreign  goods,  an  ad  valorem  duty 
so  high  as  to  cover  the  compensatory  duty  would  be  invidious  and  lia- 
ble to  arbitrary  reduction,  on  the  inconsiderate  view  that  it  is  purely 
protective  to  the  manufacturers.  Justice  to  this  branch  of  industry 
would  seem  to  require  that  the  distinction  between  the  compensatory 
and  defensive  duty  to  the  manufacturer  should  always  be  kept  in  view, 
as  it  is  in  the  existing  adjustment. 

In  the  reductions  iu  this  schedule  which  the  Commission  proposes, 
ranging  for  the  great  bulk  of  fabrics  from  18  to  40  per  cent.,  the  aim 
has  been  to  make  the  reduction  apply  most  effectually  to  the  cheaper 
goods  of  necessary  consumption,  with  a view  of  benefiting  producers 
as  well  as  consumers,  for  reasonable  prices  to  the  consumer  mean  in- 
creased consumption,  and  of  course  correspondingly  increased  stability 
and  lucrative  employment  to  the  producers.  An  entirely  new  clause  is 
proposed,  providing  for  a very  large  reduction  in  the  duties  bearing 
upon  the  lower-priced  woolen  fabrics,  including  blankets,  and  remov- 
ing the  excessive  duties  upon  those  articles  which  have  been  the  sub- 
ject of  much  complaint.  Comparatively  less  reduction  is  proposed  on 
the  finer,  lighter,  and  more  costly  cloths,  involving  more  labor  in  their 
production,  upon  the  ground  of  public  policy,  which  demands  the  en- 
couragement of  the  higher  branches  of  manufacture. 

A comparatively  less  reduction  is  proposed  on  dress  goods  for  the 
reason  that  they  are  now  subjected  to  an  exceptional  foreign  competi- 
tion, the  importation  of  dress  goods  for  1880  having  amounted  to  over 
08,000,000  square  yards,  while  the  American  production  for  the  same 
period  amounted  to  40,000,000;  that  is,  the  home  manufacturer  of  one 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


31 


square  yard  of  these  goods  was  met  in  the  market  with  one  and  seven- 
tenths  yards  of  foreign  goods. 

The  proposed  clause  in  relation  to  all-wool  merino  goods  is  a new 
provision,  and  has  in  view  the  introduction  of  fabrics  never  yet  success- 
fully made  in  this  country.  Many  of  these  goods  constitute  staple  fab- 
rics subject  to  few  changes  of  fashion,  and  the  manufacture  of  them 
would  furnish  an  increased  demand  for  our  hnest  wools;  and  as  they  are 
the  choicest  woolen  fabrics  for  female  apparel,  their  manufacture  would 
be  a most  desirable  acquisition  to  our  national  industry. 

In  considering  the  rates  of  duty  in  this  schedule,  the  Commission  has 
not  been  unmindful  of  the  great  variety  of  fabrics  embraced  in  the 
woolen  manufacture,  their  utility  as  well  as  their  beauty,  the  immense 
outlay  of  capital  required  in  their  production,  the  artistic  taste  and 
technical  skill  necessary  to  success  in  the  higher  branches  of  the  manu- 
facture, and  the  vicissitudes  to  which  the  manufacturer  is  subject  by 
the  caprices  of  fashion,  nor  of  the  important  consideration  that,  there 
being  no  exports  of  domestic  wool,  upon  this  manufacture  depends  the 
prosperity  of  a leading  agricultural  interest,  the  sheep  husbandry,  dif- 
fused in  every  State  and  Territory. 

Schedule  L. — Silk. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  in  1860  the  importations  of  silk  manu- 
factures into  the  United  States  amounted  to  $32,961,120,  and  that  twenty 
years  later  (1880),  after  the  successful  introduction  of  the  silk  manu- 
facture in  this  country,  the  imports  amounted  to  $32,188,690:  while  on 
the  other  hand  the  value  of  the  product  of  our  own  silk  manufactures  has 
increased  from  $6,589,171  in  1860  to  $41,033,045  in  1880.  Thus,  while 
the  population  of  the  country  has  increased  20,000,000,  and  its  wealth 
proportionately,  the  importations  of  this  class  of  goods  have  remained 
practically  the  same,  the  larger  proportion  being  now  supplied  by  the 
home  manufactures. 

The  following  exhibit  from  the  report  of  the  special  agent  of  the  cen- 
sus, William  O.  Wyckoff,  shows  the  growth  of  the  silk  industry  for  the 
last  four  decennial  periods : 


Census  year. 

Humber  of 
establish- 
ments. 

Hands  em- 
ployed. 

Capital. 

Wages. 

Material. 

Value  of 
products. 

1850 

29 

857 

$433,  950 

$154,  488 

$860, 180 

$1,  226,  476 

1800 

137 

5,  300 

2,  938,  680 

1,  035,  308 

3,  906,  250 

6,  589,  171 

1870 

88 

6,  699 

6,  243,  130 

1,  953,  306 

8,  324,  573 

12,  739,  362 

1880 

383 

31,337 

19, 125,  30(f 

9,  146,  705 

22,  467,  701 

41,  033,  045 

The  slight  changes  in  phraseology  and  classification  of  the  silk  sched- 
ule recommended  by  the  Commission  were  inspired  by  a desire  to  simplify 
construction  and  to  facilitate  its  enforcement. 

To  this  end  the  Commission  has  substituted  specific  for  ad  valorem 
duties  wherever  the  former  could  be  made  to  apply.  The  duties  recom- 
mended indicate  a reduction  from  existing  duties  of  something  more  than 
23  per  cent. 

Schedule  M. — Books  and  Paper. 

The  industry  of  these  manufactures  is  deemed  sufficiently  important 
to  warrant  their  classification  under  a separate  schedule. 


32 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Schedule  N. — Sundries. 

The  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  for  1881  gives  the  total  value  of 
“the  principal  and  other  imported  merchandise  entered  for  consump- 
tion in  the  United  States,”  including  the  dutiable  and  free  list,  as 
$650,018,999.63.  Of  this  amount  $202,557,111.68  came  in  free  of  duty. 
The  total  amount  of  duty  collected  on  the  dutiable  merchandise  imported 
was  $193,800,879.67.  The  total  products  of  the  manufactures  of  the 
United  States,  as  already  shown,  amounted  in  1880  to  $5,369,667,706. 
In  each  of  the  preceding  schedules  the  Commission  has  shown,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  relative  importance  of  the  industries  included  in  the  several 
schedules  in  the  United  States  during  the  lastforty  years  ; that  is  to  say, 
the  number  of  hands  employed,  the  value  of  the  material  consumed,  the 
amount  of  wages,  and  the  aggregate  value  of  the  product.  In  the  same 
way  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  ascertain  the  value  of  the  product 
represented  by  what  may  be  called  the  sundry  schedule.  In  this  work 
it  was  fouud  impracticable  to  select  anything  further  than  the  principal 
items,  such  as  boots  and  shoes  and  leather  manufactures  of  all  kinds, 
agricultural  machines,  musical  instruments,  jewelry,  oil,  India  rubber 
and  elastic  goods,  brushes  and  brooms,  clothing,  carriages,  and  a score 
of  other  articles  of  manufacture  of  less  importance. 

The  aggregate  value  of  all  these  products,  so  far  as  the  Commission 
has  been  able  to  enumerate  them,  was,  in  1880,  $1,159,989,616,  leaving 
a remainder  unenumerated  of  $945,825,550.  In  this  work  absolute  ex- 
actitude is  not  claimed,  as  the  classification  and  methods- for  taking  the 
census  have  differed  under  different  superintendents  and  management, 
and  perfection  in  classification  is  impossible.  The  subjoined  table,  which 
gives  the  value  of  the  products  for  the  several  schedules,  as  rearranged 
by  the  Commission,  is,  perhaps,  as  nearly  correct  as  a comparison  of 
this  kind  could  be  made. 

It  will  1)3  seen  that  the  largest  amounts  are  represented  by  the 
provisions  schedule  and  the  sundries,  which  latter,  if  the  computation 
had  been  carried  further,  would  in  all  probability  have  included  most 
of  what  is  given  under  the  head  of  “remainder.”  Next  to  it  comes 
the  value  of  the  product  as  represented  by  Schedule  C,  metals,  and  which 
in  itself  amounts  to  within  $16,000,000  of  the  entire  imported  merchan- 
dise, including  the  dutiable  and  free  list  for  year  1881.  The  object  of  this 
presentation  is  merely  to  bring  out  as  forcibly  as  possible  t he  great  indus- 
trial progress  of  the  United  States  during  the  past  forty  years,  and  to 
show  the  enormous  amount  of  manufacturing  necessary  to  supply  the 
home  markets  for  the  wants  of  fifty  millions  of  people.  In  other  words, 
while  the  total  imports  are  represented  in  round  figures  by  $600,000,000, 
the  total  home  productions  of  our  manufactures  would  be  nearer 
$6,000,000,000. 


Amounts  of  products  embodied  in  tables  prepared. 


Schedule. 

Products  in 
1880. 

Schedule. 

Products  in 
1880. 

$117,407,054 
28,956,693 
604,  553,  460 
509,  485,  611 

X — Cotton 

$210,950,383 
5,518,866 
267,  182,  914 
41,  033,  045 
1,  159,  989,  616 

B — Earthen  and  glass  ware 

C — Metals 

D — Woods ... 

J— Flax 

K — Woolens 

L— Silk  

181,  404,  520 

find  N Sundries,  lioolvs,  &c 

F Tobacco 

G — Provisions 

H — Liquors 

118,'  665^  366 
1,  036,  572,  580 
142, 122,  048 

Remainder 

945,  825,  550 

5,  369,  667,  706 

REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


33 


In  addition  to  the  above  table,  to  make  this  general-statistics  table 
complete,  and  that  a ready  reference  may  be  made  to  the  special  items 
of  imported  merchandise,  the  following  statement  showing  the  values  of 
the  principal  and  other  imported  merchandise  entered  for  consumption 
in  the  United  States  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1881,  is 
herewith  appended: 

FREE  OF  DUTY. 


Value. 


Animals,  living $1,550,227  06 

Articles,  the  growth,  production,  &c.,  of  the  United  States,  exported 

and  brought  back,  &.c 4,  879, 168  98 

Barks,  not  otherwise  specified . 492, 561  49 

Books,  maps,  and  charts 373,250  00 

Chemicals,  drugs,  dyes,  and  medicines 23,560,046  15 

Cocoa  or  cocao,  crude  and  fiber,  leaves  and  shells  of 1, 047, 678  00 

Coffee. 56,901,888  39 

Cork-wood  or  bark,  unmanufactured 787,933  00 

Cotton,  unmanufactured 757,  352  00 

Dye-woods,  in  sticks  1,  680,  886  19 

Fish  from  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  Newfoundland,  &c 2,265,673  59 

Fruits,  including  nuts 743,961  71 

Fur  skins  of  all  kinds,  not  dressed 2,  774,  428  00 

Guano 399, 551  68 

Hair,  unmanufactured 874,  727  00 

Hide  and  skins,  other  than  fur  skins 27,756,990  07 

Household  and  personal  effects,  &c.,  of  immigrants 2,416,562  53 

India-rubber,  crude,  and  milk  of 11,022,002  05 

Ivory,  animal  and  vegetable,  unmanufactured  873,200  00 

Machinery  for  the  manufacture  of  beet  sugar,  and  imported  for  that 

purpose  solely 40,  431  00 

Oils,  fixed  or  expressed,  and  volatile  or  essential 1,  497, 590  43 

Painting,  stationery,  &c 311,243  00 

Platinum,  unmanufactured,  and  basis  and  retorts  of 294,635  00 

Paper  materials 5, 233, 575  40 

Seeds 314,344  30 

Silk,  cocoons,  raw,  waste,  &c 12,352,963  00 

Tea.... 21,004,059  33 

Tin,  in  pigs,  bars,  or  blocks 3,971,  756  67 

Wood,  unmanufactured 3,657,343  49 

All  other  articles,  free  of  duty,  except  from  Hawaiian  Islands 7,  348,  306  00 


Articles  free  of  duty  from  Hawaiian  Islands: 

Rice  of  all  kinds 

Fruits  and  nuts 

Molasses 

Sugar  

All  other  articles 


389,016  80 
20,  600  00 
35, 036  63 
4, 927,  020  74 
1,402  00 


Total  from  Hawaiian  Islands 5,373,076  17 

Total  free  of  duty 202,557,411  68 


Animals,  living 3,917,823  93 

Beer,  ale,  and  porter 848, 958  80 

Books,  engravings,  and  other  printed  matter,  bound  and  unbound 2,560,588  99 

Braids,  plaits,  flats,  laces,  trimmings,  &c 2,340,384  00 

Brass,  and  manufactures  of 494, 249  01 

Breadstuff's,  and  other  farinaceous  food,  not  otherwise  specified 9,208,956  23 

Bricks  and  tiles 150, 406  30 

Buttons  and  button  materials 3,160,419  85 

Candles  and  tapers 3,238  50 

Chalk 20,328  15 

Chemicals,  drugs,  dyes,  and  medicines 14,888,493  15 

Chiccory 132,536  00 

Clay 193,405  93 

Clocks  and  watches 2, 447, 399  34 

Coal 2,073,954  78 

Cocoa,  manufactured 39,120  50 

Copper,  and  manufactures  of 564,923  54 

H.  Mis.  6 3 


34 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Value. 

Corsets  and  corset-cloths $535,  819  00 

Cotton,  manufactures  of 28,084,116  69 

Diamonds  (cut),  cameos,  mosaics,  &c 8, 330,  071  45 

Earthenware  and  China 6, 383,  874  27 

Embroideries 3,133,590  00 

Fancy  articles 7, 084,  301  69 

Fish 1,355,724  88 

Flax,  and  manufactures  of 21,020,570  62 

Fruits,  including  nuts 12, 511, 806  39 

Furs,  and  manufactures  of 4, 270, 161  33 

Ginger,  essence,  ground,  and  preserved 16, 578  80 

Glass,  and  manufactures  of 5,  862, 269  60 

Gold  and  silver,  manufactures  of 232,638  11 

Hair,  and  manufactures  of 734,  055  55 

Hats,  bonnets,  and  hoods 982,  943  55 

Hemp,  jute,  &c.,  and  manufactures  of 10,568,126  16 

India-rubber,  manufactures  of 243,029  35 

Iron  and  steel : 

Iron,  and  manufactures  of 32, 991,  038  45 

Steel,  and  manufactures  of 18, 463,  535  15 

Lead,  and  manufactures  of 163,  741  95 

Leather,  and  manufactures  of 10, 522, 601  24 

Marble,  and  manufactures  of 553,  900  32 

Mats  and  matting 519, 128  29 

Metals,  metal  compositions,  and  manufactures  of,  not  otllfcrwise  speci- 
fied  1,162,913  05 

Mineral  aud  bituminous  substances,  not  otherwise  specified 94,  959  45 

Musical  instruments,  and  strings  for 1,  390,  391  02 

Oil-cloths  for  floors,  &c 124,  000  01 

Oils: 

Mineral 17, 193  92 

Animal 72, 268  70 

Vegetable,  fixed  or  expressed 683,701  34 

Vegetable,  volatile  or  essential 278,519  47 

Paintings,  &c.,  not  by  American  artists 2,210,944  47 

Paints  and  colors 985,  604  69 

Paper,  and  manufactures  of,  not  otherwise  specified  (except  books) 1,806,891  06 

Provisions,  not  otherwise  specified 1, 127,  874  98 

Salt 1,908,797  19 

Seed 1,612,207  41 

Silk,  manufactures  of 32,377,226  48 

Slate,  and  manufactures  of 46, 864  50 

Soap 252,751  35 

Spices 2, 203,  078  49 

Spirits  and  wines ..., 8,  762,  762  74 

Starch 35,478  04 

Stone,  and  manufactures  of  (except  marble) 195,  863  12 

Straw,  manufactures  of 41,422  89 

Sugar,  molasses,  and  confectionery 89,811,785  48 

Tin,  manufactures  of 14,  714, 146  53 

Tobacco,  and  manufactures  of 6,  474, 938  67 

Umbrellas,  parasols,  and  sunshades 102,  088  00 

Varnish 140,551  71 

Vegetables  not  otherwise  specified 746,510  07 

Wax,  and  manufactures  of 6,  332  62 

Wood,  and  manufactures  of 7,496,815  79 

Wool,  and  manufactures  of 45, 164, 149  01 

Zinc,  and  manufactures  of. 262,218  48 

All  other  dutiable  articles 8, 141,  527  38 


Total  dutiable 448,  061, 587  95 

Total  free  list 202,557,411  68 


Grand  total $650,  618, 999  63 

Referring  especially  to  tlie  changes  made  in  the  u Sundry”  schedule,  it 
was  found  that  it  contained  a total  number  of  272  sections,  having  from 
time  to  time  been  made  the  receptacle  of  many  dutiable  articles  that 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


35 


properly  belonged  to  other  schedules.  The  Commission  has  relegated 
99  of  the  sections  to  the  chemical  schedule,  25  to  the  provision  sched- 
ule, 26  to  the  metal  schedule,  and  the  remainder  to  the  respective 
schedules  to  which  they  belong,  and  the  free  list.  This,  with  some 
consolidation,  will  reduce  the  number  of  sections  in  the  present  sundry 
list  to  nearly  one-third  of  its  former  proportions.  It  has  been  revised, 
and  the  wording  in  many  cases  simplified  and  the  duties  reduced  on  an 
average  fully  20  per  cent. 

STATUTES  RELATING  TO  DUTIES  OF  COLLECTORS. 

The  Commission  recommends  the  adoption  of  substitutes  for  sundry 
sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  appends  to  this  report  drafts  of 
the  proposed  substitutes.  These  substitutes  are  recommended  for  the 
reasons  following : 

The  proposed  substitute  for  section  2499  seems  necessary,  as  without 
it  non-enumerated  articles  are  dutiable  under  the  general  clause,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  they  are  substantially  in  material  and  use  the 
same  as  other  articles  which  are  on  the  free  list.  That  is  to  say,  a 
special  enumeration  of  the  precise  article  must  be  found  in  the  free  list 
to  exempt  it  from  duty.  The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
same  rule  should  obtain  as  to  the  free  list  which  is  applied  in  other 
parts  of  the  law,  and  that  articles  similar  in  material  and  use  to  those 
specifically  named  in  the  free  list  should  be  free  of  duty. 

The  change  proposed  in  section  2626  is  for  the  purpose  of  saving  un- 
necessary duplication  of  work,  as  it  seems  only  necessary  that  the  final 
adjustment  or  liquidation  of  duties  should  be  verified  by  the  naval  offi- 
cer, and  that  it  is  entirely  unnecessary  that  he  should  countersign  any 
papers  issued  by  the  collector,  other  than  debenture  certificates ; the 
check  by  the  naval  officer  on  the  accounts  of  the  collector,  it  is  believed, 
will  be  complete  without  the  other  requirements  of  the  present  law,  and 
the  proposed  change  will  save  unnecessary  annoyance  to  importers. 

The  proposed  changes  in  section  2627  are  to  strike  out  the  words  “if 
American  vessels,”  in  definiug  the  duty  of  the  surveyor  as  to  ascertain- 
ing whether  masters  of  vessels  entering  have  complied  with  the  law  in 
regard  to  manifests  of  cargoes,  so  that  this  section  may  conform  to 
other  provisions  of  the  statutes  and  the  general  practice;  and  to  re- 
quire the  appraiser  to  report  to  the  surveyor  the  respective  degrees  of 
proof  of  imported  liquors,  so  as  to  avoid  the  preseut  practice,  which 
requires  an  ascertainment  of  the  proof  both  by  the  surveyor  and  the 
appraiser.  This  frequently  results  in  differences  between  the  reports, 
arid  as  in  case  of  such  difference  the  practice  has  been  to  take  the  re- 
port of  the  appraiser  as  more  likely  to  be  correct,  we  see  no  purpose  in 
requiring  the  proof  to  be  ascertained  by  two  sets  of  officers. 

The  change  proposed  in  section  2648  is  to  do  away  with  the  system  of 
petty  charges  for  stationery  blanks  in  the  collection  offices  on  the  north- 
eastern and  northwestern  frontiers,  where  the  entries  are  ordinarily  small 
in  amount  and  there  is  great  complaint  on  account  of  annoying  small 
charges. 

We  think  the  government  should  furnish  these  blanks  free  of  charge,, 
as  the  expense  wrould  be  very  small,  and  the  effect  would  be  to  avoid 
what  is  now  regarded  as  an  annoying  exaction. 

The  purpose  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  section  2654  is  also  to 
avoid  annoying  small  fees.  Instead  of  the  present  system  of  small  fees 
for  each  service  performed,  we  recommend  an  entry  fee  of  50  cents,  which 
is  intended  to  cover  all  the  charges  enumerated  after  the  fifth  clause  of 


36 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


the  present  section.  This  will  probably  operate  as  a reduction  of  fees 
on  the  average  of  entries,  but  it  is  believed  the  amount  will  be  sufficient 
to  compensate  for  the  services.  There  is  great  complaint  on  the  part 
of  importers  of  the  annoyance  occasioned  by  the  present  fee  bill,  and 
we  do  not  doubt  that  they  would  generally  prefer  even  a much'  larger 
entry  fee  if  they  could  thereby  avoid  the  vexation  of  the  present  system 
of  numerous  small  fees. 

The  Commission  recommends  the  repeal  of  section  2658,  because  it 
would  be  rendered  unnecessary  by  the  adoption  of  the  provision  for  a 
general  entry  fee  as  recommended  in  connection  with  section  2654. 

The  proposed  change  in  section  2770  is  for  the  purpose  of  relieving 
against  what  is  believed  to  be  a hardship  in  the  importation  of  bulk 
cargoes,  such  as  iron  ore,  coal,  stone,  and  other  heavy  materials,  where 
the  small  value  in  proportion  to  weight  makes  reshipment  or  lightering 
unreasonably  expensive.  To  illustrate,  the  port  of  New  York  is,  as  we 
understand,  limited  to  the  lines  of  the  city,  and  the  unloading  must  be 
(at  least  as  to  all  foreign  vessels)  within  those  lines,  or  at  some  port  of 
delivery  in  the  district,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  the 
owner  ot  a forge  or  furnace  within  the  collection  district  should  not  be 
permitted,  under  inspection  as  provided  for,  to  land  ore  or  coal  at  his  own 
wharf,  although  such  wharf  is  not  within  the  lines  of  a port  of  delivery 
of  the  district. 

The  purposes  of  the  proposed  change  in  section  2785  are  (1),  to  re- 
quire the  entry  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  pro' visions  of  section  2870, 
and  the  bills  of  lading,  and  (2)  to  do  away  with  what  is  believed  to  be 
a useless  and  annoying  formality,  which  under  the  present  law  requires 
the  production  by  the  importer  of  the  original  invoices,  or  other  docu- 
ments received  in  lieu  thereof,  to  the  naval  officer  as  well  as  the  collect- 
or, and  the  signing  of  the  same  in  the  offices  of  both  the  collector  and 
naval  officer. 

The  purpose  of  the  proposed  change  in  section  2789  is  to  clear  up  a 
doubt  as  to  the  right  of  the  collector  under  the  law  to  take  merchandise 
into  his  custody  until  the  quantity,  quality,  or  value  thereof  can  be  as- 
certained when  the  defect  in  the  entry  arises  from  an  imperfect  descrip- 
tion of  the  merchandise  in  the  bill  of  lading  or  invoice.  We  understand 
that  in  general  the  practice  has  been  in  accordance  with  the  draft  of  the 
law  recommended  by  the  Commission,  but  that  there  is  such  doubt  on 
the  subject  as  to  require  the  insertion  of  the  provision  recommended, 
for  the  protection  of  collectors. 

The  changes  proposed  in  section  2795  are  intended  as  a relief  in 
cases  where  an  excess  of  sea  stores  were  taken  on  board  by  permitting, 
to  a limited  extent,  their  entry  and  sale  on  payment  of  duties,  after  the 
taking  of  the  oath  that  they  were  truly  taken  on  board  as  such. 

The  proposed  changes  in  section  2799  are  (1),  to  include  in  the  section 
all  the  articles  free  from  duty  according  to  law  of  persons  arriving  in 
the  United  States  as  emigrants;  and  (2),  instead  of  the  present  indefi- 
nite word  u shortly”  to  fix  the  time  within  which  they  are  expected  to 
arrive,  limiting  it  to  one  year,  in  accordance  with  the  next  section. 

The  proposed  changes  in  section  2800  are  (1),  to  make  it  conform  to 
the  recommendations  as  to  the  preceding  section,  and  (2),  to  limit  the 
time  for  the  making  of  the  oath  described  to  three  mouths  after  the 
arrival  of  the  emigrant. 

The  proposed  changes  in  section  2801  are  intended  to  remit  to  the 
collector  the  duties  mentioned  in  tl^e  section,  as  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Commission  there  is  no  purpose  in  requiring  the  naval  officer  to  partic- 
ipate therein. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION 


37 


The  proposed  change  in  section  2803  allows  the  baggage  and  personal 
effects  of  persons  arriving  in  the  United  States  to  be  forwarded  by  the 
collector  to  the  collector  of  the  port  of  departure.  At  present  the  col- 
lector can  lawfully  only  retain  the  baggage  or  effects  until  the  depart- 
ure of  the  owner  to  his  foreign  destination,  which  must  be  from  the 
same  port  at  which  he  arrived  j whereas  we  think  the  law  should  permit 
them  to  be  forwarded,  say,  from  New  York  to  San  Francisco,  if  the  lat- 
ter city  should  be  the  port  of  departure  of  the  traveler. 

The  proposed  changes  in  section  2837  are  intended  to  relieve  against 
the  requirement  that  the  weights  and  measures  in  invoices  shall  be  the 
legal  weights  and  measures  of  the  country  from  which  the  importation 
is  made,  which  are  often  little  used,  and  to  require  that  the  invoice  be 
made  out  in  the  weights  and  measures  in  general  use  in  the  country  in 
which  the  goods  are  procured  for  importation  into  the  United  States. 
The  section  at  present  provides  that  the  weights  and  measures  shall  be 
those  of  the  country  from  which  the  importation  is  made,  and  it  is  often 
difficult  to  determine  what  country  is  meant  by  the  expression,  as  goods 
are  frequently  obtained  in  some  small  inland  state  and  transported 
overland  to  a port  in  a different  foreign  state  or  country,  whence  they 
are  shipped  by  vessel  to  the  United  States,  in  which  case  questions  arise 
as  to  whether  the  place  of  original  purchase  or  the  place  of  maritime 
shipment  is  the  place  from  which  the  importation  is  made.  It  is  be- 
lieved that  the  change  recommended  in  the  wording  of  this  section  will 
relieve  the  importer  and  customs  officers  from  these  doubts,  which,  as 
we  are  advised,  have  been  the  cause  of  very  frequent  trouble  and  annoy- 
ance. 

The  proposed  change  in  section  2838  is  intended  to  require  that  the 
invoice  of  merchandise  subject  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  shall  be  made  out 
in  the  currency  actually  paid  therefor,  as  well  as  that  of  the  place  or 
country  from  which  the  importation  is  made,  which  is  regarded  as  nec- 
essary in  arriving  at  the  true  price  or  value,  because  of  the  varying 
character  of  the  currency  of  different  countries,  which  it  is  said  fre- 
quently operate  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  government  in  ascertaining 
the  actual  value  on  which  the  duties  should  be  paid. 

The  proposed  changes  in  section  2841  are,  (1)  to  conform  the  oaths  to 
the  proposed  change  in  the  mode  of  levying  duties  by  excluding  inland 
freights,  packages,  charges,  and  commissions  from  being  the  subject  of 
duty  j (2)  to  require  the  oath  to  show  that  the  invoice  and  declaration 
are  in  all  respects  true,  and  were  made  by  the  person  by  whom  the  same 
purport  to  have  been  made  as  provided  in  other  sections,  and  (3)  in  cases 
where  part  of  the  invoices  or  bills  of  lading  covering  merchandise  to  the 
person  making  the  entry  have  not  arrived,  to  allow  him  to  enter  those 
invoices  which  have  arrived,  and  permit  the  others  to  be  entered  on  the 
receipt  of  the  invoices  and  bills  of  lading  which  cover  them. 

The  law  now  requires  that  the  oath  shall  state  that  the  entry  covers 
all  the  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  imported  in  the  vesselfor  the  con- 
signee, and  as  he  can  not  enter  lawfully  without  the  production  of  the 
invoices  and  bills  of  lading,  it  seems  necessary  to  make  this  change  so 
as  to  permit  him  to  enter  the  goods  for  which  the  invoices  and  bills  of 
lading  have  arrived,  with  the  right  to  enter  the  remainder  of  the  goods 
consigned  to  him,  where  he  can  lawfully  do  so,  without  sending  the  whole 
consignment  to  the  general  orders  stores  to  await  the  arrival  of  the  pa- 
pers which  w ill  enable  him  to  make  a complete  entry  of  the  vThole  con- 
signment. 

The  proposed  change  in  section  2846  is  intended  to  allow-  the  personal 
representatives  of  deceased  persons  and  the  assignees  of  insolvent  per- 


38 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


sons  to  make  entry  of  merchandise  owned  by  their  decedent  or  assignor, 
whether  the  same  are  subject  to  ad  valorem  or  other  duty.  At  present 
the  right,  according  to  the  statute,  only  attaches  where  the  merchandise 
is  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties. 

The  purpose  in  the  proposed  amendment  to  section  2853  is  to  limit 
the  requirement  of  triplicate  invoices  to  articles  subject  to  ad  valorem 
duty  or  duty  based  on  value. 

There  seems  to  be  no  necessity  for  these  triplicate  invoices  in  the  case 
of  articles  subject  to  specific  duties,  as  their  only  purpose  is  to  verify 
the  price  paid,  or  value  of  the  goods,  and  we  have  therefore  deemed  it 
proper  to  recommend  that  they  shall  not  be  required  except  in  cases 
where  the  goods  are  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties. 

The  purposes  in  the  proposed  amendments  to  section  2854  are  (1)  to 
make  the  section  conform  to  the  proposed  change  resulting  from  the  abo- 
lition of  duties  on  charges  and  commissions,  and  (2)  to  require  that  invoice 
shall  be  produced  and  verified  before  the  consul  of  the  United  States 
in  the  country  of  and  nearest  the  place  in  which  the  goods  were  origi- 
nally procured  for  exportation  to  the  United  States.  Under  the  exist- 
ing law  the  invoice  may  be  produced  and  verified  before  a consul  out- 
side of  the  country  within  which  the  goods  were  either  procured  or 
shipped,  and  who  may  therefore  have  but  little  means  of  knowledge  as 
to  their  value  at  the  place  of  purchase,  while  the  expression  u nearest 
the  place  of  shipment”  is  indefinite  and  has  received  different  construc- 
tions, the  term  11  shipment”  being  sometimes  construed  as  the  point  of 
marine  shipment,  and  sometimes  as  the  inland  point  at  which  they  were 
freighted.  It  is  our  opinion  that  limiting  the  production  of  the  invoice 
and  its  verification  to  the  consul  of  the  country  of  and  nearest  the 
place  where  the  goods  were  }>rocured  for  importation  to  the  United 
States  will  not  only  tend  to  make  certain  what  has  heretofore  been  in- 
definite, but  will  also  tend  to  uniformity  in  prices  and  values  and  hon- 
esty of  invoices. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  section  2857  is  to  allow  the  collector,  in 
cases  where  the  triplicate  invoice  cannot  be  produced,  to  admit  the  mer- 
chandise to  entry  and  liquidation  on  the  invoice  filed  by  the  importer 
at  the  time  of  entry,  without  requiring  the  triplicate  invoice  of  bond, 
when  he  is  satisfied  that  there  is  no  fraudulent  intent  or  purpose.  And 
the  proposed  amendment  to  section  2859  is  intended  to  extend  the  priv- 
ilege of  entry  and  liquidation  without  invoice,  where  the  goods  are  less 
than  $100  in  value,  and  the  collector  is  satisfied  that  there  is  no  pur- 
pose of  defrauding  the  revenue. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  section  2860  is  intended  to  exclude  from 
the  operation  of  the  section  the  entries  provided  for  in  the  act  of  June 
22,  1874,  generally  known  as  the  u anti-moiety  act”  (as  well  as  the  four 
preceding  sections  mentioned),  which  is  deemed  necessary  to  preserve 
the  rights  of  entry  therein  provided  for. 

The  proposed  amendments  to  section  2862  are,  (1)  to  make  it  impera- 
tive that  before  certifying  any  invoice  the  consular  officer  shall  require 
an  oath,  affirmation,  or  declaration  that  the  invoices  are  correct  and 
true ; (2)  that  the  oath,  affirmation,  or  declaration  shall  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  the  country  where  taken;  (3)  that  the  oath  shall 
show  that  it  was  made  in  the  place  where  the  goods  were  originally 
procured  for  exportation  to  the  United  States,  and  (4)  that  the  oath  or 
declaration  shall  be  attached  to  the  invoice  and  certified  by  the  consul. 
These  amendments  are  deemed  necessary  to  insure  uniformity  in  the 
practice  as  to  these  oaths  or  declarations,  certainly  as  to  the  place 
where  they  are  to  be  made,  and  the  solemnity  resulting  from  the  con- 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


39 


formity  to  ihe  local  forms  of  law.  At  present,  as  we  understand,  the 
oaths  are  taken  frequently  at  the  point  of  marine  shipment,  which  is 
often  far  from  the  place  of  purchase,  and  where  the  person  taking-  the 
oath  can  have  no  knowledge  as  to  the  facts  sworn  to,  and  are  generally 
regarded  as  mere  idle  formalities. 

The  proposed  amendments  to  section  2869  are  intended  to  leave  with 
the  collector  alone  the  estimate  of  gross  duties  upon  entries  and  to 
dispense  with  the  services  and  signature  of  the  naval  officer  in  grant- 
ing the  permit  to  land,  simply  requiring  the  verification  by  the  naval 
officer  of  the  final  liquidation  of  the  duties.  The  verification  of  the 
original  estimate  and  the  signature  of  the  naval  officer  to  the  permit 
seem  to  be  unnecessary  formalities  which  may  well  be  dispensed  with, 
while  the  verification  of  the  final  adjustment  is  necessary  as  a proper 
check  upon  the  collector’s  office. 

In  the  proposed  amendments  to  section  2870  it  is  intended  to  pro- 
vide by  law  that  the  permit  for  landing  merchandise  shall  conform  to 
the  bills  of  lading  and  invoices,  and  that  where,  from  errors  in  the  bills 
of  lading  (for  which,  of  course,  the  importing  vessel  is  responsible)  it 
is  necessary  to  send  the  goods  to  general  orders  store,  the  importing 
vessel  shall,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  collector,  be  charged  with 
the  resulting  expense,  because  in  that  case  the  expense  has  resulted 
from  the  carelessness  of  the  carrier. 

The  proposed  amendments  to  section  2882  are  intended  to  do  away 
with  the  ambiguity  resulting  from  the  use  of  the  words  u proper  officer” 
instead  of  designating  the  officer,  and  to  do  away  with  uncertainty 
in  practice,  by  designating  the  form  of  consent.  Our  understanding  is 
that  the  practice  is  not  uniform,  and  that  while  the  collector  is  usually 
regarded  as  the  proper  officer  to  discharge  this  duty,  sometimes  other 
officers  assume  to  give  consent  to  remove  because  of  the  uncertain 
expression  in  the  law,  and  that  controversies  often  arise  because  of  the 
removal  of  goods  on  the  claimed  consent  of  some  officer  of  the  customs. 
We  deem  it  advisable  that  this  should  be  changed — that  the  consent 
should  be  in  writing,  and  should  be  given  by  the  collector. 

The  proposed  addition  to  section  2885,  requiring  a return  to  the  sur- 
veyor by  the  inspection  officers  of  the  quantity,  kinds,  and  proof  of 
wines  and  spirts,  is  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  to  the  surveyor  the 
means  of  keeping  liis  account  of  this  class  of  merchandise,  and  is  made 
necessary  by  the  suggested  amendment  to  section  2627,  under  which  a 
single  appraisement  only  will  be  had,  instead  of  a double  appraisement 
as  at  present. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  section  2887  is  intended  to  exclude  the 
naval  officer  and  surveyor  from  participation  in  the  inquiry  as  to  whether 
merchandise  has  been  landed  since  it  was  taken  on  board,  or  whether 
the  disagreement  is  by  accident  or  mistake.  The  collector  is  the  proper 
person  to  examine  into  these  questions,  and  the  participation  of  the 
naval  officer  and  surveyor  is  understood  to  be  merely  formal  and  seems 
unnecessary. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  section  2898  is  intended  to  do  away  with 
the  necessity  for  consent  of  the  consignee  before  estimating  the  tare  ac- 
cording to  the  invoice.  In  our  judgment  the  collector  should  be  per 
mitted  to  estimate  tare  according  to  invoice  in  all  cases  except  where  it 
is  evident  to  him  that  the  tare,  as  stated  in  the  invoice,  is  more  or  less 
than  the  actual  tare. 

The  proposed  amendments  to  section  2900  are,  as  it  will  be  perceived, 
radical  and  important;  the  law  at  present  merely  permits  the  appraise- 
ment, and  in  practice,  unless  there  is  some  cause  for  suspicion,  the  in- 


40 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


voice  is  often  taken  as  correct  without  much,  if  any,  investigation.  We 
think  that  there  should  be  an  appraisement  separate  and  distinct  from 
the  invoice  in  all  cases.  Under  the  existing  statutes  no  penalty  is  im- 
posed unless  the  appraised  value  exceeds  the  entered  value  10  per 
centum  or  more ; and  then  (on  the  variance  of  a few  cents  often)  there 
results  the  imposition  of  a 20  per.  centum  penalty  on  the  entire  ap- 
praised value.  This  is  believed  to  induce  the  making  of  entries  by  un- 
scrupulous importers  as  nearly  as  they  regard  safe  within  the  limit, 
while  on  the  other  hand  great  hardships  frequently  occur  to  honest  im- 
porters who  have  made  some  mistake  and  are  subjected  to  this  penalty 
from  which  they  can  have  no  relief. 

From  the  information  at  our  command  we  have  been  led  to  believe 
that  the  ordinary  range  of  honest  difference  of  opinion  in  values  of  im- 
ports will  not  exceed  5 per  cent,  in  the  absence  of  error  or  mistake, 
and  the  proposed  amendment  imposes  no  penalty  where  the  difference 
does  not  exceed  that  percentage ; the  proposed  section  then  provides 
for  a gradually  increasing  penalty,  until  the  appraised  value  exceeds 
the  entered  value  more  than  15  per  centum,  and  then  declares  that  such 
excess  of  15  per  centum  shall  be  presumptively  fraudulent,  and  that 
the  collector  shall  seize  the  goods  and  proceed  to  forfeit  as  in  other 
cases  for  violations  of  the  customs  laws  ; and  that  in  such  proceeding 
the  fact  of  the  under- valuation  exceeding  15  per  cent,  shall  be  presump- 
tive evidence  of  fraud,  and  throw  on  the  claimant  the  burden  of  remov- 
ing the  presumption  by  proof.  We  think  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
systematic  under- valuation  is  rather  the  rule  than  the  exception,  as 
seems  to  be  evident  from  the  well-established  fact  that  persons  visiting 
European  countries  are  often  without  request  tendered  an  invoice  at 
less  than  the  price  paid,  with  the  explanation  (when  explanation  is 
asked  for)  that  it  is  necessary  to  enable  them  to  enter  the  goods  without 
paying  full  duties ; and  from  the  further  fact,  which  seems  equally 
clearly  established,  that  many  European  manufacturers  decline  to  fill 
orders  or  sell  goods  for  this  market  except  through  their  agencies  estab- 
lished in  this  country,  so  that  the  importing  business  is  largely  passing 
into  the  hands  of  consignees,  who  are  mere  agents  for  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturers, It  is  claimed  that  these  arrangements  are  not  unfrequently 
made  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the  customs  laws,  and  there  is  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  claim  is  not  without  foundation. 

Fraudulent  undervaluation,  when  it  occurs,  is  not  only  injurious  to 
the  government  by  depriving  it  of  revenue  to  which  it  is  entitled  under 
the  laws,  but  is  also  destructive  of  the  business  of  the  honest  importer, 
who  cannot  successfully  compete  with  those  who  thus  avoid  payment 
of  a considerable  proportion  of  the  revenues  to  which  he  is  subjected. 
The  purposes  of  the  amendment  are  to  discourage  experiments  in  even 
slight  undervaluation  by  imposing  penalties  which,  while  not  too  severe, 
will  probably  result  in  loss,  and  to  expose  the  importer  to  forfeiture  in 
cases  where  the  undervaluation  is  so  great  as  to  be  beyond  the  range 
of  probable  honest  difference  of  opinion  or  mistake,  reserving,  however, 
in  all  cases,  authority  to  grant  relief  when  the  collector  and  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  are  satisfied  that  the  undervaluation  is  the  result  of 
manifest  clerical  error  or  mere  mistake  and  without  any  intention  to 
undervalue  or  defraud  the  revenue.  We  recommend  the  proposed  change 
in  the  confident  belief  that  it  will  be  advantageous  to  the  government 
and  to  honest  importers. 

The  intention  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  section  2002  is  to  require 
the  appraisers,  and  the  collector  and  naval  officer  when  acting  as  ap- 
praisers, to  ascertain  the  proof  of  distilled  spirits  and  the  character  of 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


41 


imported  merchandise;  that  is  to  say,  to  examine  into  and  determine 
these  matters  apart  from  the  invoices  or  bills  of  lading.  It  is  the  prac- 
tice, as  we  understand,  for  these  officers  to  discharge  the  duties  referred 
to,  although  there  seems  to  be  no  express  statute  requiring  them  to  as- 
certain and  determine  anything  except  the  value  of  the  merchandise, 
apart  from  its  character;  and  as  the  rate  of  duty  depends  on  the  char- 
acter of  the  merchandise  it  is  deemed  best  to  clearly  and  in  express 
terms  direct  that  they  shall  discharge  the  duties  in  question. 

The  recommendations  for  the  repeal  of  sections  2907  and  2908  are 
made  on  the  statements  of  custom  house  experts  and  importers  gener- 
ally, who  have  uniformly  insisted  that  justice  requires  their  repeal. 

The  sections  in  question  are  those  which  require  the  addition  to  the 
cost  or  value  of  the  imported  article  of  the  cost  of  transportation,  ship- 
ment, and  transhipment  and  all  expenses  incurred  in  the  transporta- 
tion of  the  article  from  the  place  of  growth,  production,  or  manufacture 
to  the  vessel  in  which  the  shipment  is  made  to  the  United  States,  the 
cost  or  value  of  the  packages,  and  the  commissions  paid,  which  in  no 
case  shall  be  less  than  two  and  one-half  per  cent.  These  sections  apply 
to  goods  paying  an  ad  valorem  duty  or  duty  based  on  value.  The  law 
has  heretefore  regarded  these  u dutiable  charges”  as  part  of  the  cost  of 
the  goods  imported,  and  the  effect  of  the  proposed  abolition  would  be  to 
withdraw  them  entirely  from  consideration  in  determining  the  dutiable 
value  of  the  goods.  The  result  of  the  repeal  of  these  sections  would  be 
a reduction,  especially  on  the  coarser  and  more  bulky  fabrics,  of  a con- 
siderable proportion  of  the  present  duties,  amounting,  as  we  believe,  in 
some  instances,  to  nearly  if  not  quite  one-fourth ; while  on  the  finer  and 
more  highly  priced  goods,  the  reduction  will  be  much  less.  The  Com- 
mission recommends  the  repeal  of  these  sections  because  of  the  great 
labor  at  the  custom-houses  in  apportioning  and  distributing  the  charges 
on  the  liquidation  of  entries  (as  we  are  advised  the  work  of  liquidation 
on  ad  valorem  goods  is  more  than  doubled  by  reason  of  these  charges 
and  their  distribution),  the  very  great  delay  in  liquidation  consequent 
on  the  complicated  calculations  involved  in  the  distribution  of  the  charges 
on  the  goods  in  the  invoice  bearing  different  rates  of  duty,  the  delay, 
annoyance,  and  expense  to  the  importer  arising  from  the  necessarily 
tedious  liquidation  thus  occasioned,  and  because,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  Commission,  these  charges  should  not  be  regarded  as  part  of  the 
cost  of  the  goods. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  section  2926  is  to  take  from  the  consignee 
the  option  of  determining,  in  cases  of  incomplete  entry  for  want  of  the 
original  invoice  or  any  other  cause,  whether  the  <£Ost  or  value  shall  be 
ascertained  with  or  without  the  production  of  the  invoice,  and  to  leave 
the  option  where  we  think  it  properly  belongs,  to  the  collector,  so  that 
he  may  require  the  production  of  the  invoice,  or  proper  evidence  in  lieu 
of  it,  if  in  his  judgment  it  is  necessary  to  the  proper  appraisement  of 
the  merchandise. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  section  2927  is  intended  to  settle  a long- 
continued  dispute  as  to  the  proper  time  for  presentation  of  damage 
claims,  by  providing  that  no  claim  shall  be  received  until  after  due  entry 
of  the  merchandise.  The  change  is  deemed  important  by  the  custom- 
house experts. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  section  2932  is  to  make  that  section  con- 
form to  the  proposed  repeal  of  sections  2907  and  2908,  and  the  change 
in  section  2932  as  contained  in  the  proposed  customs  court  bill  hereafter 
referred  to. 

The  proposed  change  in  section  2939  is  intended  to  permit  the  Secre- 


42 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


tary  of  the  Treasury,  when  in  his  judgment  it  is  necessary  and  proper, 
by  regulation,  to  permit  the  examination  of  bulky  goods  for  appraise- 
ment at  other  places  than  the  public  stores.  It  seems  evident  to  us  that 
such  authority  is  necessary,  as  very  frequently  considerable  expense  and 
delay  are  incurred  by  the  sending  of  packages  to  the  public  stores  for 
examination,  when  such  examination  could  be  made  without  risk  of 
loss  to  the  revenue  and  much  more  conveniently  at  some  other  place, 
as  the  wharf  where  they  are  unloaded,  and  such  a regulation  would,  to 
some  extent,  relieve  the  public  stores  at  the  appraiser’s  office  from  their 
present  crowded  condition. 

The  changes  proposed  in  section  3058  are  to  allow  the  actual  owner, 
although  not  the  consignee,  to  make  entry  of  the  merchandise  on  pro- 
duction of  the  bills  of  lading  and  invoices,  and  to  provide  that  the 
holder  of  any  bill  of  lading  consigned  to  order  and  properly  indorsed 
shall  be  deemed  the  consignee  thereof.  The  propriety  of  these  changes 
will,  we  think,  be  very  apparent,  and  in  view  of  the  frequent  cases  of 
advances  made  on  bills  of  lading  by  bankers,  the  latter  clause  seems  to 
be  imperatively  necessary  ; as  in  the  present  condition  of  the  law,  al- 
though by  reason  of  their  advances  they  are  the  legal  owners  of  the 
merchandise,  they  cannot  enter  the  same  unless  named  as  the  original 
consignees,  and  if  named  as  the  original  consignees,  although  their  ad- 
vances may  have  been  repaid,  the  entry  of  the  goods  must  still  be  made 
by  them.  The  effect  of  the  proposed  change  will  be  to  make  the  prac- 
tice as  to  entries  at  the  custom-houses  conform  to  the  ordinary  mercantile 
customs  and  usages  as  to  the  negotiability  of  bills  of  lading. 

The  proposed  amendments  to  section  9 of  the  act  of  June  22,  1874, 
entitled  “An  act  to  amend  the  customs-revenue  laws  and  to  repeal 
moieties”  (Heyl,  p.  151),  are  (1)  to  make  the  exceptions  conform  to  the 
statutes  as  to  goods  accompanying  the  passenger,  by  including  house- 
hold effects  and  books,  tools,  implements,  &c. ; (2)  to  make  the  section 
conform  to  the  recommendations  of  the  Commission  not  to  require  cer- 
tified invoices  except  in  case  of  goods  bearing  an  ad  valorem  duty,  and 
(3)  to  include  the  documents  in  lieu  of  certified  invoices,  as  provided  by 
sections  2785  and  2788. 

The  proposed  amendments  to  section  9 of  the  act  of  June  10,’  1880, 
entitled  “An  act  to  amend  the  statutes  in  relation  to  immediate  trans- 
portation of  dutiable  goods,”  are,  to  extend  the  period  within  which  goods 
may  be  forwarded  to  fifteen  instead  of  ten  days,  which  seems  to  be 
necessary,  as,  by  reason  of  the  difficulty  in  procuring  cars,  the  present 
period  is  said  frequently  to  be  too  short;  and  to  enable  the  collector, 
with  the  consent  of  the  consignee,  to  send  the  goods  to  a bonded  ware- 
house at  any  time  after  they  are  landed,  when  deemed  necessary  for 
their  proper  preservation,  without  impairing  the  right  to  transportation 
within  fifteen  days  of  landing. 

A CUSTOMS  COURT. 

The  present  mode  of  trying  the  very  large  number  of  cases  arising 
under  the  laws  imposing  tonnage  and  customs  duties  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  frequent  criticism  in  statements  made  before  the  Commission  by 
Treasury  and  customs  rfificials  and  importers.  In  case  of  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  decision  of  the  collector,  the  law  provides  for  a protest 
and  appeal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  hears  the  case  and 
affirms  or  reverses  the  holding  of  the  collector.  The  decision  of  the 
Secretary  is  final  unless  suit  is  brought  against  the  collector  to  recover 
back  the  duties  claimed  to  have  been  illegally  or  erroneously  exacted 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


43 


within  ninety  days.  The  crowded  condition  of  the  dockets  of  the  courts 
necessarily  occasions  great  delay  in  the  decision  of  these  cases,  and 
when  decided,  the  case  being  subject  to  writ  of  error  or  appeal,  when 
taken  to  the  Supreme  Court,  again  finds  its  place  on  a docket  incum- 
bered by  accumulated  business,  and  it  is  ordinarily  several  years  before 
a final  decision  is  reached. 

Meantime  a great  number  of  importations  have  been  made  present- 
ing the  same  question  already  in  process  of  litigation,  and  the  importer 
is  compelled  to  pay  the  rate  of  duties  already  fixed  by  the  Secretary, 
and  if  he  desirps  to  save  the  question,  must  protest  and  appeal  and 
commence  his  suit  to  recover  back  the  duties  which  he  claims  have  been 
illegally  or  erroneously  exacted  from  him.  Thus  the  court  dockets  are 
further  incumbered,  and  the  importers  subjected  to  the  expense  and 
annoyance  of  this  added  litigation,  which  is  ordinarily  determined  by 
the  decision  of  the  original  case. 

Meanwhile,  pending  the  litigation,  the  merchandise  imported  has 
been  sold,  and  the  duties  paid  being  part  of  their  cost  enter  to  a greater 
or  less  extent  into  the  price ; and  to  the  extent  that  these  duties  have 
been  paid  by  the  purchaser,  he  is  necessarily  without  relief,  so  that  on 
reversal  of  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  the  duties  refunded  (less  at- 
torneys7 fees  and  expenses)  become  an  additional  profit  to  the  importers, 
who  have  protested,  appealed,  and  commenced  action  within  the  time 
required  by  law.  Pending  the  litigation,  there  has  been  such  uncertainty 
as  to  the  rate  of  duty  and  consequent  cost  of  the  merchandise  as  to  nec- 
essarily interfere  materially  with  legitimate  commercial  transactions. 

In  the  earlier  history  of  the  country,  when  importations  were  com- 
paratively small,  the  business  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  compara- 
tively light,  and  the  court  dockets  comparatively  unencumbered,  no 
considerable  inconvenience  seems  to  have  been  experienced  from  this 
mode  of  proceeding  5 but  all  now  seem  to  agree  that  a more  simple  and 
speedy  method  of  proceeding  is  very  desirable  if  not  absolutely  neces- 
sary, and  we  have  thought  it  part  of  our  duty  to  suggest  a change. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  some  measure  of  relief  might  be  obtained 
by  the  transfer  of  the  cases  brought  against  the  collectors,  to  the  Court 
of  Claims.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  this  might  not  too  seriously 
interfere  with  the  other  business  of  that  court,  and  produce  such  an  ac- 
cumulation of  cases  on  its  docket  as  to  result  to  some  extent  in  the  same 
delay  which  is  now  so  seriously  complained  of.  It  is  thought  that  to 
be  effective,  an  independent  court  should  be  created,  located  at  the  great 
commercial  center  of  the  country,  where  much  the  larger  proportion  of 
business  for  its  consideration  would  necessarily  arise,  and  could  be  con- 
sidered and  disposed  of  with  much  less  delay  and  expense  than  if  the 
court  was  located  elsewhere ; and  that  a provision  for  sessions  once  a 
year  at  New  Orleans  and  San  Francisco,  and  at  other  points  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court,  as  business  might  require,  would  add  greatly  to 
the  prompt  and  convenient  transaction  of  its  business.  In  the  draft  of 
the  bill  appended  hereto  we  have  recommended  that  at  least  one  of  the 
judges  of  this  court  should  be  a customs  expert  of  at  least  ten  years7 
experience  in  the  service,  and  this  because  we  are  satisfied  that  among 
the  experienced  custom-house  officers  can  be  found  the  men  best  fitted 
for  the  position.  The  heads  of  divisions  in  the  larger  custom-houses  are 
men  who  have  kept  their  places  through  changing  administrations,  be- 
cause they  were  eminently  fitted  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  required 
of  them  ; we  have  found  them  thoroughly  conversant  with  customs  ques- 
tions and  with  great  capacity  and  aptitude  for  the  service  in  which  they 
are  employed.  Their  experience  and  knowledge  of  customs  questions 


44 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


and  decisions  would,  as  we  think,  peculiarly  fit  them  for  the  discharge 
of  the  duties  devolving  on  them  as  judges  of  the  proposed  court,  and  we 
are  satisfied  that  in  its  constitution,  at  least,  one  of  the  judges  should  be 
of  this  class,  and  that  the  omission  of  this  provision  would  seriously  in- 
terfere with  the  efficiency  of  the  proposed  court. 

With  a view  to  simplifying  the  mode  of  proceeding  and  hastening 
the  decision,  we  have  recommended  that,  unless  the  court  shall  otherwise 
direct,  no  pleadings  shall  be  necessary,  except  the  papers  sent  up  by  the 
collector  on  the  appeal,  believing  that  the  decision  of  the  collector  and 
the  protest  of  the  importer  will  ordinarily  be  all  that  is  necessary  to 
make  up  the  issue  ; and  have  provided  that,  except  for  cause,  the  decis- 
ion shall  be  entered  within  ninety  days  of  the  appeal.  The  provision 
for  notice  and  opportunity — in  the  discretion  of  the  court — for  other 
persons  interested  to  be  heard,  is  because  the  decision  of  any  question 
should  as  far  as  possible  control  in  other  cases  in  which  the  same  ques- 
tion may  be  ijresented,  and  should  therefore  be  made  upon  as  full  a 
hearing  as  possible  of  all  persons  in  interest. 

The  provision  for  a reconsideration  by  the  collector,  on  filing  of  pro- 
test, is  intended  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  appeals  from  hasty  decisions, 
and  that  for  rehearing  before  the  court  is  to  permit  a reconsideration  in 
cases  where  there  is  room  for  doubt. 

There  is  a difference  of  opinion  in  the  Commission  as  to  the  propriety 
of  providing  for  the  trial  of  questions  of  fact  by  jury ; but  as  we  do  not 
consider  that  any  constitutional  question  is  involved,  or  that  the  party 
is  of  right  entitled  to  atrial  by  jury  in  the  class  of  cases  coming  before 
this  court,  and  as  questions  of  fact  will  be  infrequent,  and  when  occur- 
ring more  likely  to  be  correctly  decided  by  the  court  than  by  a jury,  on 
account  of  their  technical  character,  the  proposed  bill  does  not  provide 
for  a jury. 

The  proposed  bill  makes  no  provision  for  a review  of  the  decisions  of 
the  court  by  proceedings  in  error  or  on  appeal,  and  we  suggest  that,  in 
view  of  the  necessity  for  the  early  final  decision  of  these  cases,  pro- 
ceedings in  error  or  by  appeal  should  be  confined  within  the  narrowest 
limits  consistent  with  a proper,  regard  for  the  rights  of  the  parties. 

The  purpose  in  the  preparation  of  this  bill  has  been  to  provide  a 
limit,  with  the  fewest  possible  formalities,  and  adapted  to  a prompt 
decision  of  the  questions  which  may  arise,  with  a view  to  relieving  im- 
porters and  the  government  from  the  uncertainties  and  annoyances  to 
which  they  are  now  subjected. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  bill,  and  of  the  drafts  of  the  administrative 
sections  of  the  tariff  law,  to  which  we  have  recommended  amendments, 
the  Commission  has  had  the  advantage  of  the  experience  and  knowledge 
of  Commissioner  McMahon,  as  these  drafts  were  completed  before  his 
decease,  and  we  may  add  that  all  of  them  met  with  his  hearty  approval. 
His  long  experience  as  a customs  officer  and  thorough  knowledge  of 
customs  affairs  induced  the  Commission  to  give  great  weight  to  his 
opinions,  and  to  rely  on  his  recommendations  as  to  these  matters,  and 
we  believe  that  investigation  will  demonstrate  the  wisdom  of  the  pro- 
posed changes. 

CONCLUSION. 


The  Commission  recommends  that  the  bill  shall  specifically  provide 
for  the  repeal  of  the  sections  of  the  law  as  to  which  amendments  are 
herein  proposed,  if  said  amendments  are  adopted,  and  that  all  other 
sections  of  the  customs  laws  now  existing  shall  be  re-enacted  as  part  of 
the  act  proposed  by  the  Commission,  so  as  to  save  any  question  as  to 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


45 


the  effect  of  the  words  “not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  the 
act.”  That  the  act  of  February  8,  1875,  entitled,  .“An  act  to  amend 
existing  customs  laws  and  internal-revenue  laws,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses,” except  the  proviso  to  section  three,  the  proviso  to  section  four 
and  sections  ten  and  eleven  be  repealed,  and  that  the  proviso  to  section 
three  be  changed  to  conform  to  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  pro- 
posed by  the  Commission. 

In  many  instances  the  classifications  and  rates  of  duties  in  the  sched- 
ules attached  to  the  report  are  not  satisfactory  to'all  the  members  of  the 
Commission,  but  in  each  instance  they  received  the  assent  of  a majority, 
and  as  a whole  the  report  of  the  Commission  is  concurred  in  by  all  of 
its  members  except  as  hereinafter  stated. 

First.  Commissioner  Underwood  does  not  concur  in  the  recommenda- 
tion for  the  establishment  of  a customs  court. 

Second.  Commissioners  Ambler,  Porter,  and  Underwood  do  not  con- 
cur in  the  recommendation  for  the  continuance  of  compound  duties  in 
any  case.  ‘ . 

Third.  Commissioner  Ambler  does  not  concur  in  recommending  the 
abolition  of  duties  on  what  are  known  as  “ dutiable  costs  and  charges,” 
believing  these  costs  and  charges  to  be  part  of  the  proper  cost  of  the 
goods. 

Fourth.  Commissioners  Garland  and  Ambler  recommend  the  adoption 
of  a system  of  valuation  of  goods,  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties,  based 
on  the  value  of  the  goods  in  the  markets  of  the  United  States  at  the 
date  of  their  importation,  duties  unpaid,  instead  of  the  present  system, 
for  reasons  which  will  be  found  set  forth  in  the  statement  of  Hon.  H.  F. 
French,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  made  before  the  Commis- 
sion. 

JOHN  L.  HAYES, 

HENRY  W.  OLIVER,  Jr., 
A.  M.  GARLAND, 

J.  A.  AMBLER,  ? 

ROBERT  P.  PORTER, 

J.  W.  H.  UNDERWOOD, 
ALEX’R  R.  BOTELER, 
DUNCAN  F.  KENNER, 

Commissioners. 


APPENDIX 

TO  THE 

REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


PROPOSED  SCHEDULE  OF  DUTIES. 


Schedule  A. — Chemical  products. 

Glue,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Beeswax,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Gelatine  and  all  similar  preparations,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Glycerine,  crude,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Glycerine,  refined,  five  cents  per  pound. 

Phospliorus,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Soap,  hard  and  soft,  all  which  are  not  otherwise  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act,  and  castile  soap,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Fancy,  perfumed,  and  all  descriptions  of  toilet  soaps,  fifteen  cents  per 
pound. 

Sponges,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Sumac,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Acid,  acetic,  acetous,  or  pyroligneous  acid,  not  exceeding  the  specific 
gravity  of  1.047,  two  cents  per  pound;  exceeding  the  specific 
gravity  of  1.047,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Acid,  citric,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Acid,  tartaric,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Camphor,  refined,  five  cents  per  pound. 

Castor  beans,  or  seeds,  thirty  cents  per  bushel  of  fifty  pounds. 

Castor  oil,  fifty  cents  per  gallon. 

Cream  of  tartar,  six  cents  per  pound. 

Dextrine,  burnt  starch,  gum  substitute,  or  British  gum,  ten  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Glucose,  or  grape  sugar,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Indigo,  extracts  of,  and  carmined,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Iodine,  resublimed,  forty  cents  per  pound. 

Liquorice,  paste  or  roll,  six  cents  per  pound ; liquorice  juice,  three 
cents  per  pound. 

Oil  of  bay-leaves,  essential,  or  bay  rum  essence  or  oil,  two  dollars 
and  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Oil,  croton,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Oil,  flaxseed  or  linseed,  twenty  five  cents  per  gallon,  seven  and  one- 
half  pounds  weight  to  be  estimated  as  a gallon. 

Hemp  seed,  and  rape  seed  oil,  ten  cents  per  gallon. 

Soda  and  potassa,  tartrate,  or  rochelle  salt,  five  cents  per  pound. 

Strychnia,  or  strychnine,  and  all  salts  thereof,  fifty  cents  per  ounce. 

Tartars,  partly  refined,  including  lees  crystals,  four  cents  per  pound. 

Acidulated  phosphate  of  lime,  ainmoniated  or  otherwise,  three  dol- 
lars per  ton. 

Alumina,  alum,  patent  alum,  alum  substitute7  sulphate  of  alumina, 
and  aluminous  cake  and  alum  in  crystals  or  ground,  sixty  cents 
per  hundred  pounds. 

H.  Mis.  6 4 


50 


REPORT  OF  I'HE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Ammonia,  anhydrous,  liquefied  by  pressure,  twenty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Ammonia  aqua,  or  water  of  ammonia,  twenty  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Ammonia,  muriate  of,  or  sal-ammoniac,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
Ammonia,  carbonate  of,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Ammonia,  sulphate  of,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  imitations  of  natural  mineral  waters  and  all  wholly  artificial 
mineral  waters,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Asbestos,  manufactured,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Baryta,  sulphate  of,  or  barytes,  unmanufactured,  ten  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Baryta,  sulphate  of,  or  barytes,  manufactured,  twenty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Refined  borax,  three  cents  per  pound. 

Cement,  Roman,  Portland,  and  all  others,  twenty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Whiting  and  Paris  white,  dry,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem; 

ground  in  oil,  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound.  • ’ 

Putty,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Prepared  chalk,  precipitated  chalk,  French  chalk,  red  chalk,  and  all 
other  chalk  preparations  which  are  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Chromic  acid,  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Chromate  of  potash,  four  cents  per  pound. 

Bi-chromate  of  potash,  four  cents  per  pound. 

Cobalt,  oxide  of,  twenty  tier  centum  ad  valorem. 

Copper,  sulphate  of,  or  blue  vitriol,  three  cents  per  pound. 

Iron,  sulphate  of,  or  copperas,  one-quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
Acetate  of  lead,  brown,  three  cents  per  pound. 

Acetate  of  lead,  white,  five  cents  per  pound. 

White  lead,  when  dry  or  in  pulp,  two  cents  per  pound. 

When  ground  or  mixed  in  oil,  two  and  one-lialf  cents  per  pound. 
Litharge,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Orange  mineral,  and  red  lead,  two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 
Nitrate  of  lead,  three  cents  per  pound. 

Magnesia,  medicinal,  carbonate  of,  five  cents  per  pound. 

Magnesia,  calcined,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Magnesia,  sulphate  of,  or  Epsom  salt,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
Potash,  crude,  carbonate  of,  or  fused,  saleratus,  calcined  or  pearl  ash, 
and  caustic  potash,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Chlorate  of,  three  cents  per  pound. 

Hydriodate  of,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Iodide  of,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Iodate  of,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Prussiateof,  red,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Prussiate  of,  yellow,  five  cents  per  pound. 

Nitrate  of,  or  saltpetre,  crude,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
Nitrate  of,  or  refined,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Sulphate  of,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Soda: 

Soda  ash,  one  quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Soda,  sal,  or  soda  crystals,  one  quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Bi  carbonate  of,  or  super-carbonate  of,  one  and  one-half  cents  per 
pound. 

Hydrate  or  caustic,  one  cent  per  pound. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


51 


Soda : 

Snlpliate,  known  as  salt  cake,  crude  or  refined,  or  nitre  cake,  crude 
or  refined,  and  Glauber’s  salt,  one  quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Sulphur: 

Refined,  in  rolls,  ten  dollars  per  ton. 

Sublimed,  or  flowers  of,  twenty  dollars  per  ton. 

Wood  tar,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Coal  tar,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Coal  tar,  naphtha,  benzine,  benzole,  dead  oil,  and  pitch,  asphaltum, 
or  bitumen,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  coal  tar  colors  or  dyes,  by  whatever  name  known,  and  not  herein 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  forty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

All  preparations  of  coal  tar  not  colors  or  dye,  not  otherwise  provided 
for,  twenty  per  centem  ad  valorem. 

Ultramarine,  five  cents  per  pound. 

Turpentine,  spirits  of,  twenty  cents  per  gallon. 

Colors  and  paints,  including  lakes,  whether  dry  or  mixed,  or  ground 
with  water  or  oil,  and  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in 
this  act,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

The  pigment  known  as  bone  black,  and  ivory  drop  black,  twenty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bone  char,  or  bone  black,  fit  for  sugar  refining,  one  quarter  of  one 
cent  per  pound. 

Ochre  and  ochery  earths,  umber,  and  umber  earths,  and  sienna  and 
sienna  earths,  when  dry,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound : when 
ground  in  oil,  one. and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

Zinc,  oxide  of,  when  dry,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Zinc,  oxide  of,  when  ground  in  oil,  two  cents  per  pound. 

All  preparations  known  as  essential  oils,  expressed,  oils,  distilled  oils, 
rendered  oils,  alkalis,  alkaloids,  and  all  combinations  of  any  of  the 
foregoing,  and  all  chemical  compounds  and  salts,  by  whatever 
name  known,  and  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this 
act,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Preparations : all  medicinal  preparations  known  as  cerates,  conserves, 
decoctions,  emulsions,  extracts,  solid  or  fluid  ; infusions $ juices, 
liniments,  lozenges,  mixtures,  mucilages,  ointments,  oleo-resins, 
pills,  plasters,  powders,  resins,  suppositories,  syrups,  vinegars,  and 
waters ; of  any  of  which  alcohol  is  not  a component  part  and  not 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

All  barks,  beans,  berries,  balsams,  buds,  bulbs  and  bulbous-roots,  and 
excrescences,  such  as  nutgalls,  fruits,  flowers,  dried  fibres,  grains, 
gums  and  gum-resins,  herbs,  leaves,  lichens,  mosses,  nuts,  roots  and 
stems,  spices,  vegetables,  seeds  (aromatic,  not  garden  seeds),  and 
seeds  of  morbid  growth,  weeds,  woods  used  expressly  for  dyeing, 
and  dried  insects,  any  of  the  foregoing  of  which  are  not  edible,  but 
which  have  been  advanced  in  value  or  condition  by  refining  or 
grinding,  or  by  other  process  of  manufacture,  and  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  non-dutiable,  crude  minerals,  but  which  have  been  advanced  in 
value  or  condition  by  refining  or  grinding,  or  by  other  jirocess  of 
manufacture,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act, 
ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  ground  or  powdered  spices  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for  in  this  act,  five  cents  per  pound. 


52 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Ail  earths  or  clays,  un wrought  or  unmanufactured,  not  specially  enu- 
merated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  ton. 

All  earths  or  clays,  wrought  or  manufactured,  not  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act,  three  dollars  per  ton ; china  clay,  or 
kaoline,  three  dollars  per  ton. 

Proprietary  preparations,  to  wit,  all — 

Cosmetics,  pills,  powders,  troches  or  lozenges,  syrups,  cordials, 
hitters,  anodynes,  tonics,  plasters,  liniments,  salves,  ointments, 
pastes,  drops,  waters,  essences,  spirits,  oils,  or  preparations  or  com- 
positions recommended  to  the  public  as  proprietary  articles,  or  pre- 
pared according  to  some  private  formula  as  remedies  or  specifics 
for  any  disease  or  diseases,  or  affections  whatever,  affecting  the 
human  or  animal  body,  including  all  toilet  preparations  whatever 
used  as  applications  to  the  hair,  mouth,  teeth,  or  skin,  not  spe- 
cially enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  fifty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Alcoholic  preparations : 

Alcoholic  perfumery  and  cologne  water,  seventy-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Chloroform,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Collodion,  and  all  preparations  of,  by  whatever  name  known,  fifty 
cents  per  pound,  Boiled  or  in  sheets,  but  not  made  up  into  arti- 
cles, sixty  cents  per  pound. 

Ether,  sulphuric,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Hoffman’s  anodyne,  thirty  cents  per  pound. 

Iodoform,  one  dollar  per  pound. 

Acid,  tannic  and  tannin,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Spirits,  nitrous  ether,  thirty  cents  per  pound. 

Santonin,  two  dollars  per  pound. 

Preparations:  All  medicinal  preparations  known  as  essences,  ethers, 
extracts,  mixtures,  spirits,  tinctures,  and  medicated  wines,  of  which 
alcohol  is  a compound  part,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for 
in  this  act,  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Varnishes  of  all  kinds,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Opium,  one  dollar  per  pound,  prepared  for  smoking;  and  all  other 
preparations  of  opium  not  specially  enumerated  or  jjrovided  for  in 
this  act,  six  dollars  per  pound ; but  opium  prepared  for  smoking, 
and  other  preparations  of  opium  deposited  *n  bonded  warehouses 
shall  not  be  removed  therefrom  for  exportation  without  payment  of 
duties,  and  such  duties  shall  not  be  refunded. 

Opium,  aqueous  extract  of,  for  medicinal  use,  and  tincture  of,  as  laud- 
anum, and  all  other  liquid  preparations  of  opium,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Morphia  or  morphine,  and  all  salts  thereof,  one  dollar  per  ounce. 

Schedule  B. — Earthenware  and  glassware. 

Brown  earthen  ware,  common  stone-ware,  gas  retorts,  and  stone  ware 
not  ornamented,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

China,  porcelain,  parian,  and  bisque  ware,  including  plaques,  orna- 
ments, charms,  vases,  and  statuettes,  painted,  printed,  and  gilded,  or 
otherwise  decorated  or  ornamented  in  any  manner,  sixty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

China,  porcelain,  parian,  and  bisque  ware,  plain  white,  and  not  orna- 
mented or  decorated  in  any  manner,  sixty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


53 


All  other  earthen,  stone,  and  crockery  ware,  white,  glazed,  edged, 
printed,  painted,  dipped,  or  cream-colored,  composed  of  earthy  or 
mineral  substances,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this 
act,  fifty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Stone  ware,  above  the  capacity  of  ten  gallons,  twenty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Encaustic  tiles,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Brick,  fire-brick,  and  roofing  and  paving  tile,  not  specially  enumer- 
ated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Slates,  slate  pencils,  slate  chimney  pieces,  mantels,  slabs  for  tables, 
and  all  other  manufactures  of  slate,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Roofing  slates,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Green  and  colored  glass  bottles,  vials,  demijohns,  and  carboys  (cov- 
ered or  uncovered),  pickle  or  preserve  jars,  and  other  plain,  molded, 
or  pressed  glass,  not  cut,  engraved,  or  painted,  and  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  one  and  one-half  cents  per 
pound;  if  filled,  and  not  otherwise  in  this  act  provided  for,  said 
articles  shall  pay  on  their  weight,  exclusive  of  contents,  one  and 
one  half  cents  per  pound  in  addition  to  the  duty  on  the  contents. 

Flint  and  lime  glass  bottles  and  vials,  and  other  plain,  molded,  or 
pressed  flint  or  lime  glass-ware,  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  two  cents  per  pound ; if  filled,  and  not  other- 
wise in  this  act  provided  for,  said  articles  shall  pay  on  their  weight, 
exclusive  of  contents,  two  cents  per  pound  in  addition  to  the  duty 
on  the  contents. 

Articles  of  glass,  cut,  engraved,  painted,  colored,  printed,  stained, 
silvered,  or  gilded,  not  including  plate  glass  silvered,  or  looking- 
glass  plates,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Unpolished  cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window-glass,  not  exceeding 
ten  by  fifteen  inches  square,  one  cent  and  one-half  per  pound;  above 
that,  and  not  exceeding  sixteen  by  twenty-four  inches  square,  two 
cents  per  pound ; above  that,  and  not  exceeding  twenty-four  by  thirty 
inches  square,  two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound;  all  above  that, 
three  cents  per  pound : Provided,  that  unpolished  cylinder,  crown, 
and  common  window-glass,  imported  in  boxes  containing  fifty  square 
feet,  as  nearly  as  sizes  will  permit,  now  known  and  commercially  des- 
ignated as  fifty  feet  of  glass,  single  thick  and  weighing  not  to  exceed 
fifty-five  pounds  of  glass  per  box,  shall  be  entered  and  computed  as 
fifty  pounds  of  glass  only;  and  that  said  kinds  of  glass  imported  in 
boxes  containing,  as  nearly  as  sizes  will  permit,  fifty  feet  of  glass, 
now  known  and  commercially  designated  as  fifty  feet  of  glass,  dou- 
ble thick  and  not  exceeding  ninety  pounds  in  weight,  shall  be  en- 
tered and  computed  as  eighty  pounds  of  glass  only ; but  in  all 
other  cases  the  duty  shall  be  computed  according  to  the  actual 
weight  of  glass. 

Cast  polished  plate  glass,  unsilvered,  not  exceeding  ten  by  fifteen 
inches  square,  three  cents  per  square  foot ; above  that,  and  not 
exceeding  sixteen  by  twenty-four  inches  square,  five  cents  per 
square  foot;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  twenty-four  by  thirty 
inches  square,  eight  cents  per  square  foot ; above  that,  and  not  ex- 
ceeding twenty-four  by  sixty  inches  square,  twenty-five  cents  per 
square  foot;  all  above  that,  fifty  cents  per  square  foot. 

Cast  polished  plate  glass,  silvered,  or  looking-glass  plates,  not  ex- 
ceeding ten  by  fifteen  inches  square:  four  cents  per  square  foot; 
above  that,  and  not  exceeding  sixteen  by  twenty-four  inches  square: 
six  cents  per  square  foot;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  twenty- 


54 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


four  by  thirty  inches  square : ten  cents  per  square  foot ; above  that, 
and  not  exceeding  twenty-four  b}^  sixty  inches  square:  thirty-five 
cents  per  square  foot ; all  above  that,  sixty  cents  per  square  foot. 

But  no  looking-glass  plates  or  plate  glass,  silvered,  when  framed, 
shall  pay  a less  rate  of  duty  than  that  imposed  upon  similar  glass 
of  like  description  not  framed,  but  shall  be  liable  to  pay,  in  addi- 
tion thereto:  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem,  upon  such  frames. 

Porcelain  and  Bohemian  glass,  painted  glassware,  stained  glass,  and 
all  other  manufactures  of  glass  or  of  which  glass  shall  be  the  com- 
ponent material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  forty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  C. — Metals. 

Iron  ore,  including  manganiferous  iron  ore,  also  the  dross  or  re- 
siduum from  burnt  pyrites : fifty  cents  per  ton  ; as  pyrites  or  sul- 
phuret  of  iron  in  its  natural  state,  containing  less  than  fifteen  per 
centum  of  silica:  fifty  cents  per  ton,  and  in  addition  thereto  two 
and  one-half  cents  per  pound  for  the  copper  contained  therein. 

Oxide  of  manganese,  fifty  cents  per  ton. 

Iron  in  pigs,  iron  kentledge,  spiegeleisen,  wrought  and  cast  scrap  iron, 
and  scrap  steel  of  every  description,  including  old  iron  and  old  steel 
railway  bars,  steel  filings,  borings,  turnings,  steel  railway  bars  crop 
ends,  none  of  which  shall  exceed  twenty-four  inches  in  length,  steel 
ingot,  cogged  ingot,  bloom,  slab,  and  billet  crop  ends,  none  of  which 
shall  exceed  five  inches  in  length : three-tenths  of  one  cent  per 
pound. 

Provided , That  nothing  shall  be  deemed  scrap  iron  or  scrap  steel 
except  waste  or  refuse  iron  or  steel  that  has  been  in  actual  use 
and  is  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured  by  remelting  or  rerolling. 

Steel  iugots,  cogged  ingots,  blooms  and  slabs,  made  by  the  Bessemer, 
pneumatic,  Thomas-Gilchrist,  basic,  Siemens- Martin,  open  hearth, 
or  by  any  other  process  except  the  crucible  process,  weighing  not 
less  than  five  hundred  pounds  each  and  measuring  not  less  than  five 
inches  square  nor  less  than  five  inches  in  least  diameter  of  cross  sec- 
tion of  the  ingots,  cogged  ingots,  or  blooms,  nor  less  than  five  inches 
in  thickness  nor  ten  inches  in  width  of  the  slabs:  six-tenths  of  one 
cent  per  pound. 

Iron  railway  bars,  weighing  more  than  twenty-live  pounds  to  the  yard : 
seven-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Steel  railway  bars  and  railway  bars  made  impart  of  steel,  weighing 
more  than  twenty-five  pounds  to  the  yard:  eight-tenths  of  one  cent 
per  pound. 

Bar  iron,  rolled  or  hammered,  comprising  flats  not  less  than  one  inch 
wide,  nor  less  than  three  eighths  of  one  inch  thick:  nine-tenths  of 
one  cent  per  pound ; comprising  round  iron  not  less  than  three- 
fourths  of  one  inch  in  diameter,  and  square  iron  not  less  than  three- 
fourths  of  one  inch  square:  one  cent  per  pound;  comprising  flats 
less  than  one  inch  wide,  or  less  than  three  eighths  of  one  inch  thick ; 
round  iron  less  than  three-fourths  of  one  inch,  and  not  less  than 
seven- sixteenths  of  one  inch  in  diameter,  and  square  iron  less  than 
three-fourths  of  one  inch  square:  one  cent  and  two-tenths  of  one 
cent  per  pound. 

Provided , That  all  iron  in  slabs,  blooms,  loops,  or  other  forms  less  fin- 
ished than  iron  in  bars,  and  more  advanced  than  pig-iron,  except 
castings,  shall  be  rated  as  iron  in  bars,  and  pay  a duty  accordingly; 
and  none  f the  above  iron  shall  pay  a less  rate  of  duty  than  thirty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


55 


Iron  or  steel  tee  rails,  weighing  not  over  twenty-five  pounds  to  the 
yard,  and  iron  or  steel  flat  rails,  punched : one  and  two-tenths  of 
one  cent  per  pound. 

Round  iron,  in  coils  or  rods,  less  than  seven-sixteenths  of  one  inch  in 
diameter,  and  bars  or  shapes  of  rolled  iron  not  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act : one  and  one-lialf  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Armor,  or  other  plate,  iron  or  steel,  or  combination  of  iron  and  steel, 
finished  or  unfinished,  not  less  than  one  and  a half  inches  thick  : two 
and  one-lialf  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Boiler,  or  other  plate  iron,  sheared  or  uusheared,  skelp  iron,  sheared 
or  rolled  in  grooves,  and  sheet  iron,  common  or  black,  thinner  than 
one  inch  and  one-half,  and  not  thinner  than  number  twenty  wire 
gauge:  one  and  three-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound  ; thinner  than 
number  twenty  wire  gauge,  and  not  thinner  than  number  twenty- 
five  wire  gauge  : one  and  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound ; thinner 
than  number  twenty-five  wire  gauge,  and  not  thinner  than  number 
twenty-nine  wire  gauge:  one  and  seven-tenths  of  one  cent  per 
pound;  thinner  than  number  twent5^-nine  wire  gauge,  and  all  iron 
commercially  known  as  common  or  black  taggers’  iron,  whether  put 
up  in  boxes  or  bundles  or  not:  one  and  nine-tenths  of  one  cent  per 
pound. 

Polished,  planished,  or  glanced  sheet-iron,  or  sheet  steel,  by  what- 
ever name  designated:  three  cents  per  pound. 

Provided , that  plate  or  sheet  or  taggers’  iron,  by  whatever  name  des- 
ignated, other  than  the  polished,  planished,  or  glanced  herein  pro- 
vided for,  which  has  been  pickled  or  cleaned  by  acid,  or  by  any 
other  material  or  process,  or  which  is  cold  rolled,  or  singled  rolled, 
or  smoothed  by  rolling,  shall  pay  one-half  cent  per  pound  more  duty 
than  the  corresponding  gauges  of  common  or  black  sheet  or  taggers’ 
iroD. 

Iron  or  steel  sheets,  or  plates,  or  taggers’  iron,  coated  with  t in  or  lead, 
or  with  a mixture  of  which  these  metals  are  a component  part,  by 
the  dipping  or  any  other  process,  and  commercially  known  as  tin 
plates,  terne  plates,  and  taggers’  tin : two  and  two-tenths  of  one  cent 
per  pound  ; corrugated  or  crimped  sheet-iron  or  steel : one  and  nine- 
tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Provided , that  all  shapes  or  blanks,  of  sheet  or  plate,  or  skelp-iron, 
if  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  shall  pay 
one-half  cent  per  pound  more  duty  than  is  imposed  upon  the  material 
of  which  such  shapes  or  blanks  are  made. 

Hoop,  or  band,  or  scroll,  or  other  iron,  without  reference  to  length, 
and  by  whatever  name  called,  eight  inches  or  less  in  width  and 
not  thinner  than  number  ten  wire  guage:  one  and  two- tenths  of 
one  cent  per  pound  : thinner  than  number  ten  wire  guage  and  not 
thinner  than  number  seventeen  wire  guage : one  and  four-tenths 
of  one  cent  per  pound ; thinner  than  number  seventeen  wire  gauge: 
one  and  six-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound, 

Provided , That  all  articles  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for 
in  this  act,  whether  wholly  or  partly  manufactured,  made  from  the 
hoop,  band,  or  scroll  iron  herein  provided  for,  or  of  which  such  hoop, 
band,  or  scroll  iron  shall  be  the  material  of  chief  value,  shall  pay 
one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound  more  duty  than  that  imposed  on 
the  iron  from  which  they  are  made,  or  which  shall  be  such  material 
of  chief  value. 

Iron  and  steel  cotton  ties,  or  hoops  for  baling  purposes,  not  thinner 
than  number  nineteen  wire-gauge:  one  and  four-tenths  of  one  cent 
per  pound. 


56 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Cast-iron  pipe  of  every  description : one  cent  per  pound. 

Casting’s  of  iron,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act: 
one  and  one  quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Cut  nails  and  spikes,  of  iron  or  steel:  one  and  one-quarter  of  one  cent 
per  pound. 

Iron  or  steel  railway  fish-plates,  or  splice  bars:  one  and  one-half  of  one 
cent  per  pound. 

Malleable  iron  castings,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in 
this  act:  two  cents  per  pound. 

Wrought  iron  or  steel  spikes,  nuts,  and  washers,  and  horse,  mule,  or 
ox  shoes  : two  cents  per  pound. 

Anvils : two  cents  per  pound. 

Iron  or  steel  rivets,  bolts,  with  or  without  threads  or  nuts,  or  bolt 
blanks,  and  finished  hinges  or  hinge  blanks : two  and  one-half  of 
one  cent  per  pound. 

Iron  or  steel  blacksmiths’  hammers  and  sledges,  track  tools,  wedges, 
and  crowbars:  two  and  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Iron  or  steel  axles,  parts  thereof,  axle  bars,  axle  blanks,  or  forgings 
for  axles,  without  reference  to  the  stage  or  state  of  manufacture  : 
two  and  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Forgings  of  iron  and  steel,  or  forged  iron,  of  whatever  shape  or  in 
whatever  stage  of  manufacture,  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act : two  and  one- half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Horseshoe  nails,  hob-nails,  and  wire  nails,  and  all  other  w rought  iron 
or  steel  nails,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act: 
four  cents  per  pound. 

Boiler  tubes,  or  flues,  or  stays,  of  wrought  iron  or  steel:  three  cents 
per  pound. 

Other  wrought  iron  or  steel  tubes  or  pipes:  two  and  one-quarter  of  one 
cent  per  pound. 

Chain  or  chains  of  all  kinds,  made  of  iron  or  steel,  not  less  than  three- 
fourths  of  one  inch  in  diameter:  two  cents  per  pound;  less  than 
three-fourths  of  one  inch  and  not  less  than  three-eighths  of  one  inch 
in  diameter:  two  and  one-quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound;  les.sthan 
three-eighths  of  one  inch  in  diameter:  three  cents  per  pound. 

Cross-cut  saws:  eight  cents  per  lineal  foot. 

Mill,  pit,  and  drag  saws,  not  over  nine  inches  wide:  ten  cents  per  lin- 
eal foot;  over  nine  inches  wide:  fifteen  cents  per  lineal  foot. 

Circular  saws:  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem.  * 

Hand,  back,  and  all  other  saws,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for  in  this  act:  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Files,  file  blanks,  rasps,  and  floats  of  all  cuts  and  kinds,  four  inches 
in  length  and  under:  thirty-five  cents  per  dozen  ; over  four  inches 
in  length  and  under  nine  inches:  seventy  five  cents  per  dozen;  nine 
inches  in  length  and  under  fourteen  inches : one  dollar  and  fifty 
cents  per  dozen ; fourteen  inches  in  length  and  over : two  dollars 
and  fifty  cents  per  dozen. 

Steel  ingots,  cogged  ingots,  blooms,  and  slabs,  weighing  less  than  five 
hundred  pounds  each,  and  measuring  less  than  five  inches  square  or 
less  than  five  inches  in  greatest  diameter  of  cross-section  of  the  in- 
gots, cogged  ingots,  or  blooms,  and  less  than  five  inches  in  thick- 
ness or  less  than  ten  inches  in  width  of  the  slabs  ; die  blocks  or 
blanks;  billets  and  bars,  and  tapered  or  beveled  bars;  bands, 
strips,  and  sheets  of  all  gauges  and  widths;  plates  of  all  thicknesses 
and  widths;  steamer,  crank,  andother  shafts;  wrist  or  crank  pins; 
connecting  rods  and  piston  rods,  pressed,  sheared,  or  stamped 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


57 


shapes,  or  blanks  of  sheet  or  plate  steel,  or  combination  of  steel 
and  iron,  punched  or  not  punched ; hammer  molds  or  swaged 
steel;  gun  molds  not  in  bars;  alloys  used  as  substitutes  for  steel 
tools  ; all  descriptions  and  shapes  of  dry  sand,  loam,  or  iron  molded 
steel  castings  ; all  of  the  above  valued  at  five  cents  per  pound  or 
less : two  cents  per  pound ; valued  above  five  cents  and  not  above 
nine  cents  per  pound  : two  and  three-quarters  of  one  cent  per  pound  ; 
valued  at  above  nine  cents  per  pound:  three  and  one-half  cents  per 
pound. 

Provided , that  on  all  iron  or  steel  bars,  rods,  strips,  or  sheets,  of 
whatever  shape,  and  on  all  iron  or  steel  of  irregular  shape  or  sec- 
tion, cold-rolled,  cold-hammered,  or  polished  in  any  way  in  addition 
to  the  ordinary  process  of  hot  rolling  or  hammering,  and  on  steel 
circular  saw  plates,  there  shall  be  paid  one  cent  per  pound  in  addi- 
tion to  the  rates  provided  in  this  act. 

Iron  or  steel  beams,  girders,  joists,  angles,  channels,  car- truck  chan- 
nels, tees,  columns  and  posts,  or  parts  or  sections  of  columns  or 
posts,  deck  and  bulb  beams,  and  building  forms,  together  with  all 
other  structural  shapes  of  iron  or  steel : one  and  one-half  of  one 
cent  per  pound. 

Steel  wheels  for  railway  purposes,  whether  wholly  or  partly  finished, 
and  iron  or  steel  locomotive,  car,  and  other  railway  tires,  or  parts 
thereof,  wholly  or  partly  manufactured,  or  iron  or  steel  ingots, 
cogged  ingots,  blooms,  or  blanks  for  the  same,  without  regard  to 
the  degree  of  manufacture  : two  and  three-quarters  of  one  cent  per 
pound. 

Steel  rivet,  screw,  nail,  fence,  and  wire  rods,  round,  in  coils  and  loops, 
not  lighter  than  number  five  wire  gauge,  and  valued  at  three  cents 
per  pound,  or  less  : one  cent  per  pound. 

Crucible  cast-steel  rivet,  screw,  nail,  fence,  and  wire  rods,  round,  in 
coils  and  loops,  not  lighter  than  number  five  wire  gauge,  and  valued 
above  three  cents,  and  not  above  five  cents  per  pound:  one  and 
three  quarters  of  one  cent  per  pound : valued  above  five  cents,  and 
not  above  nine  cents  per  pound  : two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound ; 
valued  above  nine  cents  per  pound : three  cents  per  pound. 

Iron  or  steel  screws,  commonly  called  wood  screws,  two  inches  or  over 
in  length:  six  cents  per  pound;  over  one  inch  and  less  than  two 
inches  in  length : eight  cents  per  pound ; one  inch  and  less  in  length  : 
nine  cents  per  pound. 

Iron  or  steel  wire,  not  smaller  than  number  ten  wire  gauge : two  and 
one-quarter  cents  per  pound ; smaller  than  number  ten  and  not 
smaller  than  number  eighteen  wire  gauge:  two  and  three-quarter 
cents  per  pound  ; smaller  than  number  eighteen  and  not  smaller 
than  number  twenty-six  wire  gauge:  three  and  one-quarter  cents 
per  pound ; smaller  than  number  twenty-six  wire  gauge:  four  cents 
per  pound. 

Provided , That  iron  or  steel  wire  covered  with  cotton,  silk,  or  other 
material,  and  wire  commonly  known  as  crinoline,  corset,  and  hat 
wire,  shall  pay  four  cents  per  pound  in  addition  to  the  foregoing 
rates.  And  provided  further,  that  no  article  made  from  iron  or 
steel  wire,  or  of  which  iron  or  steel  wire  is  a component  part  of 
chief  value,  shall  pay  a less  rate  of  duty  than  the  iron  or  steel  wire 
from  which  it  is  made  either  wholly  or  in  part;  and  provided  further, 
that  iron  or  steel  wire  cloths,  and  iron  or  steel  wire  nettings,  made  in 
meshes  of  any  form,  shall  pay  a duty  equal  in  amount  to  that  imposed 
on  iron  or  steel  wire  of  the  same  gauge,  and  three  cents  per  pound  in 


58 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


addition  thereto;  and  provided  further,  that  wire  rope  and  wire 
strand,  of  iron  or  steel  wire,  shall  pay  the  same  rates  of  duty  that 
are  levied  on  the  wire  of  which  they  are  made ; provided,  that  on 
all  of  the  kinds  of  iron  or  steel,  or  articles  or  manufactures  of  iron 
or  steel,  hereinbefore  in  this  act  enumerated,  wheu  galvanized,  or 
coated  with  any  metal,  or  compound,  alloy,  or  mixture  of  metals,  by 
any  process  whatsoever,  there  shall  be  paid  (excepting  on  what  are 
known  commercially  as  tin  plates,  terne  plates,  and  taggers*  tin, 
and  hereinbefore  provided  for) : one  cent  per  pound  in  addition  to 
the  rates  provided  in  this  act. 

Steel  in  any  form,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act: 
three  cents  per  pound. 

Provided , That  all  metal  produced  from  iron  or  its  ores,  which  is  cast 
and  malleable,  of  whatever  description  or  form,  without  regard  to 
the  percentage  of  carbon  contained  therein,  whether  produced 
by  cementation,  or  converted,  cast,  or  made  from  iron  or  its  ores, 
by  the  crucible,  Bessemer,  pneumatic,  Thomas-Gilchrist,  basic, 
Siemens-Martin,  or  open-hearth  process,  or  by  the  equivalent  of 
either,  or  by  the  combination  of  two  or  more  of  the  processes,  or 
their  equivalents,  or  by  any  fusion  or  other  process  which  produces 
from  iron  or  its  ores  a metal  either  granular  or  fibrous  in  struct- 
ure, which  is  cast  and  malleable,  excepting  what  is  known  as  mal- 
leable iron  castings,  shall  be  classed  and  denominated  as  steel. 

No  allowance  or  reduction  of  duties  for  partial  loss  or  damage,  in 
consequence  of  rust  or  of  discoloration  shall  be  made  upon  any 
description  of  iron  or  steel,  or  upon  any  partly  manufactured  arti- 
cle of  iron  or  steel,  or  upon  any  manufacture  of  iron  or  steel. 

On  all  iron  or  steel,  and  on  all  manufactures,  wares,  utensils,  vessels, 
and  articles  of  iron  or  steel,  or  of  which  such  metals  or  either  of 
them  shall  be  the  component  part  of  chief  value,  whether  wholly 
or  partly  manufactured,  there  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid 
no  less  rate  of  duty  than  the  highest  duty  or  rate  of  duty  imposed 
upon  any  part  of  said  goods  in  any  of  the  forms  in  which  it  or  they 
existed  prior  to  or  during  their  passage  into  the  form  or  article  oa 
which  the  duty  is  to  be  levied. 

This  shall  not  apply  to  nor  in  any  manner  affect  the  articles  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  but  shall  apply  to  all  other 
manufactures  of  iron  or  steel,  or  of  which  iron  or  steel  shall  be 
the  component  material  or  part  of  chief  value. 

If  two  or  more  rates  of  duty  should  be  applicable  to  any  imported 
article,  it  shall  be  classified  for  duty  under  the  highest  of  such 
rates,  and  in  all  cases  of  doubt  as  to  the  classification  for  duty  of  an 
imported  article,  such  article  shall  be  classified  at  the  highest  rate 
of  duty. 

Argentine,  albata  or  German  silver  unmanufactured  : twenty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Copper,  imported  in  the  form  of  ores,  and  copper  cement  : two  and 
one-lialf  cents  on  each  pound  of  fine  copper  contained  therein  ; reg- 
ulus  of  and  black  or  coarse  copper:  three  and  one-half  cents  on 
each  pound  of  fine  copper  contained  therein ; old  copper,  fit  only 
for  remanufacture,  clippings  from  new  copper,  brass,  in  bars  or 
pigs,  old  brass,  and  clippings  from  brass  or  Dutch  metal,  and  all 
composition  metal  of  which  copper  is  a component  material  of  chief 
value:  three  and  one  half  cents  per  pound;  in  plates,  bars,  ingots, 
Chili  or  other  pigs,  and  in  other  forms  not  manufactured,  or  euum- 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


59 


erated  in  this  act : four  cents  per  pound ; in  rolled  plates,  called 
brazier’s  copper,  sheets,  rods,  pipes,  and  copper  bottoms,  and  all 
manufactures  of  copper,  or  of  which  copper  shall  be  a component  of 
chief  value,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act: 
thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Lead  ore,  and  lead  dross  : oue  cent  per  pound. 

Lead,  in  pigs  and  bars,  molten  and  old  refuse  lead  run  into  blocks 
and  bars,  and  old  scrap  lead,  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured : one 
and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

Lead,  m sheets,  pipes,  or  shot:  two  and  one-quarter  cents  per  pound. 

Nickel,  in  ore,  matte,  or  other  crude  form  not  ready  for  consumption 
in  the  arts  : twenty  cents  per  pound  on  the  nickel  contained  therein. 

Nickel,  nickel  oxide,  alloy  of  any  kind  in  which  nickel  is  the  element 
of  chief  value,  and  ingots,  sheets,  or  other  forms  of  iron  or  other 
metal,  covered  or  plated  with  nickel,  and  wares  made  of  metal  so 
covered  or  plated  : twenty  five  cents  per  pound. 

Cobalt,  oxide  of,  thirty  cents  per  pound. 

Zinc,  spelter,  or  tuteuegue,  in  blocks  or  pigs,  and  old  worn-out  zinc, 
fit  only  to  be  remanufactured:  one  and  one-quarter  cents  per 
pound;  zinc,  spelter,  or  tutenegue  in  sheets,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Sheathing,  or  yellow  metal,  not  wholly  of  copper,  nor  wholly  nor  in 
part  of  iron,  ungalvanized,  in  sheets  forty-eight  inches  long  and 
fourteen  inches  wide,  and  weighing  from  fourteen  to  thirty -four 
ounces  per  square  foot : three  cents  per  pound. 

Antimony,  as  regulus  or  metal:  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bronze  powder:  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Cutlery,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act:  thirty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Dutch  or  bronze  metal,  in  leaf:  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Steel  plates,  engraved,  stereotype  plates,  and  new  types:  twenty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Gold  leaf:  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  package  of  five  hundred 
leaves. 

Hollow  ware,  coated,  glazed,  or  tinned  : three  cents  per  pound. 

Muskets,  rifies,  and  other  fire-arms:  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  val- 
orem. 

Needles,  for  knitting  or  sewing  machines:  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Needles,  sewing,  darning,  knitting,  and  all  others  not  specially  enu- 
merated or  provided  for  in  this  act:  twenty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Pen  knives,  and  pocket-knives  of  all  kinds,  and  swords,  sword  blades, 
and  side  arms:  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Pens,  metallic,  pen-tips  and  pen-holders,  or  parts  thereof : forty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Pins,  solid  head  or  other:  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Britannic  ware,  and  plated  and  gilt  articles  and  wares  of  all  kinds: 
thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Quicksilver:  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Silver  leaf:  seventy-five  cents  per  package  of  five  hundred  leaves. 

Type  metal:  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Chromate  of  iron,  or  chromic  ore:  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Metallic  substances  in  a crude  state,  and  metals  un  wrought,  not 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act:  twenty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 


60 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Manufactures,  articles  or  wares,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for  in  this  act,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  iron,  steel,  copper, 
lead,  nickel,  pewter,  tin,  zinc,  gold,  silver,  platinum,  or  any  other 
metal,  and  whether  partly  or  wholly  manufactured:  forty -five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  D. — Wood  and  wooden  wares. 

Timber,  hewn  and  sawed,  and  timber  used  for  spars  and  in  building 
wharves,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Timber,  squared  or  sided,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in 
this  act,  one  cent  per  cubic  foot. 

Sawed  boards,  plank,  deals,  and  other  lumber  of  hemlock,  white  wood, 
sycamore,  and  bass  wood,  one  dollar  per  one  thousand  feet,  board 
measure ; all  other  articles  of  sawed  lumber,  two  dollars  per  one 
thousand  feet,  board  measure.  But  when  lumber  of  any  sort  is 
planed  or  finished,  in  addition  to  the  rates  herein  provided,  there 
shall  be  levied  and  paid  for  each  side  so  planed  or  finished,  fifty 
cents  per  one  thousand  feet,  board  measure; 

And  if  planed  on  one  side  and  tongued  and  grooved,  one  dollar  per 
one  thousand  feet,  board  measure ; 

And  if  planed  on  two  sides,  and  tongued  and  grooved,  one  dollar  and 
fifty  cents  per  one  thousand  feet,  board  measure. 

Hubs  tor  wheels,  posts,  last  blocks,  wagon  blocks,  ore  blocks,  gun 
blocks,  heading  blocks,  and  all  like  blocks  or  sticks,  rough-hewn, 
or  sawed  only,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Staves  of  wood  of  all  kinds,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Pickets  and  palings,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Laths,  fifteen  cents  per  one  thousand  pieces. 

Shingles,  thirty-five  cents  per  one  thousand.  % 

Pine  clap  boards,  two  dollars  per  one  thousand. 

Spruce  clap  boards,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  one  thousand. 

House  or  cabinet  furniture,  in  pieces  or  rough,  and  not  finished,  thirty 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Cabinet  ware  and  house  furniture,  finished,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Casks  and  barrels,  empty,  sugar-box  shooks,  and  packing  boxes,  and 
packing-box  shooks,  of  wood,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for  in  this  act,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Manufactures  of  cedar- wood,  granadilla,  ebony,  mahogany,  rosewood, 
and  satin  wood,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Manufactures  of  wood,  or  of  which  wood  is  the  chief  component  part, 
not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Wood,  unmanufactured,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in 
this  act,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  E.  -Sugar. 

All  sugars  not  above  No.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  shall  pay  duty 
on  their  polariscopic  test,  as  follows,  viz: 

All  sugars  not  above  No.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  all  tank  bot- 
toms, sirups  of  cane  juice,  or  of  beet  juice,  melada,  concentrated 
melada,  concrete  and  concentrated  molasses,  testing  by  the  polari- 
scope  not  above  seventy- five  degrees,  shall  pay  a duty  of  one  and 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


61 


fifty  hundredths  cents  per  pound,  and  for  every  additional  degree 
or  fraction  of  a degree  shown  by  the  polariscope  test,  they  shall  pay 
five  hundredths  of  a cent  per  pound  additional. 

All  sugars  above  No.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  shall  be  classified 
by  the  Dutch  standard  of  color,  and  pay  duty  as  follows,  viz  : 

All  sugars  above  No.  13  and  not  above  No.  16  Dutch  standard,  three 
and  one-quarter  cents  per  pound.  All  sugar  above  No.  16  and  not 
above  No.  20  Dutch  standard,  three  and  seventy-five  hundredths 
cents  per  pound.  All  sugars  above  No.  20  Dutch  standard,  four 
and  one-quarter  cents  per  pound. 

Molasses  testing  not  above  fifty -six  degrees  by  the  polariscope,  shall 
pay  a duty  of  five  and  one-half  cents  per  gallon.  Molasses  testing 
above  fifty-six  degrees,  shall  pay  a duty  of  ten  cenls  per  gallon. 

Sugar  candy,  not  colored,  five  cents  per  pound. 

All  other  confectionery,  not  specially  enumerated  or.  provided  for  in 
this  act,  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  sugar,  and  on  sugars  after  being 
refined,  when  tinctured,  colored,  or  in  any  way  adulterated,  valued 
at  thirty  cents  per  pound  or  less,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Confectionery  valued  above  thirty  cents  jmr  pound,  or  when  sold  by 
the  box,  package,  or  otherwise  than  by  the  pound,  fifty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Schedule  F. — Tobacco. 

Cigars,  cigarettes,  and  cheroots  of  all  kinds:  three  dollars  per  pound ; 
but  paper  cigars  and  cigarettes,  including  wrappers,  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  the  same  duties  as  are  herein  imposed  upon  cigars. 

Tobacco  in  leaf,  unmanufactured,  and  not  stemmed : thirty-five  cents 
per  pound. 

Tobacco-sterns,  fifteen  cents  per  pound. 

Tobaec#  manufactured,  of  all  descriptions,  and  stemmed  tobacco,  not 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act : fifty  cents  per 
pound. 

Snuff  and  snuff-flour,  manufactured  of  tobacco;  ground,  dry  or  damp, 
and  pickled,  scented,  or  otherwise,  of  all  descriptions:  fifty  cents 
per  pound. 

Tobacco  unmanufactured,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in 
this  act : thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  G. — Provisions. 

Animals,  live,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Beef  and  pork,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Hams  and  bacon,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Cheese,  four  cents  per  pound. 

Butter,  and  substitutes  therefor,  four  cents  per  pound. 

Lard,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Wheat,  twenty  cents  per  bushel. 

Rye  and  barley,  fifteen  cents  per  bushel. 

Barley  malt,  per  bushel  of  thirty -four  pounds,  twenty-five  cents. 

Indian  corn  or  maize,  ten  cents  per  bushel. 

Oats,  ten  cents  per  bushel. 

Corn-meal,  ten  cents  per  bushel  of  forty-eight  pounds. 

Oat  meal,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Rye-flour,  one  cent  per  pound. 

•Wheat-flour,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


62 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Potato  or  corn  starch,  one  cent  per  pound.  Rice  starch,  two  and  a 
half  cents  per  pound.  Other  starch,  two  and  a half  cents  per 
pound. 

Rice,  cleaned,  two  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound.  Uncleaned,  one 
and  three-fourth  cents  per  pound.  Paddy,  one  and  one-fourth 
cents  per  pound. 

Rice-flour,  two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

Honey,  twenty  cents  per  gallon. 

Hops,  eight  cents  per  pound. 

Milk,  preserved  or  condensed,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Fish : 

Mackerel,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Herrings,  pickled  or  salted,  three-quarters  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Salmon,  pickled,  one  cent  per  pound  ; other  fish  pickled  in  barrels,  one 
cent  per  pound. 

Foreign- caught  fish,  imported  otherwise  than  in  barrels  or  half  bar- 
rels, whether  fresh,  smoked,  dried,  salted,  or  pickled,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  fifty  cents  per  hundred 
pounds. 

Anchovies  and  sardines,  packed  in  oil  or  .otherwise,  in  tin  boxes 
measuring  not  more  than  five  inches  long,  four  inches  wide,  and 
three  and  one-half  inches  deep,  ten  cents  per  whole  box ; in  half 
boxes,  measuring  not  more  than  five  inches  long,  four  inches  wide, 
and  one  and  five-eighths  deep,  five  cents  each;  in  quarter  boxes, 
measuring  not  more  than  four  inches  and  three-quarters  long,  three 
and  one-half  inches  wide,  and  one  and  a quarter  deep,  two  and  one- 
half  cents  each ; when  imported  in  any  other  form,  forty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Fish  preserved  in  oil,  except  anchovies  and  sardines,  thirty  per  centum 
ad  valorem.  * 

Salmon,  and  all  other  fish,  prepared  or ’preserved,  and  prepared  meats 
of  all  kinds,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act, 
twenty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Pickles  and  sauces,  of  all  kinds,  not  otherwise  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Potatoes,  fifteen  cents  per  bushel  of  sixty  pounds. 

Yegetables,  in  their  natural  state,  or  in  salt  or  brine,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Chicory  root,  ground  or  un ground,  burnt  or  prepared,  three  cents 
per  pound. 

Vinegar,  seven  and  one-half  cents  per  gallon.  The  standard  for  vin- 
egar shall  be  taken  to  be  that  strength  which  requires  thirty-five 
grains  of  bicarbonate  of  potash  to  neutralize  one  ounce  Troy  of  vin- 
egar, and  all  import  duties  that  may  be  imposed  by  law  on  vinegar 
imported  from  foreign  countries  shall  be  collected  according  to  this 
standard. 

Acorns,  and  dandelion  root,  raw  or  prepared,  and  all  other  articles 
used  or  intended  to  be  used  as  coffee,  or  as  substitutes  therefor, 
not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  three  cents 
per  pound. 

Chocolate,  prepared  or  unprepared,  two  cents  per  pound.  . 

Cocoa,  prepared  or  manufactured,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Fruits : 

Currants : Zante  or  other,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Hates,  plums,  and  prunes,  one  cent  per  pound. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


63 


Fruits — C ou  ti  n ued. 

Figs,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Oranges,  in  boxes  of  capacity  not  exceeding  two  and  one-half  cubic 
feet,  twenty-five  cents  per  box  ; in  one-half  boxes,  capacity  not  ex- 
ceeding one  and  one-fourth  cubic  feet,  thirteen  cents  per  half  box; 
in  bulk,  one  dollar  and  sixty  cents  per  thousand ; in  barrels,  capa- 
city not  exceeding  that  of  the  196  pounds  flour  barrel,  fifty-five 
cents  per  barrel. 

Lemons,  in  boxes  of  capacity  not  exceeding  two  and  one-half  cubic 
feet,  thirty  cents  per  box ; in  one-half  boxes,  capacity  not  exceed- 
ing one  and  one-fourth  cubic  feet,  sixteen  cents  per  half  box ; in 
bulk,  two  dollars  per  thousand. 

Lemons  and  oranges,  in  packages,  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Limes,  and  grapes,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Raisins,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Fruits,  preserved  in  their  own  juices,  and  fruit  juice,  twenty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Sweetmeats,  and  jellies  of  all  kinds,  thirty-five  per  centum  and  val- 
orem. 

Nuts: 

Almonds,  five  cents  per  pound  ; shelled,  seven  and  one  half  cents  per 
pound;  filberts,  and  walnuts,  of  all  kinds,  three  cents  per  pound. 

Peanuts  or  ground  beans,  one  cent,  per  pound  ; shelled,  one  undone- 
half  cents  per  pound. 

Nuts,  of  all  kinds,  shelled  or  unshelled,  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  in  this  act,  two  ceuts  per  pound. 

Mustard,  ground  or  preserved,  in  bottles  or  otherwise,  ten  cents  per 
pound. 

^ Schedule  H. — Liquors. 

Champagne,  and  all  other  sparkling  wines,  in  bottles  containing  each 
not  more  than  one  quart  and  more  than  one  pint,  six  dollars  per 
dozen  bottles ; containing  not  more  than  one  pint  each,  and  more 
than  one  half  pint,  three  dollars  per  dozen  bottles;  containing  one 
half  pint  each,  or  less,  one  dollar  and  fifty  ceuts  per  dozen  bottles  ; 
in  bottles  containing  more  than  one  quart  each,  in  addition  to  six 
dollars  per  dozen  bottles,  at  the  rate  of  two  dollars  per  gallon  on 
the  quantity  in  excess  of  one  quart  per  bottle. 

Still  wines,  in  casks,  forty  cents  per  gallon;  in  bottles,  one  dollar  and 
sixty  cents  per  case  of  one  dozen  bottles  containing  each  not  more 
than  one  quart  and  more  than  one  pint,  or  twenty-four  bottles  con- 
taing  each  not  more  than  one  pint ; and  any  excess  beyond  these 
quantities  found  in  such  bottles  shall  be  subject  to  a duty  of  five 
cents  per  pint  or  fractional  part  thereof;  but  no  separate  or  addi- 
tional duty  shall  be  collected  on  the  bottles. 

Provided,  That  any  wines  imported  containing  more  than  twenty- 
four  per  centum  of  alcohol,  shall  be  forfeited  to  the  United  States : 
Provided,  also,  that  there  shall  be  no  allowance  for  breakage,  leak- 
age, or  damage  on  wines,  liquors,  cordials,  or  distilled  spirits. 

Vermuth,  the  same  duty  as  on  still  wines. 

Wines,  brandy,  and  other  spirituous  liquors  imported  in  bottles, 
shall  be  packed  in  packages  containing  not  less  than  one  dozen 
bottles  in  each  package ; and  all  such  bottles,  except  as  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  shall  pay  an  additional  duty 
of  three  cents  for  each  bottle. 


64 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Brand v,  and  other  spirits  manufactured  or  distilled  from  grain  or 
other  materials  and  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in 
this  act,  two  dollars  per  proof  gallon ; each  and  every  gauge  or 
wine-gallon  of  measurement  shall  be  counted  as  at  least  one  proof 
gallon  ; and  the  standard  for  determining  the  proof  of  brandy  and 
other  spirits  or  liquors  of  any  kind  imported  shall  be  the  same  as 
that  which  is  defined  in  the  laws  relating  to  internal  revenue ; but 
any  brandy  or  other  spirituous  liquors  imported  in  casks  of  less 
capacity  than  fourteen  gallons  shall  be  forfeited  to  the  United 
States. 

On  all  compounds  or  preparations  of  which  distilled  spirits  is  a compo- 
nent part  of  chief  value,  not  specially  enumerated  or  i)rovided  for 
in  this  act,  there  shall  be  levied  a duty  not  less  than  that  imposed 
upon  distilled  spirits. 

Cordials,  liquors,  arrack,  absinthe,  kirschwasser,  ratafia,  and  other 
similar  spirituous  beverages  or  bitters,  containing  spirits,  and  not 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  two  dollars  per 
proof  gallon. 

No  lower  rate  or  amount  of  duty  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid 
on  brandy,  spirits,  and  other  spirituous  beverages  than  that  fixed 
by  law  for  the  description  of  first  proof ; but  it  shall  be  increased 
in  proportion  for  any  greater  strength  than  the  strength  of  first 
proof;  and  all  imitations  of  brandy  or  spirits  or  wines  imported  by 
any  names  whatever,  shall  be  subject  to  the  highest  rate  of  duty 
provided  for  the  genuine  articles  respectively  intended  to  be  repre- 
sented, and  in  no  case  less  than  one  dollar  per  gallon. 

Bay-rum,  or  bay- water,  whether  distilled  or  compounded,  one  dollar 
per  gallon  of  first  proof,  and  in  proportion  for  any  greater  strength 
than  first-proof. 

Ale,  porter,  and  beer,  in  bottles,  or  jugs  of  glass,  stone,  or  earthen- 
ware, thirty-five  cents  per  gallon ; otherwise  than  in  bottles  or  jugs 
of  glass,  stone,  or  earthenware,  twenty  cents  per  gallon. 

Schedule  I. — Cotton  and  cotton  goods. 

Cotton  threads,  yarns,  warps,  warp  yarn,  for  weaving,  whether  single 
or  advanced  beyond  the  condition  of  single  by  twisting  two  or  more 
single  yarns  together,  whether  on  beams,  or  in  bundles,  skeins,  or 
cops,  or  in  any  other  form,  valued  at  not  exceeding  twenty-five  cents 
per  pound,  seven  and  a half  cents  per  pound  ; valued  at  over  twenty- 
five  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  forty  cents  per  pound,  fif- 
teen cents  per  pound;  valued  at ‘over  forty  cents  per  pound,  and 
not  exceediug  fifty  cents  per  pound,  twenty  cents  per  pound ; val- 
ued at  over  fifty  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  sixty  cents  per 
pound,  twenty-five  bents  per  pound  ; valued  at  over  sixty  cents  per 
pound,  and  not  exceeding  seventy  cents  per  pound,  thirty  cents  per 
pound  ; valued  at  over  seventy  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding 
eighty  cents  per  pound,  thirty-six  cents  per  pound  ; valued  at  over 
eighty  cents  per  pound,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Cotton,  manufactures  of,  unbleached,  valued  at  eight  cents  or  less  per 
square  yard,  three  cents  per  square  yard ; valued  at  over  eight 
cents  per  square  yard,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem ; bleached, 
valued  at  ten  cents  or  less  per  square  yard,  four  cents  per  square 
yard  ; valued  at  over  ten  cents  per  square  yard,  forty  per  centum 
ad  valorem  : colored,  stained,  painted,  or  printed,  valued  at  fifteen 
cents  or  less  per  square  yard,  six  cents  per  square  yard  ; valued  at 
over  fifteen  cents  per  square  yard,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


65 


Cotton  velvet,  cotton  laces,  gimps,  and  galloons,  cotton  shirts  and 
drawers,  woven  or  made  on  frames,  cotton  hosiery,  cotton  braids,  in- 
sertings,  laces,  trimmings,  and  all  manufactures  of  cotton  not 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  forty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Spool-thread  of  cotton,  six  cents  per  dozen  spools,  containing  on  each 
spool  not  exceeding  one  hundred  yards  of  thread  ; exceeding  one 
hundred  yardS,  for  every  additional  one  hundred  yards  of  thread 
on  each  spool  or  fractional  part  thereof  in  excess  of  one  hundred 
yards,  six  cents  per  dozen. 

Schedule  J. — Hemp,  Jute,  and  Flax  Goods. 

Flax  straw,  five  dollars  per  ton. 

Flax,  not  hackled  or  dressed,  twenty  dollars  per  ton. 

Flax,  hackled,  known  as  u dressed  line,”  forty  dollars  per  ton. 

Tow,  of  flax  or  hemp,  ten  dollars  per  ton. 

Hemp,  manila,  and  other  like  substitutes  for  hemp,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty-five  dollars  per 
ton. 

Jute,  sunn,  sisal  grass,  and  other  vegetable  substances,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  and  cordage,  fifteen  dollars 
per  ton. 

Brown  and  bleached  linens,  ducks,  canvas,  paddings,  cot  bottoms, 
diapers,  crash,  huckabacks,  handkerchiefs,  lawns,  or  other  manu- 
factures of  flax,  jute,  or  hemp,  or  of  which  flax,  jute,  or  hemp 
shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  enu- 
merated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Flax,  hemp,  and  jute  yarns,  for  carpets,  valued  at  twenty-four  cents 
or  less  per  pound,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem  ; valued  at  above 
twenty-four  cents  per  pound,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Flax  or  linen  thread,  twine,  and  pack-thread,  and  all  manufactures 
of  flax,  or  of  which  flax  shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief 
value,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  forty 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Flax  or  linen  laces  and  insertings,  embroideries,  manufactures  of 
linen,  if  embroidered  or  tamboured  in  the  loom  or  otherwise,  by 
machinery  or  with  the  needle,  or  other  process,  and  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  forty  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Burlaps,  not  exceeding  sixty  indhes  in  width,  of  flax,  jute,  or  hemp,  or 
of  which  flax,  jute,  or  hemp,  or  either  of  them,  shall  be  the  com- 
ponent material  of  chief  value  (except  such  as  may  be  suitable  for 
bagging  for  cotton),  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Oil-cloth  foundations,  or  floor  cloth  canvas,  or  burlaps,  exceeding 
sixty  inches  in  width,  made  of  flax,  jute,  or  hemp,  or  of  which  flax, 
jute,  or  hemp,  or  either  of  them,  shall  be  the  component  material 
of  chief  value,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Gunny  cloth,  not  bagging,  valued  at  ten  cents  or  less  per  square 
yard,  three  cents  per  pound;  valued  at  over  ten  cents  per  square 
yard,  four  cents  per  pound. 

Bags  and  bagging,  and  like  manufactures,  not  specially  enumer- 
ated or  provided  for  in  this  act  (except  bagging  for  cotton),  com- 
posed wholly  or  in  part  of  flax,  hemp,  jute,  gunny  cloth,  gunny- 
bags,  or  other  material,  forty  per  centum  ad  volorem. 

H.  Mis.  6 5 


66 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Bagging  for  cotton,  or  other  manufactures  not  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act,  suitable  to  the  uses  for  which  cotton 
bagging  is  applied,  composed  in  whole  or  in  part  of  hemp,  jute, 
flax,  gunny-bags,  gunny-cloth,  or  other-  material,  and  valued  at 
seven  cents  or  less  per  square  yard,  oue  and  one-half  cents  per 
pound ; valued  at  over  seven  cents  per  square  yard,  two  cents  per 
pound. 

Tarred  cables  or  cordage,  three  cents  per  pound. 

Untarred  manila  cordage,  two  and  one-lialf  cents  per  pound. 

All  other  untarred  cordage,  three  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

Seines,  six  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

Sail  duck,  or  canvas  for  sails,  thirty  per  centum  ad  volorem. 

Bussia  and  other  sheetings,  of  flax  or  hemp,  brown  or  white,  thirty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  other  manufactures  of  hemp,  or  of  which  hemp  shall  be  a compo- 
nent material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for  in  this  act,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Grass  cloth,  and  other  manufactures  of  jute,  ramie,  China,  and  sisal- 
grass,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valdrem. 

Schedule  K. — Wool  and  woolens. 

All  wools,  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  animals,  shall  be  divided, 
for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  duties  to  be  charged  thereon,  into  the 
three  following  classes : 

Class  1,  clothing  wools. — That  is  to  say,  merino,  mestiza,  metz,  or 
metis  wools,  or  other  wools  of  merino  blood,  immediate  or  remote, 
and  wools  of  like  character  with  any  of  the  preceding,  including 
such  as  have  been  heretofore  usually  imported  into  the  United 
States  from  Buenos  Ayres,  New  Zealand,  Australia,  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  Bussia,  Great  Britain,  Canada,  and  elsewhere,  and  also  in- 
cluding all  wools  not  hereinafter  described  or  designated  in  classes 
2 and  3. 

Class  2,  combing  wools. — That  is  to  say,  Leicester,  Cotswold,  Lincoln- 
shire, Down  combing  wools,  Canada  long  wools,  or  other  like  comb- 
ing wools  of  English  blood,  and  usually  known  by  the  terms  herein 
used,  and  also  all  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  animals. 

Class  3,  carpet  wools  and  other  similar  wools — such  as  Donskoi,  native 
South  American,  Cordova,  Valparaiso,  native  Smyrna,  and  includ- 
ing all  such  wools  of  like  character  as  have  been  heretofore  usually 
imported  into  the  United  States  from  Turkey,  Greece,  Egypt,  Syria, 
and  elsewhere. 

The  duty  on  wools  of  all  classes  which  shall  be  imported  washed 
shall  be  twice  the  amount  of  the  duty  to  which  they  would  be  sub- 
jected if  imported  unwashed;  and  the  duty  on  wools  of  all  classes 
which  shall  be  imported  scoured  shall  be  three  times  the  duty  to 
which  they  would  be  subjected  if  imported  unwashed.  The  duty 
upon  wool  of  the  sheep,  or  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other 
animals,  which  shall  be  imported  in  any  other  than  ordinary  con- 
dition, as  now  and  heretofore  practiced,  or  which  shall  be  changed 
in  its  character  or  condition  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  duty, 
or  which  shall  be  reduced  in  value  by  the  admixture  of  dirt  or  any 
other  foreign  substance,  shall  be  twice  the  duty  to  which  it  would 
be  otherwise  subject. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


67 


Wools  of  the  first  class,  the  value  whereof  at  the  last  port  or  place 
whence  exported  to  the  United  States,  excluding  charges  in  such 
port,  shall  be  thirty  cents  or  less  per  pound,  ten  cents  per  pound. 
Wools  of  the  same  class,  the  value  whereof  at  the  last  port  or 
place  whence  exported  to  the  United  States,  excluding  charges  in 
such  port,  shall  exceed  thirty  cents  per  pound,  twelve  cents  per 
pound . 

Wools  of  the  second  class,  and  all  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other 
animals,  the  value  whereof,  at  the  last  port  or  place  whence  ex- 
ported to  the  United  States,  excluding  charges  in  such  port,  shall 
be  thirty  cents  or  less  per  pound,  ten  cents  per  pound 5 wools  of  the 
same  class,  the  value  whereof  at  the  last  port  or  place  whence  ex- 
ported to  the  United  States,  excluding  charges  in  such  port,  shall 
exceed  thirty  cents  per  pound,  twelve  cents  per  pound. 

Wools  of  the  third  class,  the  value  whereof,  at  the  last  port  or  place 
whence  exported  to  the  United  States,  excluding  charges  in  such 
port,  shall  be  twelve  cents  or  less  per  pound,  two  and  a half  cents 
per  pound ; wools  of  the  same  class,  the  value  whereof,  at  the  last 
port  or  place  whence  exported  to  the  United  States,  excluding 
charges  in  such  port,  shall  exceed  twelve  cents  per  pound,  five  cents 
per  pound. 

Wools  on  the  skin,  the  same  rates  as  other  wools,  the  quantity  and 
value  to  be  ascertained  under  such  rules  as  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  may  prescribe. 

Sheep  skins,  and  Angora  goat-skins,  raw  or  manufactured,  imported 
with  the  wool  on,  washed  or  unwashed,  thirty  per  centum  ad 
valorem  on  the  skins  alone. 

Woolen  rags,  shoddy,  mungo,  waste,  flocks,  and  all  other  substitutes 
for  wool,  twelve  cents  per  pound. 

Woolen  cloths,  woolen  .shawls,  and  all  manufactured  of  wool  of  every 
description,  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  not  specially  enum- 
erated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  valued  at  not  exceeding  one 
dollar  per  pound,  thirty  cents  per  pound,  and  thirty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem;  valued  at  above  one  dollar  per  pound,  thirty  five  cents 
per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Flannels,  blankets,  hats  of  wool,. knit  goods,  and  all  goods  made  on 
knitting-frames,  balmorals,  woolen  and  worsted  yarns,  and  all  man- 
ufactures of  every  description,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of 
worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  except  such 
as  are  composed  in  part  of  wool  not  otherwise  provided  for  in  this 
act,  valued  at  not  exceeding  thirty  cents  per  pound,  eight  cents 
per  pound;  valued  at  above  thirty  cents  per  pound  and  not  exceed- 
ing forty  cents  per  pound,  twelve  cents  per  pound;  valued  at  above 
forty  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  sixty  cents  per  pound, 
eighteen  cents  per  pound;  valued  at  above  sixty  cents  per  pound, 
and  not  exceeding  eighty  cents  per  pound,  twenty-four  cents  per 
pound  ; valued  at  above  eighty  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceed- 
ing one  dollar  per  pound,  thirty  cents  per  pound;  and  in  addi- 
tion thereto,  upon  all  the  above  named  articles,  thirty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  valued  at  above  one  dollar  per  pound,  thirty- 
five  cents  per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto  forty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Bunting,  twelve  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  thirty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Women’s  and  children’s  dress-goods,  coat-linings,  Italian  cloths,  and 
goods  of  like  description,  now  and  heretofore  kuown  as  worsted 
stuffs,  the  warp  of  which  is  made  wrholly  of  cotton,  linen,  ramie, 


6 8 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


China  grass,  or  other  vegetable  materials,  or  of  a combination  of  them, 
and  the  weft  of  which  is  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted, 
the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  valued  at  not  ex- 
ceeding twenty  cents  per  square  yard,  five  cents  per  square  yard, 
and  in  addition  thereto  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem  ; valued  at 
above  twenty  cents  per  square  yard,  seven  cents  per  square  yard, 
and  in  addition  thereto  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Provided , That  on  all  goods  weighing  four  ounces  and  over  per  square 
yard  the  duty  shall  be  the  same  as  is  imposed  on  woolen  shawls, 
woolen  cloths,  etc.,  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Women’s  and  children’s  dress-goods,  and  coat-linings,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  the  warp  or  weft  of  which 
is  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca, 
goat,  or  other  animals,  or  of  a mixture  of  them,  and  on  all  goods  of 
like  description,  twelve  cents  per  square  yard  and  forty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Provided , That  all  such  goods  weighing  over  five  ounces  per  square 
yard  shall  pay  a duty  of  thirty-five  cents  per  pound  and  forty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Clothing,  ready-made,  and  wearing  apparel  of  every  description,  and 
balmoral  skirts  and  skirting,  and  goods  of  similar  description,  or 
used  for  like  purposes,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted, 
the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  made  up  or  manu- 
factured wholly  or  in  part  by  the  tailor,  seamstress,  or  manufacturer, 
except  knit  goods,  thirty  cents  per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto 
thirty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Webbings,  gorings,beltings,bindings,braids,  galloons,  fringes,  gimps, 
cords,  cords  and  tassels,  dress-trimmings,  head-nets,  buttons,  or 
barrel  buttons,  or  buttons  of  other  forms,  for  tassels  or  ornaments, 
wrought  by  hand  or  braided  by  machinery,  made  of  wool,  worsted, 
the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  or  of  which  wool, 
worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  is  a com- 
ponent material,  thirty  cents  per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto 
fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Aubusson,  Axminster,  and  chenille  carpets,  and  carpets  woven  whole 
for  rooms,  forty-five  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto 
thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Saxony,  Wilton,  and  Tournay  velvet  carpets,  wrought  by  the  Jac- 
quard machine,  forty-five  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition 
thereto  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Brussels  carpets,  wrought  by  the  Jacquard  machine,  thirty  cents  per 
square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Patent  velvet  and  tapestry  velvet  carpets,  printed  on  the  warp  or 
otherwise,  twenty -five  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition 
thereto  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Tapestry  Brussels  carpets,  printed  on  the  warp  or  otherwise,  twenty 
cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  thirty-five  per  cen- 
tum ad  valorem. 

Treble  ingrain,  three-ply,  and  worsted  chain  Venetian  carpets,  twelve 
cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  thirty  five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Yarn  Venetian,  and  two-pty  ingrain  carpets,  eight  cents  per  square 
yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Druggets  and  bookings,  printed,  colored,  or  otherwise,  fifteen  cents 
per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  thirty- five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


69 


Hemp  or  jute  carpeting,  six  cents  per  square  yard. 

Carpets  and  carpentings  of  wool,  flax,  or  cotton,  or  parts  of  either  or 
other  material,  not  otherwise  herein  specified,  forty  per  centum  ad 
valorem ; and  mats,  rugs,  screens,  covers,  hassocks,  bedsides,  and 
other  portions  of  carpets  or  carpetings  shall  be  subjected  to  the 
rate  of  duty  herein  imposed  on  carpets  or  carpeting  of  like  character 
or  description;  and  the  duty  on  all  other  mats,  not  exclusively  of 
vegetable  material,  screens,  hassocks,  and  rugs,  shall  be  forty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  L. — Silk  and  silk  goods. 

Silk,  particularly  manufactured  from  cocoons,  or  waste  silk,  and  not 
further  advanced  or  manufactured  than  carded  or  combed  silk, 
fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Thrown  silk,  in  gum,  not  more  advanced  than  singles,  tram,  organ- 
zine,  sewing  silk,  twist,  floss,  in  the  gum,  and  spun  silk,  one  dollar 
and  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

Silk  threads  or  yarns,  of  every  discription,  purified  or  dried,  two  dol- 
lars and  fifty  cents  per  pound. 

All  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  hot  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  made  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  com- 
ponent material  of  chief  value,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  M. — Books,  papers,  etc. 

Books,  periodicals,  pamphlets,  bound  or  unbound,  and  all  printed 
matter  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  en- 
gravings, bound  or  unbound,  etchings,  illustrated  books,  maps, 
and  charts,  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Blank  books,  bound  or  unbound,  and  blank  books  for  press  copying, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Paper,  sized  or  glued,  suitable  only  for  printing  paper,  twenty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Printing  paper,  unsized,  used  for  books  and  newspapers  exclusively, 
fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Paper,  manufactures  of,  or  of  which  paper  is  a component  material, 
not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  fifteen  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Sheathing  paper,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Paper  boxes,  and  all  other  fancy  boxes,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Paper  envelopes,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Paper-hangings  and  paper  for  screens  or  fire-boards,  paper,  antiqua- 
rian, demy,  drawing,  elephant,  foolscap,  imperial,  letter,  note,  and 
all  other  paper  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act, 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  N. — Sundries. 

Alabaster  and  spar  statuary  and  ornaments,  ten  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Baskets  and  all  other  articles  composed  of  grass,  osier,  palm  leaf, 
whalebone,  or  willow,  or  straw,  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


70 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Beads,  and  bead  ornaments  of  all  Kinds,  except  amber,  fifty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Blacking  of  all  kinds,  twenty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bladders,  manufactures  of,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bone,  horn,  ivory,  or  vegetable  ivory,  all  manufactures  of,  not  spe- 
cially enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Bonnets,  hats,  and  hoods  for  men,  women,  and  children,  composed 
of  chip,  grass,  palm-leaf,  willow,  or  straw,  or  any  other  vegetable 
substance,  hair,  whalebone,  or  other  material,  not  specially  enu- 
merated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bouillons,  or  cannetille,  metal  threads,  file,  or  gespinst,  twenty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bristles,  fifteen  cents  per  pound. 

Brooms  of  all  kinds,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Brushes  of  all  kinds,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bulbs  and  bulbous  roots,  not  medicinal,  and  not  specially  enumer- 
ated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Burr-stones,  manufactured  or  bound  up  into  mill-stones,  twenty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Buttons  and  button-molds,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for  in  this  act,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Candles  and  tapers  of  all  kinds,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Canes  and  sticks  for  walking,  finished,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem  $ if  unfinished,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Card-cases,  pocket-books,  shell  boxes,  souvenirs,  and  all  similar  ar- 
ticles, of  whatever  material  composed,  and  by  whatever  name 
known,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Carriages  and  parts  of,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in 
this  act,  thirty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Chronometers,  box  or  ship’s,  and  parts  thereof,  ten  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Clocks,  and  parts  of  clocks,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Coach  and  harness  furniture  of  all  kinds,  saddlery,  coach  and  harness 
hardware,  silver-plated,  brass,  brass-plated,  or  covered,  common, 
tinned,  burnished,  or  japanned,  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Coal  slack  or  culm,  such  as  will  pass  through  a half-inch  screen,  thirty 
cents  per  ton  of  twenty-eight  bushels,  eighty  pounds  to  the  bushel. 

Coal,  bituminous,  and  shale,  fifty  cents  per  ton  of  twenty-eight  bush- 
els, eighty  pounds  to  the  bushel. 

Coke,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Combs  of  all  kinds,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Comfits,  sweetmeats,  or  fruits  preserved  in  sugar,  brandy,  or  molasses, 
not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Compositions  of  glass  or  paste,  when  not  set,  ten  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Coral,  cut,  manufactured,  or  set,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Corks  and  cork  bark,  manufactured,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Crayons  of  all  kinds,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Dice,  draughts,  chess  men,  chess  balls,  and  billiard  and  bagatelle 
balls,  of  ivory  or  bone,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Dolls  and  toys,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


71 


Emery  ore,  five  dollars  per  ton. 

Emery  grains  and  emery  manufactured,  ground,  pulverized,  or  re- 
fined, one  cent  per  pound. 

Epaulets,  galloons,  laces,  knots,  stars,  tassels,  and  wings,  of  gold,  sil- 
ver, or  other  metal,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Fans  of  all  kinds,  except  common  palm-leaf  fans,  of  whatever  mate- 
rial composed,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Feathers  of  all  kinds,  crude  or  not  dressed,  colored  or  manufactured, 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  when  dressed,  colored,  or  manu- 
factured, including  dressed  and  finished  birds,  for  millinery  orna- 
ments, and  artificial  and  ornamental  feathers  and  flowers,  or  parts 
thereof,  of  whatever  material  composed,  for  millinery  use,  not  spe- 
cially enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  fifty  per  ceutum  ad 
valorem.  « 

Finishing  powder,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Fire  crackers  of  all  kinds,  one  hundred  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Floor  matting  and  floor  mats,  exclusively  of  vegetable  substances, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Fulminates,  fulminating  powders,  and  all  like  articles,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Fur,  articles  made  of,  and  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for 
in  this  act,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Gloves,  kid  or  leather,  of  all  descriptions,  fifty  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Grease,  all  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  ten 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Grind-stones,  rough  or  unfinished,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem ; fin- 
ished, twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Gun])owder,  and  all  explosive  substances  used  for  mining,  blasting, 
artillery,  or  sporting  purposes,  and  all  fire-works,  or  parts  thereof, 
not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Gun-wads,  of  all  descriptions,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Gutta-percha,  manufactured,  and  all  articles  of,  not  specially  enume- 
rated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirtv-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

H air,  human,  bracelets,  braids,  chains,  rings,  curls,  and  ringlets,  com- 
posed of  hair,  or  of  which  hair  is  the  component  material  of  chief 
value,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Curled  hair,  except  of  hogs,  used  for  beds  or  mattresses,  twenty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Human  hair,  raw,  uncleaned  and  not  drawn,  twenty  per  centum  ad 
valorem.  If  clean  or  drawn,  but  not  manufactured,  thirty  per 
centum  ad  valorem.  When  manufactured,  thirty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Horse-liair,  and  hair  of  all  kinds,  cleaned  or  uncleaned,  but  unman- 
ufactured, and  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act, 
ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Hair  cloth,  known  as  u crinoline  cloth,”  and  all  other  manufactures 
of  hair  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Hair  cloth,  known  as  “hair  seating,”  eighteen  inches  wide  or  over, 
thirty  cents  per  square  yard ; less  than  eighteen  inches  wide,  twenty- 
five  cents  per  square  yard. 

Hair  pencils,  thirty  j)er  ceutum  ad  valorem. 


72 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Hats,  &c.,  materials  for.  Braids,  plaits,  flats,  laces,  trimmings,  tis- 
sues, willow  sheets  and  squares,  used  for  making  or  ornamenting 
hats,  bonnets,  and  hoods,  composed  of  straw,  chip,  grass,  palm  leaf, 
willow,  hair,  whalebone  or  any  (ftlier  substance  or  material,  not  spe- 
cially enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Hatters’  furs,  not  on  the  skin,  and  dressed  furs  on  the  skin,  twenty 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Hemp  seed  and  rapeseed,  and  other  oil  seeds  of  like  character,  other 
than  linseed  or  flaxseed,  one  quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

India-rubber,  manufactures  of,  except  manufactures  of  India-rubber 
and  silk,  and  manufactures  of  India-rubber  and  wool,  and  articles 
composed  wholly  of  India-rubber,  and  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Inks  of  all  kinds  and  ink  powders,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Japanned  ware  of  all  kinds,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for 
in  this  act,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Jet,  manufactures  and  imitations  of,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Jewelry  of  all  kinds,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Leather,  bend  or  belting  leather,  and  Spanish  or  other  sole  leather, 
fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Calfskins,  tanned  or  untanned,  and  dressed  upper  leather  of  all  other 
kinds,  and  skins  dressed  and  finished  of  all  kinds  not  specially  enu- 
merated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  and  skins  of  morocco,  finished, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Skins  for  morocco,  tanned,  but  unfinished,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  manufactures  and  articles  of  leather,  or  of  which  leather  shall  be 
a component  part,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this* 
act,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Lime,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Linseed  or  flaxseed,  twenty  cents  per  bushel  of  fifty-six  pounds;  but 
no  drawback  shall  be  allowed  on  oil-cake  made  from  imported  seed. 

Marble  of  all  kinds,  in  block,  rough  or  squared ; veined  marble, 
sawed,  dressed,  or  otherwise,  including  marble  slabs  and  marble 
paving  tiles,  seventy-five  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

All  manufactures  of  marble  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for 
in  this  act,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Musical  instruments  of  all  kinds,  twenty  five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Osier,  or  willow,  prepared  for  basket-makers’  use,  twenty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Papier-mache,  manufactures,  articles,  and  wares  of,  thirty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Pencils  of  wood,  filled  with  lead  or  other  material  (except  slate),  and 
pencils  of  lead,  and  pencil  leads  not  in  wood,  thirty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Percussion  caps,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Philosophical  apparatus  and  instruments,  forty  per  centum  ad  valo- 
rem : Provided,  that  any  philosopliical  apparatus  and  instruments 
imported  for  the  use  of  any  society  incorporated  for  religious  pur- 
poses shall  be  subject  to  a duty  of  only  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Pipes, pipe  bowls,  and  all  smokers’  articles  whatsoever,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  one  hundred  per  centum  ad 
valorem  ; all  common  pipes  of  clay  not  glazed,  colored,  painted,  or 
tipped,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


73 


Plants,  trees,  shrubs,  and  vines  of  all  kinds  not  otherwise  provided 
for,  and  seeds  of  all  kinds,  except  medicinal  seeds,  or  seeds  not 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Plaster  of  Paris,  when  ground  or  calcined,  twenty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Playing  cards,  one  hundred  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Polishing  powders  of  every  description,  by  whatever  name  known, 
including  Frankfort  black,  and  Berlin,  Chinese,  fig  and  wash  blue, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Precious  stones  of  all  kinds,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Bags,  of  whatever  material  composed,  and  not  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act,  ten  per  Centum  ad  valorem. 

Rattans,  and  reeds  manufactured,  but  not  made  up  into  completed 
articles,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Salt,  in  bags,  sacks,  barrels,  or  other  packages,  ten  cents  per  onehun- 
dred  pounds ; in  bulk,  six  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds. 

Scagliola,  and  composition  tops  for  tables,  or  other  articles  of  furni- 
ture, thirty- five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Sealing-wax,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Shells,  whole  or  parts  of,  manufactured,  of  every  description,  not  spe- 
cially enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Stones,  unmanufactured,  or  undressed,  freestone,  granite,  sandstone, 
and  all  building  or  monumental  stone,  except  marble,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Strings : all  strings  of  catgut,  or  any  other  like  material,  other  than 
strings  for  musical  instruments,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Tallow,  one  cent  per  pound. 

Teeth,  manufactured,  twenty-five  tier  centum  ad  valorem. 

Umbrella  and  parasol  ribs  and  stretcher,  frames,  tips,  runners, 
handles,  or  other  parts  thereof,  when  made  in  whole  or  chief  part 
of  iron,  steel,  or  any  other  metal,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem ; 
umbrellas,  parasols,  and  shades,  when  covered  with  silk  or  alpaca, 
fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem  ; all  other  umbrellas,  forty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Umbrellas,  parasols,  and  sunshades,  frames  and  sticks  for,  finished 
or  unfinished,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act, 
thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Waste,  all  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  ten  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

Watches,  watch-cases,  watch- movements,  parts  of  watches,  and  watch 
materials,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act, 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Webbing,  composed  of  cotton,  fiax,  or  any  other  materials  not  spe- 
cially enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  thirty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

The  Free  List. 


Section  2505.  The  importation  of  the  following  articles  shall  be  exempt 
from  duty : 


CHEMICALS. 


Albumen,  any  form  or  condition  ; lactariue. 
Aconite,  not  leaf  or  bark. 

Ambergris. 


74 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Annatto,  roncou,  rocou,  or  Orleans,  and  all  extracts  of. 

Balm  of  Gilead. 

Blood,  dried. 

Bones,  crude,  not  manufactured,  burned,  calcined,  ground,  or  steamed. 
Bone-dust  and  bone-ash  for  manufacture  of  phosphates  and  fertil- 
izers. 

Carbon,  animal,  fit  for  fertilizing  only. 

Guano  and  other  mineral  manures. 

Manures,  unmanufactured  and  substances,  expressly  for  manure. 
Musk,  crude,  in  natural  pod. 

Oivit  crude. 

Cochineal. 

Dyeing  or  tanning;  articles  fin  a crude  state  used  in  dyeing  or  tan- 
ning, not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Fish  skins. 

Hide-cuttings,  raw,  with  or  without  hair,  and  all  glue  stock. 

Hoofs. 

Horns,  and  parts  of  horns,  unmanufactured. 

Ipecac. 

Isingglass  or  fish  glue. 

Leather,  old  scraps. 

Leeches. 

Bennets,  raw  or  prepared. 

Argal,  or  Argol,  or  crude  tartar. 

Asafcetida. 

Barks,  Cinchona,  or  other  barks  used  in  the  manufacture  of  quinia. 
Brazil  paste. 

Camphor,  crude. 

Cassia,  Cassia  buds,  Cassia  Yera,  unground. 

Charcoal. 

Cinuamon,  and  chips  of,  unground. 

Cloves  and  clove  stems,  unground. 

Cocculus  indicus. 

Cudbear. 

Curry  and  curry  powder. 

Cutcb. 

Divi  Divi. 

Dragon’s  blood. 

Ergot. 

Gam  bier. 

Ginger  root,  unground. 

Indigo  and  artificial  indigo. 

Iodine,  crude. 

Jalap. 

Kelp. 

Lac  dye,  crude,  seed,  button,  stick,  and  shell. 

Lac  spirits. 

Lemon  juice  and  lime  juice. 

Liquorice  root,  un ground. 

Litmus,  prepared  or  not  prepared. 

Logwood  extracts,  and  decoctions  of  extracts,  and  decoctions  of  fus- 
tic and  redwood,  and  extracts  of  and  decoctions  of  all  other  dye 
woods. 

Mace. 

Madder,  and  munjeet  or  Indian  madder,  ground  or  prepared,  and 
extracts  of. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


75 


Manna. 

Myrobolan. 

Orchil,  or  orchil  liquid. 

Nutmegs. 

Nux  vomica. 

Ottar  of  roses. 

Salacine. 

Oils: 

Almond. 

Amber,  crude  and  rectified. 

Ambergris. 

Anise,  or  anise  seed. 

Aniline,  crude. 

Aspic,  or  spike  lavender. 

Bergamot. 

Cajeput. 

Carraway. 

Cassia  and  cinnamon. 

Cedrat. 

Chamomile. 

Citronella,  or  lemon  grass. 

Civet. 

Fennel. 

Jasmine,  or  jasamine. 

Juglandium. 

Juniper. 

Lavender. 

Lemon. 

Limes. 

Mace. 

Neroli,  or  orange  flower. 

Orange. 

Palm  and  cocoanut. 

Pepper,  unground,  of  all  kinds. 

Pimento,  unground. 

Poppy. 

Rosemary  or  anthoss. 

Sesame  or  sesame-seed  or  bene. 

Thyme  or  origanum,  red  or  white  valerian. 

Saffron  and  safflower,  and  extract  of  and  saffron  cake. 
Selep,  or  saloup. 

Storax  or  styrax. 

Turmeric. 

Turpentine,  Venice. 

Yalonia. 

Vegetable  and  mineral  wax. 

Wood  ashes  and  lye  of,  and  beet  root  ashes. 

Acids  used  for  medicinal,  chemical,  or  manufacturing 
specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act. 
Alizarine,  natural  or  artificial. 

Agates,  unmanufactured. 

Apatite. 

Asbestos,  unmanufactured. 

Arsenic. 

Antimony  ore,  crude  sulphide  of. 

Arsenic,  sulphide  of,  or  orpiment. 


purposes,  not 


76 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Arseniate  of  aniline. 

Baryta,  carbonate  or  withe  rite. 

Bauxite. 

Black  salts  and  black  tares. 

Bromine. 

Cadmium. 

Calamine. 

Cerium. 

Cobalt,  as  metallic  arsenic. 

Colcotliar,  dry,  or  oxide  of  iron. 

Chalk  and  cliff  stone,  unmanufactured. 

Feldspar. 

Cryolite  or  kryolith. 

Iridum. 

Kieserite. 

Kyanite  or  cyanite,  and  kaiuite. 

Lime,  borate  of. 

Lime,  citrate  of. 

Lime,  chloride  of,  or  bleaching  powder. 

Magnesium. 

Magnesite,  or  native  mineral  carbonate  of  magnesia. 

Manganese,  oxide  and  ore  of. 

Mineral  waters,  natural. 

Osmium. 

Oxidizing  paste. 

Palladium. 

Paraffine. 

Phosphate,  crude  or  native,  for  fertilizing  purposes. 

Potash,  muriate  of. 

Plaster  of  Paris  or  sulphate  of  lime,  unground. 

Quinia,  sulphate  of,  salts  of,  and  cinchonidia. 

Soda,  nitrate  of  or  cubic  nitrate. 

Strontia^-oxide  of  ; and  proto-oxide  of  strontian,  and  strontianite,  or 
mineral  carbonate  of  strontia. 

Sulphur,  or  brimstone 
Sulphur  lac  or  precipitated. 

Tripoli. 

Tincal,  or  crude  borax. 

Uranium,  oxide  of,  verdigris  or  subacetate  of  copper. 

Drugs,  barks,  beans,  berries,  balsams,  buds,  bulbs,  and  bulbous  roots 
and  excrescences,  such  as  nutgalls,  fruits,  flowers,  dried,  fibres ; 
grains,  gums  and  gum-resins  ; herbs,  leaves,  lichens,  mosses,  nuts, 
roots,  and  stems,  spices,  vegetables,  seeds  aromatic,  not  garden 
seeds,  and  seeds  of  morbid  growth ; weeds,  woods  used  expressly 
for  dying,  and  dried  insects — any  of  the  foregoing,  of  which  are 
not  edible  and  are  in  a crude  state,  and  not  advanced  in  value  or 
condition  by  refining,  or  grinding,  or  by  other  process  of  manufac- 
ture, and  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act. 
Vaccine  virus. 

Crude  minerals,  not  advanced  in  value  or  condition  by  refining  or 
grinding,  or  by  other  process  of  manufacture,  not  specially  enumer- 
ated or  provided  for  in  this  act. 

SUNDRIES. 

Aluminium. 

Amber  beads  and  gum. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


77 


American  manufactures  of  casks,  barrels,  or  carboys,  and  other  ves- 
sels, and  grain  bags,  the  manufacture  of  the  United  States,  if  ex- 
ported containing  American  produce,  and  declaration  be  made  of 
intent  to  return  the  same  empty,  under  such  regulations  as  shall  be 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Animals,  brought  into  the  United  States,  temporarily,  and  for  a period 
not  exceeding  six  mouths,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibition  or  competi- 
tion for  prizes  offered  by  any  agricultural  or  racing  association  ; but 
a bond  shall  be  first  given  in  accordance  with  the  regulations. 

Animals,  alive,  specially  imported  for  breeding  purposes,  shall  be  ad- 
mitted free  upon  proof  thereof  satisfactory  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  under  such  regulations  as  he  may  prescribe,  and  teams 
of  animals,  including  their  harness  and  tackle,  actually  owned  by 
persons  emigrating  to  the  United  States  with  their  families  from 
foreign  countries,  and  in  actual  use  for  the  purpose  of  such  emigra- 
tion, shall  also  be  admitted  free  of  duty,  under  such  regulations  as 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may  prescribe. 

Arrowroot. 

Articles,  the  growth,  produce  and  manufacture  of  the  United  States, 
when  returned  in  the  same  condition  as  exported ; but  proof  of 
the  identity  of  such  articles  shall  be  made  under  regulations  to  be 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  if  such  articles 
were  subject  to  internal  tax  at  the  time  of  exportation  such  tax 
shall  be  proved  to  have  been  paid  before  exportation,  and  not  re- 
funded. 

Articles  imported  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  provided  that  the 
price  of  the  same  did  not  include  the  duty. 

Bamboo  reeds,  no  further  manufactured  than  cut  into  suitable  lengths 
for  walking  sticks  or  canes,  or  for  sticks  for  umbrellas,  parasols,  or 
sunshades. 

Bamboo,  unmanufactured. 

Barley,  pearled,  patent,  or  hulled. 

Barrels  of  American  manufacture,  exported  filled  with  domestic  pe- 
troleum, and  returned  empty,  under  such  regulations  as  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  may  prescribe,  and  without  requiring  the 
filing  of  a declaration  at  time  of  export  of  intent  to  return  the 
same  empty. 

Barrels  and  grain  bags,  the  manufacture  of  the  United  States,  when 
exported  filled  with  American  products,  or  exported  empty  and  re- 
turned filled  with  foreign  products,  may  be  returned  to  the  United 
States  free  of  duty,  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  shall  be 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  and  the  provisions  of 
this  section  shall  apply  to  and  include  sliooks  when  returned  as 
barrels  or  boxes  as  aforesaid. 

Bed-feathers  and  downs,  and  feather-beds. 

Bells,  broken,  and  bell  metal  broken  and  fit  only  to  be  remanufact- 
ured. 

Bells,  old,  and  bell  metal. 

Birds,  stuffed. 

Birds,,  singing  and  other,  and  land  and  water  fowls. 

Bismuth. 

Bladders,  crude,  and  all  integuments  of  animals  not  specially  enumer- 
ated or  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Bologna  sausages. 

Bolting-cloths. 


78 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Books  which  shall  have  been  printed  and  manufactured  more  than 
ten  years  at  the  date  of  importation. 

Books,  maps,  and  chartsimported  by  authority  6r  for  use  of  the  United 
States  or  for  the  use  of  the  Library  of  Congress ; but  the  duty 
shall  not  have  been  included  in  the  contract  or  price  paid. 

Books,  maps,  and  charts  specially  imported,  not  more  than  two  copies 
in  any  one  invoice,  in  good  faith,  for  the  use  of  any  society  incor- 
porated or  established  for  philosophical,  literary,  or  religious  pur- 
poses, or  for  the  encouragement  of  the  tine  arts,  or  for  the  use,  or 
by  order,  of  any  college,  academy,  school,  or  seminary  of  learning 
in  the  United  States. 

Books,  professional,  of  persons  arriving  in  the  United  States. 

Books,  household  effects,  or  libraries,  or  parts  of  libraries,  in  use,  of 
persons  or  families  from  foreign  countries,  if  used  abroad  by  them 
not  less  than  one  year,  and  not  intended  for  any  other  person  or 
persons,  nor  for  sale. 

Books,  by  foreign  authors,  not  published  in  the  United  States,  in  sin- 
gle copies  for  use,  and  not  for  sale. 

Breccia,  in  blocks  or  slabs. 

Brine. 

Brazil  pebbles  for  spectacles,  and  pebbles  for  spectacles,  rough. 

Bullion,  gold  and  silver. 

Burgundy  pitch. 

Burr  stone,  in  blocks,  rough  or  unmanufactured,  and  not  bound  up  in 
mill-stones. 

Cabinets  of  coins,  medals,  and  all  other  collections  of  antiquities. 

Castor  or  castoreum. 

Catgut  strings,  or  gut-cord,  for  musical  instruments. 

Catgut  or  whip-gut,  unmanufactured. 

Coal,  anthracite. 

Coal,  stores  of  American  vessels,  but  none  shall  be  unloaded. 

Cobalt,  ore  of. 

Cocoa,  or  cacao,  crude,  and  fiber,  leaves,  and  shells  of. 

Coffee. 

Coins,  gold,  silver,  and  copper. 

(3oir  and  coir  yarn. 

Collections  of  antiquity,  specially  imported  and  not  for  sale. 

Copper,  old,  taken  from  the  bottom  of  American  vessels,  compelled 
by  marine  disaster  to  repair  in  foreign  ports. 

Copper,  when  imported  for  the  United  States  Mint. 

Coral,  marine,  unmanufactured. 

Cork- wood,  or  cork-bark,  unmanufactured. 

Cotton. 

Curling- stones,  or  quoits. 

Cuttle-fish  bone. 

Diamonds,  rough  or  uncut,  including  glaziers’  diamonds. 

Diamond  dust  or  bort. 

Dyeing  or  tanning  articles,  in  a crude  state,  used  in  dyeing  or  tanning,, 
not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Eggs. 

Esparto  or  Spanish  grass,  and  other  grasses,  and  pulp  of,  for  the  man- 
ufacture of  paper. 

Fans,  common  palm-leaf. 

Farina. 

Fashion  plates,  engraved  on  steel  or  on  wood,  colored  or  plain. 

Felt,  adhesive,  for  sheathing  vessels. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


7$ 


Fabrin,  in  all  forms. 

Fire- wood. 

Fish,  fresh,  for  immediate  consumption. 

Fish  for  bait. 

Flint,  flints  and  ground  flint-stones. 

Fossils. 

Fruit-plants,  tropical  and  semi-tropical,  for  the  purpose  of  propagation 
or  cultivation. 

Fruits,  green,  ripe,  or  dried,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for 
in  this  act. 

Furs,  undressed. 

Fur  skins  of  all  kinds,  not  dressed  in  any  manner. 

Glass,  broken  pieces,  and  old  glass  which  cannot  be  cut  for  use,  and 
fit  only  to  be  remanufactured. 

Glass  plate,  or  disks,  un wrought,  for  use  in  the  manufactureof  optical 
instruments. 

Goat  skins,  raw. 

Gold  beaters’  molds,  and  gold  beaters’  skins. 

Gold  size. 

Grease,  for  use  as  soap-stock  only,  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for. 

Gunny  bags,  and  gunny  cloth,  old  or  refuse,  fit  only  for  remanufact- 
uring. 

Gut,  and  worm  gut,  manufactured  or  unmanufactured,  for  whip  and 
other  cord. 

Guts,  salted. 

Gutta-percha,  crude. 

Hair,  horse  or  cattle,  cleaned  or  uncleaned,  drawn  or  undrawn,  but 
unmanufactured,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this 
act ; of  hogs,  curled  for  beds  and  mattresses,  and  not  fit  for  bristles. 

Hide  rope. 

Hides,  raw  or  uncured,  whether  dry,  salted,  or  pickled,  and  skins, 
except  sheep-skins  with  the  wool  on,  Angora  goat-skins,  raw,  with- 
out the  wool,  unmanufactured,  asses’  skins,  raw  or  unmanufactured. 

Hones  and  whetstones. 

Hop-roots  for  cultivation. 

Ice. 

India-rubber,  crude,  and  milk  of. 

India  malacca  joints,  not  further  manufactured  than  cut  into  suit- 
able lengths  for  the  manufactures  into  which  they  are  intended  to  be 
converted. 

Ivory,  and  vegetable  ivory,  unmanufactured. 

Jet,  unmanufactured. 

Joss-stick,  or.  joss-light. 

Junk,  old. 

Lava,  unmanufactured. 

Life-boats  and  life-saving  apparatus,  specially  imported  by  societies 
incorporated  or  established  to  encourage  the  saving  of  human  life. 

Lithographic  stones,  not  engraved. 

Loadstones. 

Logs  and  round  unmanufactured  timber,  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  in  this  act,  and  ship-timber. 

Maccaroni  and  vermicelli. 

Magnets. 

Manuscripts. 

Marrow,  crude. 


so 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Marsh-mallows* 

Medals  of  gold,  silver,  or  copper. 

Meerschaum,  crude  or  raw. 

Mica  and  mica  waste. 

Models  of  inventions  and  other  improvements  in  the  arts ; but  no 
article  or  articles  shall  be  deemed  a model  or  improvements  which 
caii  be  fitted  for  use. 

Moss,  sea- weeds,  and  all  other  vegetable  substances  used  for  beds  and 
mattresses. 

Newspapers  and  periodicals. 

Nuts,  cocoa,  and  Brazil  or  cream. 

Oakum. 

Oil-cake. 

Oil,  spermaceti,  whale,  aud  other  fish  of  American  fisheries,  and  all 
other  articles  the  produce  of  such  fisheries. 

Olives,  green  or  prepared. 

Orange  and  lemon  peel,  not  preserved,  candied,  or  otherwise  prepared. 

Ores,  of  gold  and  silver. 

Palm  nuts  and  palm -nut  kernels. 

Paper  stock,  crude,  of  every  description,  including  all  grasses,  fibers, 
rags  of  all  kinds,  other  than  wool,  waste,  shavings,  clippings,  old 
paper,  rope-ends,  waste  rope,  waste  bagging,  guuny-bags,  gunny- 
eloth,  old  or  refuse,  to  be  used  in  making,  and  fit  only  to  be  con- 
verted into  paper,  and  unfit  for  any  other  manufacture,  and  cotton 
waste,  whether  for  paper-stock  or  other  purposes. 

Parchment. 

Pearl,  mother  of. 

Personal  and  household  effects,  not  merchandise,  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  dying  abroad. 

Pewter  and  britannia  metal,  old,  and  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured. 

Philosophical  and  scientific  apparatus,  instruments,  and  preparations, 
statuary,  casts  of  marble,  bronze,  alabaster,  or  plaster  of  Paris, 
paintings,  drawings,  and  etchings,  specially  imported  in  good 
faith  for  the  use  of  any  society  or  institution  incorporated  or  estab- 
lished for  philosophical,  educational,  scientific,  or  literary  purposes, 
or  encouragement  of  the  fine  arts,  and  not  intended  for  sale. 

Plants,  trees,  shrubs,  roots,  seed-cane,  and  seeds  imported  by  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  or  the  United  States  Botanical  Garden. 

Platiua,  unmanufactured. 

Platinum,  unmanufactured,  and  vases,  retorts,  and  other  apparatus, 
vessels,  and  parts  thereof,  for  chemical  uses. 

Plumbago. 

Polishing  stones. 

Pulp,  dried  for  paper- makers’  use. 

Pulu. 

Pumice  and  pumice  stone. 

Quills,  prepared  or  unprepared. 

Railroad  ties,  of  wood. 

Rattans  and  reeds,  unmanufactured. 

Regalia  and  gems,  statues,  statuary,  and  specimens  of  sculpture  where 
specially  imported  in  good  faith  for  the  use  of  any  society  incorpo- 
rated or  established  for  philosophical,  literary,  or  religious  pur- 
poses, or  for  the  encouragement  of  the  fine  arts,  or  for  the  use,  or  by 
order  of,  any  college,  academy,  school,  or  seminary  of  learning 
in  the  United  States. 

Root  flour.  , 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


81 


Rotten-stone. 

Sago,  sago  crude,  and  sago  flour. 

Saurkraut. 

Sausage  skins. 

Sea-weed,  not  otherwise  provided  for. 

Seed  of  the  sugar-beet. 

Shark  skins. 

Shells  of  every  description,  not  manufactured. 

Shingle-bolts,  not  stave-bolts,  provided  that  heading-bolts  shall  be 
held  and  construed  to  be  included  under  the  term  stave-bolts. 

Ship  planking,’  and  handle  bolts. 

Shrimps,  or  other  shell -fish. 

Silk,  raw,  or  as  reeled  from  the  cocoon,  but  not  doubled,  twisted,  or 
advanced  in  manufacture  in  any  way. 

Silk  cocoons  and  silk  waste. 

Silk-worms7  eggs. 

Skeletons,  and  other  preparations  of  anatomy. 

Skins,  dried,  salted,  or  pickled. 

Snails. 

Soap  stocks. 

Sodium. 

Sparterre,  for  making  or  ornamenting  hats. 

Specimens  of  natural  history,  botany,  and  mineralogy,  when  imported 
for  cabinets,  or  as  objects  of  taste  or  science,  and  not  for  sale. 
Spunk.  o 

Spurs  and  stilts,  used  in  the  manufacture  of  earthen,  stone,  or  crock- 
ery ware. 

Straw,  unmanufactured. 

Sugar  of  milk. 

Sweepings  of  silver  and  gold. 

Tamarinds. 

Tabeoca,  cassava,  or  cassada. 

Tea. 

Tea-plants. 

Teasels. 

Teeth,  unmanufactured. 

Terra  alba,  alluminous. 

Terra  japonica. 

Tin  ore,  bars,  blocks,  or  pigs,  grain  or  granulated. 

Tonquin,  Tonqua  or  Tonka  beans. 

Tortoise  and  other  shells,  unmanufactured. 

Turtles. 

Types,  old,  and  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured. 

Umbrella  sticks,  crude,  to  wit,  all  partridge  hair-wood,  pimento, 
orange,  myrtle,  and  all  other  sticks  and  canes  in  the  rough,  or  no 
further  manufactured  than  cut  into  lengths  suitable  for  umbrella, 
parasol,  or  sunshade  sticks  or  walking-canes. 

Vellum. 

Wafers,  un  medicated. 

Wearing  apparel,  in  actual  use,  and  other  personal  effects  (not  mer- 
chandise), professional  books,  implements,  instruments,  and  tools 
of  trade  occupation  or  employment  of  persons  arriving  in  the 
United  States.  But  this  exemption  shall  not  be  construed  to  in- 
clude machinery,  or  other  articles  imported  for  use  in  any  manu- 
facturing establishment,  or  for  sale. 

Whalebone,  unmanufactured. 

H.  Mis.  0 G 


82 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Woods,  poplar,  or  other  woods,  for  the  manufacture  of  paper. 

Woods,  namely,  cedar,  lignum-vitse,  lancewood,  ebony,  box,  grana- 
dilla,  mahogany,  rosewood,  satinwood,  and  all  cabinet  woods,  un- 
manfactured. 

Works  of  art,  painting,  statuary,  fountains,  and  other  works  of  art, 
the  production  of  American  artists.  But  the  fact  of  such  pro- 
duction must  be  verified  by  the  certificate  of  a consul  or  minister 
of  the  United  States  indorsed  upon  the  written  declaration  of  the 
artist;  paintings,  statuary,  fountains,  and  other  works  of  art,  im- 
ported expressly  for  presentation  to  the  national  institutions,  or 
to  any  State,  or  to  any  municipal  corporation. 

Yams, 

Yeast  cakes. 

Zafter. 

PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS  TO  STATUTES. 

Section  2499.  There  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid  on  each  and 
every  non -enumerated  article  which  bears  a similitude,  either  in  ma- 
terial, quality,  texture,  or  the  use  to  which  it  may  be  applied,  to  any 
article  enumerated  in  this  title  as  chargeable  with  duty,  the  same  rate  of 
duty  which  is  levied  and  charged  on  the  enumerated  article  which  it  most 
resembles  in  any  of  the  particulars  before  mentioned ; and  if  any  non- 
enumerated  article  equally  resembles  two  or  more  enumerated  articles 
on  which  different  rates  are  chargeable,  there  shall  be  levied,  collected, 
and  paid  on  such  noil-enumerated  article  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  is 
chargeable  on  the  article  which  it  resembles  jfhying  the  highest  duty  ; 
and  on  all  articles  manufactured  from  two  or  more  materials  the  duty 
shall  be  assessed  at  the  highest  rates  at  which  any  of  its  component  parts 
may  be  chargeable.  Provided , That  non-enumerated  articles  similar 
in  material  and  quality  and  texture,  and  the  use  to  which  they  may  be 
applied,  to  articles  on  the  free  list,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  which  no 
dutiable  materials  are  used,  shall  be  free. 

Section  2626.  At  ports  to  which  there  are  appointed  a collector,  na- 
val officer,  and  surveyor,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  naval  officer :- 

First.  To  receive  copies  of  all  manifests  and  entries,  and  to  verify 
the  final  adjustment  or  liquidation  of  duties  made  by  the  collector. 

Second.  To  keep  a separate  record  of  such  estimates. 

Third.  To  countersign  all  debenture  certificates  to  be  granted  by  the 
collector. 

Fourth.  To  examine  the  collector’s  abstracts  of  duties,  and  other  ac- 
counts of  receipts,  bonds,  and  expenditures,  and  certify  the  same,  if 
found  right. 

Section  2627.  At  ports  to  which  there  are  appointed  a collector, 
naval  officer,  and  surveyor  it  sFall  be  the  duty  of  the  surveyor,  who 
shall  be  in  all  cases  subject  to  the  direction  of  the  collector: 

First.  To  superintend  and  direct  all  inspectors,  weighers,  measurers, 
and  gaugers  within  his  port. 

Second.  To  report  once  in  every  week  to  the  collector  the  name  or 
names  of  all  inspectors,  weighers,  gaugers,  or  measurers  who  are  ab- 
sent from  or  neglect  to  do  their  duty. 

Third.  To  visit  or  inspect  the  vessels  which  arrive  in  his  port,  and 
make  a return  in  writing  every  morning  to  the  collector  of  all  vessels 
which  have  arrived  from  foreign  ports  during  the  preceding  day;  speci- 
fying the  names  and  denominations  of  the  vessels,  the  masters’  names, 
from  whence  arrived,  whether  laden  or  in  ballast,  to  what  nation  belong- 
ing, and  whether  the  masters  thereof  have  or  have  not  complied  with 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION.  83 

the  law  iii  having  the  required  number  of  manifests  of  the  cargo  on 
board,  agreeing  in  substance  with  the  provisions  of  law. 

Fourth.  To  put  on  board  each  of  such  vessels  one  or  more  inspectors 
immediately  after  their  arrival  in  port. 

Fifth.  To  ascertain  the  quantities  and  kinds  of  distilled  spirits  im- 
ported, rating  such  spirits  according  to  their  respective  degrees  of 
proof,  to  be  ascertained  and  reported  to  him  by  the  appraiser,  and  as 
defined  by  the  laws  imposing  duties  on  spirits. 

Sixth.  To  examine  whether  the  goods  imported  in  any  vessel,  and 
the  deliveries  thereof  agreeably  to  the  inspector’s  returns,  correspond 
with  the  permits  tor  landing  the  same,  and  if  any  error  or  disagree- 
ment appears,  to  report  the  same  to  the  collector  and  to  the  naval  offi- 
cer, if  any. 

Seventh.  To  superintend  the  lading  for  exportation  of  all  goods  en- 
tered for  the  benefit  of  any  drawback,  bounty,  or  allowance,  and  exam- 
ine and  report  whether  the  kind,  quantity,  and  quality  of  the  goods 
so  laden  on  board  any  vessel  for  exportation  correspond  with  the  entries 
and  permits  granted  therefor. 

Eighth.  To  examine,  and  from  time  to  time,  and  particularly  on  the 
first  Monday  of  January  and  July  in  each  year,  try  the  weights,  meas- 
ures, and  other  instruments  used  in  ascertaining  the  duties  on  imports, 
with  standards  to  be  provided  by  each  collector  at  the  public  expense 
for  that  purpose,  and  where  disagreements  or  errors  are  discovered,  to 
report  the  same  to  the  collector,  and  to  obey  and  execute  such  direc- 
tions as  he  may  receive  for  correcting  the  same,  agreeably  to  the  stand- 
ards. 

Section  2(348.  Collectors  and  surveyors  of  the  collection  districts  on 
the  northern,  northeastern,  and  northwestern  frontiers,  are  authorized 
to  keep,  at  their  several  offices,  blank  manifests  and  clearances  required 
for  the  business  of  their  districts,  and  to  furnish  the  samefreeof  charge 
to  persons  desiring  to  make  entries ; said  blanks  to  be  furnished  at  the 
public  expense. 

Section  2654.  There  shall  be  allowed  and  paid  for  the  use  of  the 
collector  the  following  fees  : 

First.  For  every  entrance  of  any  vessel  of  one  hundred  tons  burden 
and  upward,  two  dollars  and  a half. 

Second.  For  every  clearance  of  any  vessel  of  one  hundred  tons  bur- 
den and  upward,  two  dollars  and  a half. 

Third.  For  every  entrance  of  any  vessel  under  the  burden  of  one 
hundred  tons,  one  dollar  and  a half. 

Fourth.  For  every  clearance  of  any  vessel  under  one  hundred  tons 
burden,  one  dollar  and  a half. 

Fifth.  For  every  port  entry,  two  dollars. 

Sixth.  For  every  entry  of  merchandise,  at  any  custom-house  in  the 
United  States,  except  entries  under  section  twenty-seven  hundred  and 
ninety-nine  (2799),  fifty  cents. 

That  section  twenty-six  hundred  and  fifty-eight  (2658)  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  repealed. 

Section  2770.  It  shall  not  be  lawful  to  make  entry  of  any  vessel 
which  shall  arrive  within  the  United  States  from  any  foreign  port,  or 
of  the  cargo  on  board  such  vessel,  elsewhere  than  at  one  of  the  ports 
of  entry  designated  in  chapter  one  of  this  title,  nor  to  unlade  the  cargo, 
or  any  part  thereof,  elsewhere  than  at  one  of  the  ports  of  delivery 
therein  designated,  except  that  in  cases  of  cargoes  in  bulk  the  collector 
may,  by  special  permit,  allow  the  same  to  be  unladed  at  any  point  in 
his  collection  district,  to  be  designated,  under  the  supervision  of  an  in- 


84 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


spector  of  customs,  on  payment  by  the  importer  of  the  necessary  ex- 
penses of  such  inspector.  Provided , That  every  port  of  entry  shall  be 
also  a port  of  delivery.  This  section  shall  not  prevent  the  master  or 
commander  of  any  vessel  from  making  entry  with  the  collector  of  any 
district  in  which  such  vessel  may  be  owned,  or  from  which  she  may 
have  sailed  on  the  voyage  from  which  she  shall  then  have  returned. 

Section  2785.  The  owner  or  consignee  of  any  merchandise  on  board 
of  auy  such  vessel,  or  in  case  of  his  absence  or  sickness,  his  known 
agent  or  factor,  in  his  name,  shall,  within  fifteen  daj^s  after  the  report 
of  the  master  to  the  collector  of  the  district  for  which  such  merchan- 
dise shall  be  destined,  make  entry  thereof,  in  writing,  with  the  collec- 
tor, and  shall  in  such  entry  specify  the  name  of  the  vessel  and  of  her 
master,  in  which,  and  the  port  or  place  from  which  such  merchandise 
was  imported,  the  particular  marks,  numbers,  denominations,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  of  section  two  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  seventy  (2870),  and  agreeably  to  the  bills  of  lading  and  prime 
cost,  including  charges  of  each  particular  package  or  parcel  whereof 
the  entry  shall  consist,  or,  if  in  bulk,  the  quantity,  quality,  and  prime 
cost,  including  charges  thereof,  particularly  specifying  the  species  of 
money  in  which  the  invoices  thereof  are  made  out.  Such  entry  shall 
be  subscribed  by  the  person  making  it,  if  the  owner  or  consignee,  in 
his  own  name,  or  if  another  person,  in  his  name  as  agent  or  factor,  for 
the  owner  or  consignee.  The  person  making  such  entry  shall  also  pro- 
duce to  the  collector  the  original  invoices  of  the  merchandise,  or  other 
documents  received  in  lieu  thereof  or  concerning  the  same,  in  the  same 
state  in  which  they  were  received,  with  the  bills  of  lading  for  the  same, 
which  invoices  shall  be  signed  by  the  persons  in  the  office  of  the  col- 
lector who  have  compared  and  examined  them. 

Section  2789.  Whenever  an  entry  of  merchandise  is  imperfect  for 
want  of  invoices  or  bills  of  lading,  or  because  the  merchandise  is  im- 
perfectly described  therein,  or  for  any  other  cause,  the  collector  shall 
take  the  merchandise  into  his  custody  until  the  quantity,  quality,  or 
value  thereof,  as  the  case  may  require,  can  be  ascertained. 

Section  2795.  In  order  to  ascertain  what  articles  ought  to  be  ex- 
empt from  duty  as  the  sea-stores  of  a vessel,  the  master  shall  particu- 
larly specify  the  articles  in  the  report  or  manifest  to  be  by  him  made, 
designating  them  as  sea-stores  of  such  vessel ; and  in  the  oath  to  be 
taken  by  such  master,  on  making  such  report,  he  shall  declare  that  the 
articles  so  specified  as  sea-stores  were  truly  taken  on  board  as  such, 
and  were  not  intended  by  way  of  merchandise  or  for  sale  ; whereupon 
the  articles  may  remain  on  board  free  of  duty.  Provided , That  the 
master  may,  after  taking  said  oath,  sell  any  part  of  said  sea-stores,  not 
exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  in  value,  in  good  faith  taken  on  board  as 
such,  on  entering  the  same  and  paying  the  duties  thereon. 

Section  2799.  In  order  to  ascertain  what  articles  ought  to  be  ex- 
empted as  the  wearing  apparel,  personal  and  household  effects,  libraries, 
and  parts  of  libraries  in  use,  professional  books,  implements,  instru- 
ments, and  tools  of  trade,  occupation,  or  employment,  and  other  personal 
baggage  of  persons  who  arrive  in  the  United  States,  due  entry  or  decla- 
ration thereof  as  of  merchandise,  but  separate  and  distinct  from  that  of 
any  other  merchandise  imported  from  a foreign  port,  shall  be  made  with 
the  collector  of  the  district  in  which  the  articles  are  intended  to  be 
landed,  by  the  owner  thereof,  or  his  agent,  specifying  the  persons  by 
whom  or  for  whom  such  entry  is  made,  and  particularizing  the  several 
packages  and  their  contents,  with  their  marks  and  numbers;  and  the 
person  who  shall  make  the  entry  or  declaration  shall  take  and  subscribe 


REPORT  OP  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


85 


an  oatk  before  the  collector,  declaring  that  the  entry  subscribed  by  him, 
and  to  which  the  oath  is  annexed,  contains,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge 
and  belief,  a just  and  true  account  of  the  contents  of  the  several  pack- 
ages mentioned  in  the  entry,  specifying  the  name  of  the  vessel,  of  her 
master,  and  of  the  port  from  which  she  has  arrived,  and  that  such  pack- 
ages contain  no  merchandise  whatever  other  than  the  articles  which 
are  free  from  duty  as  specified  above;  that  they  are  all  the  property  of 
a person  named,  who  has  arrived,  or  is  expected  to  arrive  in  the  United 
States  within  one  year,  and  are  not  directly  or  indirectly  imported  for 
any  other,  or  intended  for  sale. 

Section  2800.  Whenever  the  person  making  entry  of  any  articles  free 
from  duty,  as  speeified  in  the  preceding  section,  is  not  the  owner  of  them 
he  shall  give  bond  with  one  or  more  sureties,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
collector,  in  a sum  equal  to-  the  duties  on  like  articles  imported  subject 
to  duty,  upon  the  condition  that  the  owner  of  the  articles  shall,  within 
one  year  (but  within  three  months  of  his  arrival  in  the  United  States), 
personally  make  an  oath  such  as  is  prescribed  in  the  preceding  section. 

Section  2801.  On  compliance  with  the  two  preceding  sections,  and 
not  otherwise,  a permit  shall  be  granted  for  landing  such  articles.  But 
whenever  the  collector  thinks  proper  he  may  direct  the  baggage  of  any 
person  arriving  within  the  United  States  to  be  examined  by  the  sur- 
veyor of  the  port,  or  by  an  inspector  of  the  customs,  who  shall  make  a re- 
turn of  the  same,  and  if  any  articles  are  contained  therein  which  in  the 
opinion  of  the  collector  ought  not  to  be  exempted  from  duty,  due  en- 
try of  them  shall  be  made,  and  the  duties  thereon  paid. 

Section  2803.  Any  baggage  or  personal  effects  arriving  in  the  United 
States,  in  transit  to  any  foreign  country,  may  be  delivered  by  the  par- 
ties having  it  in  charge  to  the  collector  of  the  proper  district,  to  be  by 
him  retained,  without  the  payment  or  exaction  of  any  import  duty,  or 
to  be  forwarded  by  such  collector  to  the  collector  of  the  port  of  depart- 
ure, and  to  be  delivered  to  such  parties  ou  their  departure  for  their  for- 
eign destination,  under  such  rules,  regulations,  and  fees  as  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  may  prescribe. 

Section  2837.  All  invoices  shall  be  made  out  in  the  weights  or  meas- 
ures in  general  use  in  the  country  or  place  in  which  the  goods  are  pro- 
cured for  importation  to  the  United  States,  and  shall  contain  a true 
statement  of  the  actual  weights  or  measures  of  such  merchandise,  with- 
out any  respect  to  the  weights  or  measures  of  the  United  States. 

Section  2838.  All  invoices  of  merchandise  subject  to  a duty  ad  val- 
orem shall  be  made  out  in  the  currency  of  the  place  or  country  from 
whence  the  importation  shall  be  made,  and  in  the  currency  actually 
paid  therefor,  and  shall  contain  a true  statement  of  the  actual  cost  of 
such  merchandise  in  such  foreign  currency  or  currencies,  without  any 
respect  to  the  value  of  the  coins  of  the  United  States,  or  of  foreign  coins 
by  law  made  current  within  the  United  States,  in  such  foreign  place  or 
country. 

Section  2841.  Whenever  merchandise  imported  into  the  United 
States  is  entered  by  invoice,  one  of  the  following  oaths,  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  case,  shall  be  administered  by  the  collector  of  the  port,  at 
the  time  of  entry,  to  the  owner,  importer,  consignee,  or  agent.  Pro- 
vided, That  if  any  of  the  invoices  or  bills  of  lading  of  any  merchan- 
dise imported  in  said  v essel,  which  should  otherwise  be  embraced  in  said 
entry,  have  not  been  received  at  the  date  of  the  entry,  the  affidavit  may 
state  the  fact,  and  thereupon  such  merchandise  of  which  the  invoices  or 
bills  of  lading  are  not  produced  shall  not  be  included  in  such  entry,  but 
may  be  entered  subsequently. 


86 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Oath  of  consignee , importer , or  agent. 

I, , do  solemnly  and  truly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  the  in- 
voice and  bill  of  lading  now  presented  by  me  to  the  collector  of 

are  the  true  and  only  invoice  and  bill  of  lading  by  me  received,  of  all  the 

goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  imported  in  the , whereof 

is  master,  from , for  account  of  any  person  whomsoever,  for 

whom  I am  authorized  to  enter  the  same ; that  the  said  invoice  and  bill 
of  lading  are  in  the  state  in  which  they  were  actually  received  by  me,  and 
that  I do  not  know  nor  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  other  invoice  or  bill 
of  lading  of  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  ; that  the  entry  now 
delivered  to  the  collector  contains  a just  and  true  account  of  the  said  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise,  according  to  the  said  invoice  and  bill  of  lading ; 
that  nothinghas  been,  on  my  part,  nor,  to  my  knowledge,  on  the  part  of 
any  other  person,  concealed  or  suppressed,  whereby  the  United  States 
may  be  defrauded  of  any  part  of  the  duty  lawfully  due  on  the  said  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise ; that  the  said  invoice  and  the  declaration 
therein  are  in  all  respects  true,  and  were  made  by  the  person  by  whom 
the  same  purports  to  have  been  made,  and  that  if,  at  anytime  hereafter, 
I discover  any  error  in  the  said  invoice,  or  in  the  account  now  rendered  of 
the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  or  receive  any  other  invoice  of 
the  same,  I will  immediately  make  the  same  known  to  the  collector  of 
this  district.  And  I do  further  solemnly  and  truly  swear  (or  affirm)  that 
to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief  (insert  the  name  and  residence 
of  the  owner  or  owners),  is  (or  are)  the  owner  (or  owners)  of  the  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise  mentioned  in  the  annexed  entry;  that  the  in- 
voice now  produced  by  me  exhibits  the  actual  cost  (if  purchased)  or  fair 
market  value  (if  otherwise  obtained)  at  the  time  or  times,  and  place  or 
places  when  or  where  procured  (as  the  case  may  be),  of  the  said  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise,  including  all  cost  for  finishing  said  goods,  wares, 
and  merchandise  to  their  present  condition,  and  no  other  or  different  dis- 
count, bounty,  or  drawback,  but  such  as  has  been  actually  allowed  on 
the  same. 

Oath  of  owner  in  cases  where  merchandise  has  been  actually  purchased. 

1 , do  solemnly  and  truly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  the  en- 
try now  delivered  by  me  to  the  collector  of , contains  a just  and 

true  account  of  all  the  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  imported  by  or 

consigned  to  me,  in  the , whereof is  master,  from 

; that  the  invoice  which  I now  produce  contains  a just  and  faith- 
ful account  of  the  actual  cost  of  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchan- 
dise, including  all  cost  of  finishing  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise 
to  their  present  condition,  and  no  other  discount,  drawback,  or  bounty 
but  such  as  has  been  actually  allowed  on  the  same;  that  I do  not  know 
or  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  invoice  or  bill  of  lading,  other  than 
those  now  produced  by  me,  and  that  they  are  in  the  state  in  which  I act- 
ually received  them.  And  I further  solemnly  and  truly  swear  (or  affirm), 
that  1 have  not  in  the  said  entry  or  invoice,  concealed  or  suppressed 
anything  whereby  the  United  States  may  be  defrauded  of  any  part  of 
the  duty  lawfully  due  on  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise;  that 
the  said  invoice  and  the  declaration  thereon  are  in  all  respects  true, 
and  were  made  by  the  person  by  whom  the  same  purports  to  have  been 
made,  and  that  if  at  any  time  hereafter  I discover  any  error  in  the  said 
invoice  or  in  the  account  now  produced  of  the  said  goods,  wares,  and 
merchandise,  or  receive  any  other  invoice  of  the  same,  I will  immediately 
make  the  same  known  to  the  collector  of  this  district. 


KEPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


87 


Oath  of  manufacturer  or  owner  in  cases  ivhere  merchandise  has  not  been 

actually  ‘purchased. 

I, , do  solemnly  and  truly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  the 

entry  now  delivered  by  me  to  the  collector  of contains  a just 

and  true  account  of  all  the  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  imported  by 

or  consigned  to  me  in  the , whereof is  master,  from 

; that  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  were  not  actually 

bought  by  me,  or  by  my  agent,  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  bargain  and 
sale,  but  that,  nevertheless,  the  invoice  which  1 now  produce  contains 
a just  and  faithful  valuation  of  the  same,  at  their  fair  market  value,  at 
the  time  or  times,  and  place  or  places,  when  and  where  procured  for 
my  account  (or  for  account  of  myself  or  partners) ; that  the  said  invoice 
contains  also  a just  and  faithful  account  of  all  the  cost  for  finishing  said 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  to  their  present  condition,  and  no  other 
discount,  drawback,  or  bounty  but  such  as  has  been  actually  allowed 
on  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise ; that  the  said  invoice  and 
the  declaration  thereon  are  in  all  respects  true,  and  were  made  by  the 
person  by  wdiom  the  same  purports  to  have  been  made;  that  I do  not 
know  nor  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  invoice  or  bill  of  lading  other 
than  those  now  produced  by  me,  and  that  they  are  in  the  state  in  which 
I actually  received  them.  And  I do  further  solemnly  and  truly  swear 
(or  affirm)  that  I have  not  in  the  said  entry  or  invoice  concealed  or  sup- 
pressed anything  whereby  the  United  States  may  be  defrauded  of  any 
part  of  the  duty  lawfully  due  on  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise, 
and  that  if  at  any  time  hereafter  I discover  any  error  in  the  said  invoice, 
or  in  the  account  now  produced  of  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchan- 
dise, or  receive  any  other  invoice  of  the  same,  I will  immediately  make 
the  same  known  to  the  collector  of  this  district. 

Section  2846.  Whenever  merchandise  belongs  to  the  estates  of  de- 
ceased persons  or  of  persons  insolvent,  ftho  have  assigned  the  same  for 
the  benefit  of  their  creditors,  or  is  consigned  to  such  deceased  or  insol- 
vent persons,  entry  thereof  may  be  made  by,  and  the  oaths  to  invoices 
administered  to,  the  executors,  administrators,  or  assignees  of  such  per- 
sons, as  the  case  may  be. 

Section  2853.  All  invoices  of  merchandise  subject  to  ad  valorem 
duty,  or  to  any  duty  based  on  value,  imported  from  any  foreign  country, 
shall  be  made  in  triplicate,  and  signed  by  the  persons  owning  or  ship- 
ping such  merchandise,  if  the  same  has  actually  been  purchased,  or  by 
the  manufacturer  or  owner  thereof,  if  the  same  has  been  procured  oth- 
erwise than  by  purchase,  or  by  the  duly  authorized  agent  of  such  pur- 
chaser, manufacturer,  or  owner. 

• Section  2854.  All  such  invoices  shall,  at  or  before  the  shipment  of 
the  merchandise,  be  produced  to  the  consul,  vice-consul,  or  commercial 
agent  of  the  United  States  in  the  country  of  and  nearest  the  place  in 
which  the  goods  were  originally  procured,  for  exportation  to  the  United 
States,  for  the  use  4>f  the  United  States,  and  shall  have  indorsed 
theren,  when  so  procured,  a declaration  signed  by  the  purchaser,  man- 
ufacturer, owner,  or  agent,  setting  forth  that  the  invoice  is  in  all  re- 
spects true;  that  it  contains,  if  the  merchandise  mentioned  therein  is 
subject  to  ad  valorem  duty  and  was  obtained  by  purchase,  a true  and 
full  statement  of  the  time  when  and  the  place  where  the  same  was  pur- 
chased, and  the  actual  cost  thereof,  and  that  no  discounts,  bounties,  or 
drawbacks  are  contained  in  the  invoice  but  such  as  have  actually  been 
allowed  thereon ; and  when  obtained  in  any  other  manner  than  pur- 
chase the  actual  market  value  thereof  at  the  time  and  place  when  and 


88 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


where  the  same  was  procured  or  manufactured  ; and  that  no  different 
invoice  of  the  merchandise  mentioned  in  the  invoice  so  produced 
has  been  or  will  be  furnished  to  any  one.  If  the  merchandise  was  act- 
ually purchased  the  declaration  shall  also  contain  a statement  that 
the  currency  in  which  such  invoice  is  made  out  is  the  currency  which 
was  actually  paid  for  the  merchandise  by  the  purchaser. 

Section  2857.  Whenever,  from  a change  of  the  destination  of  any  mer- 
chandise, after  the  production  of  the  invoice  thereof  to  the  consul,  vice- 
consul  or  commercial  agent,  or  from  other  cause,  the  triplicate  transmitted 
to  the  collector  of  the  port  to  which  such  merchandise  was  originally  des- 
tined is  not  received  at  the  port  where  the  same  actually  arrives,  and 
where  it  is  desired  to  make  entry  thereof,  the  merchandise  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  an  entry  on  the  execution  by  the  owner,  consignee,  or  agent, 
of  a bond,  with  sufficient  security,  in  double  the  amount  of  duty  appar- 
ently due,  conditioned  for  the  payment  of  the  duty  which  shall  be  found 
to  be  actually  due  thereon.  The  collector  of  the  port  where  such  entry 
shall  be  made  shall  immediately  notify  the  consul,  vice-consul,  or  com- 
mercial agent  to  whom  such  invoice  lias  been  produced  to  transmit  to 
such  collector  a certified  copy  thereof,  and  such  consul,  vice  consul,  or 
commercial  agent,  shall  transmit  the  same  accordingly  without  delay, 
and  the  duty  shall  not  be  finally  liquidated  until  such  triplicate,  or  a 
certified  copy  thereof,  shall  have  been  received.  Such  liquidation,  how- 
ever, shall  not  be  delayed  longer  than  eighteen  months  from  the  time  of 
making  such  entry.  Provided , That  the  collector  may,  if  satisfied  that 
there  is  no  fraud  intended,  at  his  discretion,  admit  the  merchandise  to 
entry  and  liquidation  on  the  invoice  as  filed  at  the  time  of  entry,  with- 
out requiring  such  triplicate  invoice,  or  bond. 

Section  2859.  The  six  preceding  sections  shall  not  apply  to  coun- 
tries where  there  is  no  consul,  vice-consul,  or  commercial  agent  of  the 
United  States,  and  whenever  the  value  of  the  imported  merchandise  does 
not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  the  collector  may  admit  it  to  entry 
without  invoice,  if  he  is  satisfied  that  the  importation  was  made  in 
good  faith  and  without  any  purpose  of  defrauding  the  revenue. 

Section  2860.  Except  as  allowed  in  the  four  preceding  sections,  and 
by  the  act  approved  June  22,  1874,  entitled  uAn  act  to  amend  the  cus- 
toms revenue  laws,  and  to  repeal  moieties,”  no  merchandise  imported 
from  any  foreign  place  or  country  shall  be  admitted  to  an  entry  unless 
the  invoice  presented  in  all  respects  conforms  to  the  requirements  of 
sections  twenty-eight  hundred  and  fifty-three,  twenty-eight  hundred 
and  fifty-four,  and  twenty-eight  hundred  and  fifty-five,  and  has  thereon 
the  certificate  of  the  consul,  vice-consul,  or  commercial  agent  in  those 
sections  specified,  nor  unless  the  invoice  is  verfied  at  the  time  of  mak- 
ing such  entry  by  the  oath  of  the  owner  or  consignee,  or  of  the  author- 
ized agent  of  the  owner  or  consignee,  certifying  that  the  invoice  and  the 
declaration  thereon  are  in  all  respects  true,  and  were  made  by  the  per- 
son by  whom  the  same  purports  to  have  been  made,  nor  unless  the  trip- 
licate transmitted  by  the  consul,  vice-consul,  or  commercial  agent  to  the 
collector  has  been  received  by  him,  except  as  provided  in  section  two 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven. 

Section  2862.  All  consular  officers  shall  require,  before  certifying 
any  invoice  under  the  provisions  of  the  preceding  sections,  satisfactory 
evidence,  either  by  the  oath,  affirmation,  or  declaration  (according  to  the 
forms  of  law  of  the  country  in  which  the  same  is  made  or  taken)  of  the 
person  presenting  such  invoices  that  such  invoices  are  correct  and  true, 
and  were  made  at  the  place  in  which  the  goods  were  originally  procured 
for  exportation  to  the  United  States,  which  oath,  affirmation,  ordeclara- 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


89 

tion  shall  be  attached  to  the  invoice,  and  certified  by  the  consul.  And 
in  the  performance  of  these  duties  the  consular  officers  shall  be  gov- 
erned by  such  general  or  special  regulations  or  instructions  as  may  from 
time  to  time  be  established  or  given  by  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Section  2869.  The  collector  shall,  according  to  the  best  of  his  judg- 
ment or  information,  make  a gross  estimate  of  the  amount  of  the  duties 
on  the  merchandise  to  which  the  entry  of  any  owner  or  consignee,  his 
factor  or  agent,  shall  relate,  which  estimate  shall  ^be  endorsed  upon 
such  entry  and  signed  by  the  officer  making  the  same.  The  amount  of 
the  estimated  duties  having  been  first  paid,  or  secured  to  be  paid,  pur- 
suant to  the  provisions  of  this  title,  the  collector  shall  grant  a permit 
to  land  the  merchandise  whereof  entry  has  been  made,  and  then,  and 
not  before,  it  shall  be  lawful  to  laud  the  merchandise.  Provided , That 
the  merchandise,  after  examination  thereof  by  the  proper  officers,  shall 
be  liable  for  any  additional  duties  found  to  be  due  on  the  final  adjust- 
ment or  liquidation  thereof,  which  final  adjustment  or  liquidation  shall 
be  verified  by  the  naval  officer,  if  any. 

Section  2870.  All  permits  shall  specify  as  particularly  as  may  be, 
agreeably  to  the  bills  of  lading,  the  merchandise  to  be  delivered,  name- 
ly, the  number  and  description  of  the  packages,  whether  trunk,  bale, 
chest,  box,  case,  pipe,  hogshead,  barrel,  keg,  or  any  other  packages 
whatever,  with  the  mark  and  number  of  each  package,  and  as  far  as 
circumstances  will  admit,  the  contents  thereof  agreeably  to  the  invoices 
and  entry,  together  with  the  names  of  the  vessel  and  master,  in  which, 
and  the  place  from  whence  they  were  imported;  and  no  merchandise 
shall  be  delivered  by  any  inspector  or  other  officer  of  the  customs  that 
does  not  fully  agree  with  the  description  thereof  in  such  permit.  Pro- 
vided, That  in  case  of  such  disagreement  resulting  from  errors  in  the  bills 
of  lading,  the  merchandise  may  be  sent  into  general  orders  store,  at  the 
expense  of  the  importing  vess&l,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  collec- 
tor; and  provided  further  that  the  collector  may  order  delivery  thereof 
when  satisfied  of  the  identity  of  the  merchandise. 

Section  2882.  No  merchandise  brought  in  any  vessel  from  any  for- 
eign port  or  place,  requiring  to  be  weighed,  gauged  or  measured,  in  or- 
der to  ascertain  the  duties  thereon,  shall  without  the  written  consent  of 
the  collector  be  removed  from  any  wharf  or  place,  upon  which  the  same 
may  be  landed  or  put,  before  the  same  shall  have  been  so  weighed, 
gauged,  or  measured,  and  if  spirits,  wines,  or  sugars,  before  the  proof, 
or  quality  and  quantity  thereof  is  ascertained  and  marked  thereon,  by 
or  under  the  direction  of  the  collector,  and  if  any  such  merchandise 
shall  be  removed  from  such  wharf  or  place,  unless  with  snch  consent  of 
the  collector,  obtained  before  the  same  has  been  so  weighed,  gauged,  or 
measured,  and  if  spirits,  wines  or  sugars,  before  the  proof  or  quality 
and  quantity  has  been  so  ascertained  and  marked,  the  same  shall  be 
forfeited,  and  may  be  seized  by  any  officer  of  the  customs  or  inspection. 

Section  2885.  The  officers  of  inspection  of  any  port  where  distilled 
spirits  or  wines  shall  be  landed  shall,  upon  the  landing  thereof,  and  as 
soon  as  the  casks,  vessels,  and  cases  containing  the  same  shall  be  in- 
spected, gauged,  or  measured,  brand  or  otherwise  mark  in  durable 
characters  the  several  casks,  vessels,  and  cases  containing  the  same, 
and  the  marks  shall  express  the  number  of  casks,  vessels,  or  cases, 
whether  of  spirits  or  wines,  marked  by  each  officer,  respectively,  in  each 
year  in  progressive  numbers  for  each  of  the  articles ; also  the  port  of 
importation,  the  name  of  the  vessel,  and  the  surname  of  the  master; 
also  each  kind  of  spirits  or  wines,  for  which  different  rates  of  duty  are 
or  shall  be  imposed,  the  number  of  gallons  in  each  cask  or  case,  and 


90 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


the  rate  of  proof,  if  spirits  ; also  the  name  of  the  surveyor  or  chief  offi- 
cer of  inspection  for  the  port,  and  the  date  of  importation  ; of  all  which 
particulars  the  chief  officers  of  inspection  shall  keep  fair  and  correct 
accounts,  in  hooks  to  be  provided  for  that  purpose,  and  make  return  of 
the  same  to  the  surveyor. 

Section  2887.  If  any  package  whatever  which  has  been  so  reported 
is  wanting  and  not  found  on  board  such  vessel,  or  if  the  merchandise 
ou  board  such  vessel  does  not  otherwise  agree  with  the  report  or  mani- 
fest delivered  by  the  master  of  any  such  vessel,  in  every  such  case  the 
master  shall  be  liable  to  a penalty  of  live  hundred  dollars,  except  that 
if  it  is  made  to  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  collector,  or  in  case  of 
trial  for  the  penalty  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court,  that  no  part  what- 
ever of  the  merchandise  of  such  vessel  has  been  unshipped,  landed,  or 
unladen  since  it  was  taken  on  board,  except  as  specified  in  the  report 
or  manifest,  and  pursuant  to  permits,  or  that  the  disagreement  is  by 
accident  or  mistake,  in  such  case  the  penalty  shall  not  be  inflicted. 
But  in  all  such  cases  the  master  of  any  vessel  shall  be  required  and 
shall  make  a post  entry  or  addition  to  the  report  or  manifest  by  him 
delivered  of  any  and  all  merchandise  omitted  to  be  included  and  re- 
ported in  such  manifest,  and- it  shall  not  be  lawful  to  grant  a permit  to 
unlade  any  such  merchandise  so  omitted  before  such  post  entry  or  ad- 
dition to  such  report  or  manifest  has  been  made. 

Section  2898.  In  estimating  the  allowance  for  tare  in  all  chests, 
boxes,  cases,  casks,  bags,  or  other  envelope  or  covering  of  all  articles 
imported  liable  to  pay  any  duty,  where  the  original  invoice  is  produced 
and  the  tare  shall  be  specified  therein,  the  collector,  if  he  sees  fit,  or 
the  collector  and  naval  officer,  if  any,  if  they  see  fit,  may  estimate  the 
tare  according  to  such  invoice,  but  otherwise  the  real  tare  shall  be  al- 
lowed, and  may  be  ascertained  under  suqh  regulations  as  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  may  from  time  to  time  prescr  ibe,  but  in  no  case  shall 
there  be  any  allowance  for  draff. 

Section  2900.  The  owner,  consignee,  or  agent  of  any  merchandise 
which  has  been  actually  purchased,  or  procured  otherwise  than  by  pur- 
chase, at  the  time,  and  not  afterward,  when  he  shall  produce  his  original 
invoice  to  the  collector  and  make  and  verify  under  oath  or  affirmation 
his  written'entry  of  his  merchandise,  may  make  such  addition  in  the  entry 
to  the  cost  or  value  given  in  the  invoice  as  in  his  opinion  may  raise  the 
same  to  the  actual  market  value  or  wholesale  price  of  such  merchandise 
at  the  period  of  exportation  to  the  United  States  in  the  principal  markets 
of  the  country  from  which  the  same  has  been  imported,  and  the  col- 
lector within  whose  district  the  same  may  be  imported  or  entered 
shall  cause  such  actual  value  or  wholesale  price  to  be  appraised,  but 
the  duty  shall  not  however  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  less  than 
the  invoice  or  entered  value,  except  in  case  of  mistake  or  misdescrip- 
tion of  the  goods  in  the  invoice,  clearly  established  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  collector,  and  in  all  cases  where  such  market  value  or 
wholesale  price  as  appraised,  estimated,  and  ascertained  under  the  cus- 
toms laws  of  the  United  States,  of  any  article  or  articles  of  imported 
merchandise  subject  to  ad  valorem  duty,  or  to  duty  based  in  whole 
or  in  part  on  value,  shall  exceed  the  entered  value  at  the  custom  house 
(whether  such  entered  value  be  based  on  a certified  invoice  or  any  other 
document  whatever  admitted  or  received  in  lieu  of  such  certified  in- 
voice) more  than  five  per  centum,  and  not  more  than  fifteen  per  centum 
of  the  value  stated  in  said  entry  thereof,  then  in  addition  to  the  duty 
imposed  by  law  on  such  article  or  articles  of  merchandise  there  shall  be 
levied,  collected,  and  paid  two  per  centum  of  such  total  appraised 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


91 


market  value  or  wholesale  price  thereof  for  each  full  or  entire  one  per 
centum  of  such  additional  value  above  such  five  per  centum,  as  a penalty 
for  such  undervaluation ; and  if  such  appraised  value  shall  exceed  said 
entered  value  more  than  fifteen  per  centum  the  said  entry  shall  be 
deemed  and  held  to  be  presumptively  fraudulent,  and  the  collector  shall 
seize  such  article  or  articles  of  merchandise,  and  proceed  as  in  other 
cases  of  forfeiture  for  violation  of  the  customs  laws ; provided  that  the 
penalties  and  forfeiture  in  this  section  provided  for  shall  only  apply  to 
the  particular  articles  in  each  invoice  which  are  undervalued;  and  pro- 
vided further,  that  when  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  to  the  collector  by 
satisfactory  evidence  that  the  said  undervaluation  on  said  entry  was 
caused  by  a manifest  clerical  error,  or  mere  mistake,  and  without  any 
intention  to  undervalue  or  defraud,  the  collector  shall  so  certify  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  with  such  certificate  transmit  the  evi- 
dence in  support  thereof,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  if  fully 
satisfied  that  said  certificate  is  sustained  by  said  evidence,  and  not  oth- 
erwise, may  remit  said  penalty,  or  may  remit  said  forfeiture  at  any  time 
before  the  commencement  ot  legal  proceedings  for  forfeiture,  and  not 
afterwards;  and  in  such  legal  proceedings  the  fact  of  such  undervalu- 
ation shall  be  presumptive  evidence  of  fraud,  and  the  burden  of  proof 
shall  be  on  the  claimant  to  rebut  the  same,  and  forfeiture  shall  be  ad- 
judged unless  he  shall  fully  rebut  said  presumption  of  fraudulent  in- 
tent by  sufficient  evidence. 

Section  2902.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  appraisers  of  the  United 
States,  and  every  of  them,  and  every  person  who  shall  act  as  such  ap- 
praiser, or  of  the  collector  and  naval  officer,  as  the  case  may  be,  by  all 
reasonable  ways  and  means  in  his  or  their  power,  to  ascertain  the  proof 
of  distilled  spirits  imported,  rating  such  spirits  according  to  their  re- 
spective degrees  of  proof,  as  defined  by  the  laws  imposing  duties  on 
spirits;  to  ascertain  the  character  of  imported  merchandise,  and  also 
to  ascertain,  estimate,  and  appraise  the  true  and  actual  market  value 
and  wholesale  price,  any  invoice  or  affidavit  thereto  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, of  the  merchandise  at  the  time  of  exportation,  and  in 
the  principal  markets  of  the  country  whence  the  same  has  been  im- 
ported into  the  United  States,  and  the  number  of  such  goods,  parcels, 
or  quantities,  and  such  actual  market  value  or  wholesale  price  of  every 
of  them,  as  the  case  may  require.  All  such  merchandise  being  manu- 
factured of  wool,  or  whereof  wool  shall  be  a component  part,  which 
shall  be  imported  into  the  United  States  in  an  unfinished  condition, 
shall  in  every  such  appraisal  be  estimated  to  have  been  at  the  time  of 
exportation  and  place  whence  the  same  was  imported  into  the  United 
States  of  as  great  value  as  if  the  same  had  been  entirely  finished. 

That  section  29i>7  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  repealed. 

That  section  2908  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  repealed. 

Section  2926.  All  merchandise,  of  which  incomplete  entry  has  been 
made,  or  an  entry  without  the  specification  of  particulars,  either  for 
want  of  the  original  invoice  or  for  any  other  cause,  or  which  has  received 
damage  during  the  voyage,  shall  be  conveyed  to  some  warehouse  or 
storehouse,  to  be  designated  by  the  collector,  in  the  parcels  or  packages 
containing  the  same,  there  to  remain  with  due  and  reasonable  care,  at 
the  expense  and  risk  of  the  owner  or  consignee,  under  the  care  of  some 
proper  officer,  until  the  particulars,  cost,  or  value,  as  the  case  may  re- 
quire, shall  have  been  ascertained  either  by  the  exhibition  of  the  origi- 
nal invoice  thereof,  or  by  appraisement,  and  until  the  duties  thereon 
shall  have  been  paid  or  secured  to  be  paid,  and  a permit  granted  by 
the  collector  for  the  delivery  thereof. 


92 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Section  2927.  In  respect  to  articles  that  have  been  damaged  during 
the  voyage,  whether  subject  to  a duty  ad  valorem,  or  chargeable  with 
a specific  duty,  either  by  number,  weight,  or  measure,  the  appraisers 
shall  ascertain  and  certify  to  what  rate  or  percentage  the  merchandise 
is  damaged,  and  the  rate  or  percentage  of  damage  so  ascertained  and 
certified  shall  be  deducted  from  the  original  amount,  subject  to  a duty 
ad  valorem,  or  from  the  acutal  or  original  number,  weight,  or  measure, 
on  which  specific  duties  would  have  been  computed.  No  allowance, 
however,  for  the  damage  on  any  merchandise  that  has  been  entered, 
and  on  which  the  duties  have  been  paid  or  secured  to  be  paid,  and  for 
which  a.  permit  has  been  granted  to  the  owTner  or  consignee  thereof, 
and  which  may,  on  examining  the  same,  prove  to  be  damaged,  shall  be 
made,  unless  proof  to  ascertain  such  damage  shall  be  lodged  in  the 
custom-house  of  the  port  where  such  merchandise  has  been  landed, 
within  ten  days  after  the  landing  of  such  merchandise:  Provided,  That 
no  claim  for  damage  shall  be  received  or  allowed  until  after  due  entry 
of  the  merchandise. 

Se  ction  2932.  The  decision  of  the  respective  collectors  of  customs  as 
to  all  fees,  charges,  and  exactions  of  whatever  character,  other  than  those 
relating  to  the  rate  and  amount  of  duties  to  be  paid  on  the  tonnage  of 
vessel,  or  on  merchandise,  and  the  costs  and  charges  thereon,  claimed 
by  them,  or  by  any  of  the  officers  under  them  in  the  performance  of 
their  official  duty,  shall  be  final  and  conclusive  against  all  persons 
interested  in  such  fees,  charges,  or  exactions,  unless  notice  that  an  ap- 
peal will  be  taken  from  such  decision  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
shall  be  given  within  ten  days  from  the  making  of  such  decision,  and 
unless  such  appeal  shall  actually  be  taken  within  thirty  days  from  the 
making  of  such  decision ; and  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
shall  be  final  and  conclusive  upon  the  matter  so  appealed  unless  suit 
shall  be  brought  for  the  recovery  of  such  fees,  charges,  or  exactions 
within  the  period  of  ninety  days  after  such  decision.  No  suit  shall  be 
maintained  in  any  court  for  the  recovery  of  any  such  fees,  costs,  and 
charges,  alleged  to  have  been  erroneously  or  illegally  exacted,  until  the 
decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  have  been  first  had  on 
such  appeal,  unless  such  decision  of  the  Secretary  shall  be  delayed  more 
than  ninety  days  from  the  date  of  such  appeal  in  case  of  an  entry  at 
any  port  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  or  more  than  five  months  in  case 
of  the  entry  west  of  those  mountains. 

Section  2939.  The  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  shall  not  under 
any  circumstances  direct  to  be  sent  for  examination  and  appraisement 
less  than  one  package  of  every  invoice,  and  one  package  at  least  out 
of  every  ten  packages  of  merchandise,  and  a greater  number  should  he, 
or  the  appraiser,  or  any  assistant  appraiser,  deem  it  necessary.  When 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  however,  from  the  character  and  descrip- 
tion of  any  class  of  merchandise,  may  be  of  the  opinion  that  the  exami- 
nation of  a less  proportion  of  packages  will  amply  protect  the  revenue, 
lie  may  by  regulation  direct  a less  number  of  packages  to  be  examined. 
And  when  from  the  character  of  any  class  of  goods  it  is  in  his  opinion 
unnecessary  to  remove  the  same  to  the  public  stores,  he  may  by  regu- 
lation permit  their  examination  for  appraisal  at  such  other  places  as 
he  may  direct. 

Section  3058.  All  merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States  shall, 
for  the  purpose  of  this  title,  be  deemed  and  held  to  be  the  property  of 
the  person  to  whom  the  merchandise  may  be  consigned,  unless  the  act- 
ual ow  ner  at  the  time  of  the  original  exportation  of  the  same  shall  make 
the  entry  thereof  on  the  bills  of  lading  and  invoice  for  the  same.  Any 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


93 


sale,  transfer,  or  assignment  prior  to  the  entry  and  payment  of  the  du- 
ties on  such  merchandise,  and  the  payment  of  all  bonds  then  due  and 
unsatisfied  by  the  consignee,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  and  the 
holder  of  any  bill  of  lading  consigned  to  order  and  properly  indorsed, 
shall  be  deemed  the  consignee  thereof. 

Amend  section  9,  anti-moiety  act,  Heyl,  p.  151,  so  as  to  read: 

Section  9.  That  except  in  the  case  of  personal  or  household  effects, 
books,  tools,  or  implements  accompanying  the  passenger  no  importa- 
tion exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  in  dutiable  value  of  goods  bearing 
an  ad  valorem  duty,  or  duty  based  on  value,  shall  be  admitted  to  entry 
without  the  production  of  a duly  certified  invoice  thereof  or  the  docu- 
ments to  be  received  in  lieu  thereof,  as  specified  in  sections  twenty-seven 
hundred  and  eighty -five  (2785)  and  twenty  seven  hundred  and  eighty- 
eight  (2788),  together  with  an  affidavit  made  by  the  owner,  importer, 
or  consignee  before  any  officer  authorized  to  administer  oaths,  showing 
why  it  is  impracticable  to  produce  such  invoice. 

That  section  nine  (9)  of  the  act  approved  June  10,  1880,  be  amended 
so  as  to  read  as  follows  : 

Section  9.  That  no  merchandise  shall  be  shipped  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  after  such  merchandise  shall  have  been  landed  fifteen 
days  from  the  importing  vessel,  and  merchandise  not  entered  within 
such  time  shall  be  sent  to  a bonded  warehouse  by  the  collector  as  un- 
claimed, and  held  until  regularly  entered  and  appraised:  Provided,  That 
the  collector  may,  when  in  his  judgment  it  is  necessary,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  consignee  and  at  his  expense  and  risk,  send  any  such  mer- 
chandise to  ajbonded  warehouse  at  any  time  after  it  is  landed,  subject 
to  the  right  of  transportation  under  this  act  within  fifteen  days  of  the 
landing  of  the  same. 

PROPOSED  BILL  FOR  CUSTOMS  COURT. 

A BILL  to  create  a customs  court  and  provide  a better  system  for  the  trial  of  cus- 
toms revenue  cases. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled  : 

Section  1.  That  a court  shall  be  and  is  hereby  constituted,  to  be 
known  as  the  Customs  Court  of  the  United  States,  to  consist  of  a pres- 
ident judge  and  two  associate  judges  (at  least  one  of  whom  shall  be  a 
customs  expert,  and  shall  have  had  at  least  ten  years’  experience  in  the 
customs  service),  who  shall  be  appointed  and  qualified  and  hold  their 
officesin  all  respects  as  the  other  judges  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 

The  salary  of  the  president  judge  shall  be dollars,  and  of  each  of 

the  associates dollars  per  year,  to  be  paid  in  the  same  manner  as 

the  salaries  of  other  judges. 

Section  2.  The  jurisdiction  of  said  court  shall  extend  to  all  questions 
arising  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  imposing  customs  and  ton- 
nage duties  which  have  heretofore  been  the  subject  of  protest  and  ap- 
peal to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  shall  include  all  questions  of 
classification  and  rates  of  duty  on  imported  goods,  wares,  and  merchan- 
dise, and  the  mode  of  determining  said  rates ; and  the  decision  of  said 
court,  as  to  all  such  matters,  shall  be  final  and  conclusive. 

Provided,  That  on  motion  filed  by  either  party  within  thirty  days  oi 
the  entry  of  any  decision,  said  court  may  for  cause  set  aside  the  judg- 
ment and  grant  a rehearing,  and  the  case  shall  then  proceed  to  a hear- 
ing and  determination  in  all  respects  as  if  said  judgment  had  not  been 
entered. 


94 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Section  3.  In  addition  to  the  prohibitions  of  section  seven  hundred 
and  thirteen  (713)  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any 
of  said  judges  to  be  interested  in  any  way  in  any  importing  or  mercan- 
tile business,  or  engaged  or  interested  in  importations  of  merchandise 
or  property  of  any  description,  or  to  be  partners  of  or  interested  in 
business  with  any  importer  of  such  gocds  or  property. 

Section  4.  Said  court  shall,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  necessary  to 
the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction,  have  the  $ame  power  as  the  circuit  courts 
of  the  United  States  to  issue  writs,  processes,  and  subpoenas,  and  com- 
pel the  attendance  of  witnesses,  issue  commissions  to  take  testimony, 
impose  and  administer  judicial  oaths,  compel  the  production  of  books 
or  writings  in  the  possession  of  parties,  or  others,  which  contain  evi- 
dence as  to  any  matter  pending  before  it,  to  issue  attachments  and 
executions,  to  enforce  its  judgments  and  decrees,  to  punish  by  hue  and 
imprisonment  for  contempts  of  its  authority,  and  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations for  the  transaction  of  its  business,  and  such  powers  shall  in  all 
respects  be  subject  to  the  same  limitations  and  restrictions  as  in  the 
circuit  courts. 

Section  5.  All  writs,  processes,  and  subpoenas  issuing  from  said 
court  shall  be  under  the  seal  thereof  and  signed  by  its  clerk,  and  bear 
teste  in  the  name  of  the  president  judge  of  said  court. 

Section  fi.  The  regular  sessions  of  said  court  shall  be  held  iu  the 
city  of  New  York,  in  rooms  to  be  furnished  for  the  purpose  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  in  or  reasonably  near  to  the  custom-house  in 
said  city,  and  said  court  shall  be  open  daily,  except  Sundays  and  legal 
holidays,  for  the  transaction  of  business ; but  the  court  shall  hold  at 
least  one  session  in  each  year  at  the  city  of  New  Orleans  and  one  ses- 
sion at  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  and  from  time  to  time,  as  the  court 
may  deem  it  necessary,  special  sessions  may  be  held  at  the  custom- 
house of  any  other  port  of  entry,  as  the  business  may  require,  and  the 
necessary  traveling  expenses  of  the  judges  and  clerk  shall  be  paid  out 
of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

Section  7.  Said  court  shall  appoint  a clerk,  who  shall  receive  an 

annual  salary  of dollars,  and  no  other  fees  or  compensation,  and 

who  shall  discharge  for  said  court  the  same  duties  as  are  required  by 
lawr  of  the  clerks  of  circuit  courts,  and  such  other  duties  as  may  be 
necessary  or  as  the  court  may  direct  ,*  he  shall  be  qualified  and  give 
bond,  as  is  required  by  law  of  the  clerks  of  the  circuit  courts ; shall 
hold  his  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the  court,  and  have  charge  of  its 
seal  and  records ; and  iu  the  discharge  of  his  duties  shall  iu  all  respects 
be  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  the  clerks  of  said  circuit  courts.  The 
process  of  said  court  shall  be  served  by  the  marshal  of  any  district  to 
which  it  may  be  issued,  and  may  be  returned  by  mail;  and  said  court 
shall  appoint  one  or  more  bailiffs,  as  may  be  necessary,  who  shall  be 
paid  as  the  bailiffs  in  circuit  courts. 

Section  8.  Section  two  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirty-one  (2931) 
of  the  Revised  Statutes  shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  amended  so  as  to  read  as 
follows : 

Section  2931.  On  the  entry  of  any  vessel,  or  of  any  merchandise,  the 
decision  of  the  collector  of  customs  at  the  port  of  importation  and  entry, 
as  to  the  rate  and  amount  of  duties  to  be  paid  on  the  tonnage  of  such 
vessel,  or  on  such  merchandise,  shall  be  final  and  conclusive  against  all 
persons  interested  therein,  unless  the  owner,  master,  commander,  or 
consignee  of  such  vessel,  in  the  case  of  duties  levied  on  tonnage,  or 
the  owner,  importer,  consignee,  or  agent,  of  the  merchandise,  in  the  case 
of  duties  levied  on  merchandise,  shall,  within  ten  days  after  public  no- 


REPORT  OP  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


95 


tice  is  posted  in  tbe  custom  house  of  the  ascertainment  and  liquidation 
of  the  duties  on  any  entry  by  the  proper  officers  of  the  customs,  as  well 
in  cases  of  merchandise  entered  in  bond  as  for  consumption,  give 
notice  of  protest,  in  writing,  to  the  collector  on  each  entry,  if  dissat- 
isfied with  his  decision,  setting  forth  therein,  distinctly  and  spe- 
cifically. the  grounds  of  his  objection  thereto  (but  protests  lodged 
before  liquidation  shall  be  void),  on  the  receipt  of  which  the  collector 
shall  reconsider  the  matters  complained  of,  and  again  decide  the  same; 
and  on  deciding  the  same,  the  collector  shall  notify  the  importer,  his 
agent,  or  attorney,  in  writing,  by  mail,  of  his  determination  thereof,  and 
such  determination  shall  be  final  and  conclusive  of  such  ascertainment 
and  liquidation,  unless  the  importer  shall  within  twenty  days  of  the 
mailing  of  such  notice  of  decision  appeal  therefrom  to  the  customs 
court,  by  giving  the  collector  notice  of  such  appeal,  and  filing  with  the 
collector  a bond,  with  sufficient  sureties,  payable  to  the  United  States, 
in  double  the  amount  of  all  the  duties  unpaid,  if  any,  and  of  the  costs  and 
charges  on  such  vessel  or  merchandise  as  liquidated,  conditioned  that 
he  will  abide  by  and  satisfy  the  judgment  or  decree  of  said  customs 
court  on  said  appeal,  and  pay  all  moneys  and  costs  which  may  be  ad- 
judged against  him  in  said  customs  court,  said  bond  shall  be  subject  to 
the  approval  of  the  collector,  and  he  may  require  the  sureties  thereon 
to  justify  in  double  the  amount  thereof.  Provided , however , That  such 
importer,  owner,  consignee,  or  agent,  may  in  such  cases,  if  said  merchan- 
dise is  still  in  the  possession  of  the  collector,  and  there  has  been  no  un- 
dervaluation or  fraud  in  the  entry  thereof,  withdraw  said  merchandise 
from  entry  and  export  the  same,  at  any  time  before  the  time  herein 
fixed  for  the  giving  of  said  bond,  and  before  said  bond  is  filed,  if  he  de- 
sires to  do  so;  and  in  that  case  no  duties  shall  be  charged  thereon,  and 
said  merchandise  shall  not  thereafter  be  subject  to  entry;  but  in  case 
of  such  withdrawal  for  export,  such  importer,  owner,  consignee,  or 
agent,  shall  pay  all  the  actual  cost  and  expenses  on  said  entry. 

Section  9.  Upon  the  filing  and  approval  of  said  appeal  bond,  as 
provided  in  section  twenty-nine  hundred  and  thirty-one  (2931)  as 
amended  above,  the  collector  shall  deliver  said  merchandise,  if  any 
shall  remain  in  his  possession,  to  the  importer,  owner,  consignee,  or 
agent  entitled  to  the  same,  and  shall  immediately  forward  the  entry  of 
said  goods,  and  said  protest,  together  with  all  testimony  in  his  posses- 
sion in  relation  to  said  entry,  and  all  other  papers,  writings,  and  sam- 
ples in  any  way  connected  wifh  said  entry  and  liquidation,  including 
the  decision  of  the  collector,  and  a statement  ot  the  liquidation  of  the 
duties  on  said  entry,  to  the  clerk  of  the  customs  court,  who  shall  there- 
upon docket  the  case  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  against  said  ap- 
pellant, and  shall  carefully  file  and  preserve  the  papers  and  samples  so 
transmitted  to  him;  and  thereupon  said  case  shall  be  ready  for  hearing 
without  the  filing  of  any  other  pleadings,  unless  the  court  shall  other- 
wise direct ; but  either  party  may  offer  additional  testimony  by  deposi- 
tion, upon  notice,  or  orally,  under  such  regulations  as  the  court  may 
make  in  relation  thereto. 

Section  10.  On  the  filing  of  an  appeal  in  case  of  an  entry  of  mer- 
chandise, the  court  shall  cause  a notice  of  the  same  to  be  given  in  some 
newspaper  published  at  the  port  of  importation,  and  also  in  a newspa- 
per to  be  designated  for  that  purpose  by  the  court,  published  and  of 
general  circulation  in  the  city  of  New  York,  describing  the  merchan- 
dise entered,  by  its  usual  commercial  designation,  and  such  general  de- 
scription as  may,  in  the  opinion  of  the  court,  be  necessary  to  indicate 
the  character  of  the  merchandise  together  with  the  classification  thereof, 


96 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


and  rate  of  duty  thereon,  as  claimed  by  the  appellant,  and  also  as  de- 
cided by  the  collector.  And  persons  claiming  to  have  an  interest  in 
the  questions  involved  in  the  case,  may,  on  application,  at  the  discre- 
tion of  the  court,  be  allowed  to  offer  testimony,  and  be  heard  in  argu- 
ment therein,  by  themselves  or  counsel;  but  such  persons  shall  pay 
their  own  costs  and  shall  not  recover  the  same  in  any  case. 

Section  11.  Each  case  so  transmitted  to  said  court  shall  be  heard 
and  decided  as  soon  as  possible,  having  due  regard  to  a proper  consid- 
eration of  the  same  ; but  the  decision  shall  not  be  deferred  more  than 
ninety  days  from  the  date  of  the  receipt  and  docketing  of  said  appeal, 
unless  for  cause  to  be  entered  on  the  docket  of  said  court : Provided , 
That  the  court  shall  not  lose  jurisdiction  of  said  case,  nor  shall  its  ju- 
risdiction be  affected  in  any  way  by  any  delay  in  said  decision  beyond 
the  said  ninety  days  after  the  receipt  and  docketing  of  said  appeal. 

Section  12.  In  deciding  each  case  the  said  court  shall  determine  all 
matters  involved  in  the  appeal,  or  in  any  way  connected  with  the  entry, 
and  shall  determine  the  rates  and  amounts  of  the  duties  and  charges  to  be 
paid  by  reason  of  the  same,  and  render  judgment  therefor  in  favor  of  the 
United  States  and  against  said  appellant,  including  in  said  judgment 
interest  on  said  duties  and  charges  from  the  date  of  entry,  if  entered 
for  consumption,  or  from  the  date  of  the  withdrawal  of  entry  for 
consumption,  if  originally  entered  in  bond,  at  the  rate  of  six  per 
centum  per  annum.  If  the  decision  of  the  collector  is  affirmed,  the 
judgment  shall  be  for  the  amount  of  the  duties  remaining  unpaid  as 
liquidated  by  the  customs  officers,  with  interest  as  aforesaid,  and  for 
the  costs  of  said  appeal : and  if  the  decision  of  the  collector  is  reversed, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  then  the  court  shall  determine  the  rates  of  duties 
to  be  charged,  and  may  liquidate  the  entry  accordingly,  or  refer  the 
same  to  the  proper  customs  officers,  or  to  the  clerk  of  said  court,  for 
liquidation  ; and  in  such  case  when  the  said  entry  has  been  liquidated 
by  or  under  the  order  of  the  court,  it  shall  render  judgment  in  favor  of 
the  United  States  and  against  the  appellant  for  the  amount  due  on  said 
entry,  with  interest  as  aforesaid  ; but  if  the  decision  of  the  collector  is 
wholly  reversed,  such  judgment  shall  be  without  costs,  in  which  case 
the  United  States  shall  pay  the  costs  on  said  appeal;  and  if  the  decis- 
ion of  the  collector  is  reversed  in  part  and  affirmed  in  part,  the  court 
shall  make  such  order  as  to  costs  as  it  may  deem  equitable;  the  judg- 
ment rendered  shall  in  any  case  bear  interest  from  the  date  thereof  at 
the  rate  of  six  per  cent,  per  annum,  and  shall  be  payable  in  coin,  and 
execution  may  issue  from  said  court  to  the  marshal  of  au3r  district  in 
the  United  States,  to  collect  the  same  at  any  time  after  the  eutry  of 
said  judgment,  and  suit  may  be  brought  and  judgment  rendered  upon 
said  appeal  bond  iu  the  proper  circuit  court  (if  said  judgment  is  not 
paid)  for  the  amount  of  said  judgment,  costs,  and  interest. 

Section  13.  Thatsaid  court  shall  cause  synopses  of  its  decisions  from 
time  to  time  to  be  prepared,  describing  therein  the  merchandise  in- 
volved by  its  commercial  designation,  and  such  other  pertinent  descrip- 
tion as  may  be  necessary  to  a full  understanding  of  its  holdings,  and 
the  classification  of  the  same  and  rates  of  duties  thereon  as  determined 
by  said  court,  and  all  other  matters  by  it  decided  ; it  shall  certify  said 
synopses  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  shall  cause  the  same  to 
be  printed  and  furnished  to  the  several  custom-houses  for  the  use  of  the 
revenue  officers  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  and  such  decisions  shall 
be  binding  on  the  several  collectors  and  other  revenue  officers  as  to 
all  matters  of  classification  of  merchandise,  and  the  duties  chargeable 
thereon,  and  all  other  matters  so  decided  in  said  court;  and  the  hold- 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


97 


ings  of  said  court  shall  be  followed  in  the  administration  of  the  customs 
revenues  by  all  the  officers  of  the  government  having  charge  thereof. 

Section  14.  The  President  shall,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate,  appoint  a customs  attorney,  who  shall  be  qualified  and 
give  bond  and  hold  his  office  the  same  as  district  attorneys,  and  receive 

a salary  of dollars  per  year  while  holding  said  office.  It  shall  be 

his  duty  to  act  as  the  attorney  of  the  United  States  in  all  cases  pending 
in  the  customs  court;  and  while  holding  said  office  he  shall  not  be  en- 
gaged in  the  business  of  importation,  nor  in  any  way  interested  in  such 
business.  The  Attorney-General  may  also,  when  in  his  judgment  it  may 
be  necessary,  appoiut  other  counsel  to  assist  said  customs  attorney  in 
the  discharge  of  his  duties  in  any  case  or  cases. 

Section  15.  That  from  and  after  the  taking  effect  of  this  act,  no  col- 
lector or  other  officer  of  the  customs  shall  be  in  any  way  liable  to  any 
master,  owner,  commander,  or  consignee  of  any  vessel,  or  owner,  im- 
porter, consignee,  or  agent  of  any  merchandise,  or  any  other  person,  for 
or  on  account  of  any  rulings  or  holdings  as  to  the  tonnage,  dues,  and 
charges  on  said  vessel,  or  the  classification  of  said  merchandise,  or  the 
duties  charged  thereon,  or  the  collection  of  any  dues,  charges,  or  duties 
on  or  on  account  of  said  vessel  or  merchandise,  or  any  other  matter  or 
thing  as  to  which  said  master,  owner,  commander,  or  consignee  of  such 
vessel,  or  owner,  importer,  consignee,  or  agent  of  such  merchandise, 
might  under  this  act  be  entitled  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  said  col- 
ector to  the  customs  court. 

Section  16.  That  sections  twenty- nine  hundred  and  thirty-one  (2931), 
three  thousand  and  eleven  (3011),  three  thousand  and  twelve  (3012), 
three  thousand  and  thirteen  (3013)  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  the  first, 
second,  and  third  sections  of  the  act  of  March  3, 1875,  entitled  “An  act 
restricting  the  refunding  of  customs  duties  and  prescribing  certain 
regulations  of  the  Treasury  Department,”  and  all  other  acts  and  parts 
of  acts  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  act, are  hereby  repealed; 
but  such  repeal  shall  not  affect  pending  actions  or  causes  of  action 
which  have  already  accrued,  nor  shall  anything  in  this  act  contained 
be  construed  to  prevent  the  correction  by  the  collector,  or  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  of  any  manifest  mistakes  or  clerical  errors  in 
any  entry  or  liquidation,  whether  for  or  against  the  government,  at  any 
time  within  one  year  of  the  date  of  such  entry;  but  the  power  to  cor- 
rect such  mistakes  or  errors  shall  still  continue  to  exist  as  heretofore 
within  said  time. 


H.  Mis.  6 7 


98 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


© 

2 

g 

>5 


& I 
§ - 

I | 

i 

i 

< v 


1 

019 

220 

556 

799 

074 

sllslsl 

t>00<M^r-»C-0<MlOrHCSIt-iftOO 

SP 

F-  10 

SISlIISs 

1880. 

t 

cf 

cT 

a 

CM  id  ^ 

rH  <M 

|‘g^E^g“S|E:S,0“S 

rjT 

*'§  Sss"¥ 

1 

is 

1111= 

t'  CD  t>  OO  Cvj 

siialsSllilsIg 

llllllilH 

1870. 

! 1 
cf 

00" 

g" 

of  ■S'”  cf  tf 

S'8&®g§35g!gH,0iS 

Cf  cf  Cf  Iff  r-T  C<f  tf  Cf  Of  ’ 

^ 5? 

CD 

<M 

1 

si 

1 . 

S23S 

IIISlIlllllsS 

1 

340 

027 

074 

112 

217 

602 

978 

132 

1 

CO 

r-T 

r4of 

s 

CD-"  CO  of  r-T 

s f “ s a a r*  2 

(M 

i 

1 

1 

11 

S 

Hi! 

10  t—  -rt  CM  O CM  Tt'  CC  r—  00 

11*11111 

1. 

; S 

eo 

§ 

co*  cf  OO* 

SS^  “S 

£S  § 

^ - 
r e 


4 


- 2 

s s 

§ * 

I | 
*.  i 
5 g 


2» 


iii»Sg§iii§§lilSilSis!S!3!llllg^isl! 


llsI!l!!lllllll!lsSgllgSll!lgglllI!l 

"3rf§  s^'-'s  SS$!^g2§§gPS^-~“Sg"|“3^| 


1! 

If 

^c* 


II 


ftfg'l 


Isis 

00  rH  t>-  CD 


iSSI^pi^li  :g 

liiiilsSllilil  I 
£ s s g g wV*'  s 


gig 

£gg" 

NOW 


S353S11SS 

liliWii 

TH  Iff  TH  tjT  00**  <0"  r-T  00' 


1111=111 

Ssiiiisi 

|g=-c-g®-S-«-g 

21111111 

iwilsf 

ssf  *§i-‘?f  s 


l=lllllSsll2l§SllSI»Isllllla»S2Sl!IS 

cf  i-T iff  ■*£  co  ^ h to  im‘  10  « oo" « r-T 00"  r-T  co  t-f  cfeo“®%fjH 


saiHs^isssssssssiiaaigggsiisisssEss 

cf  i-T  CO  10  CO  cf  m o'"  ri  in"  <n  w'  kT  m <S  cf  r-T  rH  CO  S CD  CIS  gf 


II 


Jill 

«M<iO 


l"»rlX 


ills 


■S  'St 


Illllsslsllls 

co*  i-T of co" 00  eo"  CO 


111 

CO~TtT 


1 ilillfi.  __ 
gills llssl, 


iisssrsi 

CO  I-T  cf  co  00"  of  cf 


issisass 

<N%*  SJ 


SSaiMsi 

a«‘s“  s 


£ 

f feg 


S,,_  2 2 t S a e ^ ^ ^ ^ ® 3 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


99 


ESiSS22S3Si 


SSEIHSSESS 

Cl"  00  Cl*  l>  r-T  «>  JO  r-T  j-H*  CO 


88888888 

Sf”'S“  38 


Sliisss 

S'-'S-  oo-g 


lls§§l!§lil 


SsS-'-SS-s'S 


83833888888 

mmmmM 

s“‘s“-'Ss-*s 


lesislsll  s 

giisiiss  :i 

-S'- 


8888883 

IISl-11 

cfwo  in  oo* 


llllisP8sSS  ■ 

csTntjTin"  in*  in  wt-"  I 


Hangings 

r-T  i-T  in*  cf  en*  m*  in*  t>  | 


slslall53 

n'nV  r^'m* 


8888*83 

-Tin  ,-TtjT 


111 iiiiiiil 


Appendix  I. — Table  showing  the  progress  of  manufactures  in  each  State  and  Territory  of  the  United  States , §c. — Continued. 


100 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


1 


siassgiSaSisssisESaiiisfiSfiffKfffWfff 

3 S^efS"S'°" SVsgsfe" |§ § 

jMMMmMMmMmmmmmMm 


1 

$ 

o' 

2,  880,  578 
68,  253,  228 

81,  924,  555 

I 

9,  892,  902| 
5,  412,102; 
2,  447,  969 
16,  925,  564 

57,  580,  886 
42,  803,  469 
13,  971,  325 
4,  357,  408 
37,  931,  240 
15,  587,  473 
38, 193,  254 
41,  735,  157 
255,  545,  922 
32.  658,  356 
3,  373, 172 
6,  590,  687 
41,  782,  731 

8 

1 illlllilBp 

i lC  5c'  i-T  00  co*  r-T  cf  o o' 

:Mt"  £^3  S'* 

CO 

£ 

11 

S 

Ills 

111  £51828883 

: :§lsitli§§ 

1 

si 

rf 

lift 

Mi  iggiliWi 

i iSiliHiiiS 

s' 

■>* 

^ CM 

CO  00  CO  • ~4  CO  Tf  CO*  l>  f-T  cvf  r*T 

rH  r— i • CM  WCOiOH  CM 

: jSS 

iiiiisgsirisiissiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiifi 

“ |SSs‘53SS|§S^'S"“"S‘|  |2£”|S§ 

Sisisfisiiiiifisiiissisi 

l-  ”§-■§■  s-*"«is  SSS®Sa§SS$S^‘2'"^25|  S25”SES 

sisssssesss' 

CM  'COHOOO!M(Ma5COlO 


8 


IS 

1 

fill 

iSISiSilSsill 

‘11 

1 

1221 

tmmmm 

50*  Cf  O' 

£ S5 “S' S 8 1 £ ^”8 

13" 

§r 

®»»s 

111  islslsllss 

IOH 

ci  S 

1 

2181 

III  jlllllWf 

r-T 

S 

cf  r-T  CO" 

oo'  o'  cf  ; cf  cf  CO  I>“  ig  5©'  r-T  cf 

§8lsii§£i 

S3  2 38 ~ S3 

(M  rH 

lilsgslsg 

fsssl’llSl' 

2?f  Sf^S'  So*  3~ 


llilSs^lslillli!sSl!SlS3clsii!s!ii!II 

of  a-ef<j  -*»-«»•  s;a“*™s^*ssiss“-a  - sg  g*«*g*"s*3 

imrnmMmmMmmmmmm  mm 

CO  oo  CO  of  JH  00  50  of  o'  rf  rf  cf  00  -f  r-T  jf  T-f  cf  co  of  cf  cf  O rf  tf  ( 

ir' 

s 


if 

21 

s 


flff 

mi 

rfrf  cf 


fo 

;S§ 


isisi: 


HI 

BBS'S* 


HSIli 
is! 

t-'  Co'  r-T  to'  Co'  oo'  t>  CO  o'  r-T  CO' 

Ilf  iiliiesili 
lilllWi 


SB8H8S8S 

ifiliii'li 

oo'  o'  uscfef  o'oo' 

riiiffiii 

BPSllls'S 

”3  S'"' 


SS5I Sfcg^lffll 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


101 


lllllislll 


smsssiH 

mmmm 


eisisif 

C<f  t0"  jjf 


sisrsis 

Igllsl 


f 


iiirginif 

mmmmi 

“83^3'S?-SS 


iiiiiiiiif 

sl¥lliS!¥f 

wacoVV'coH^w 


-H  JIKHH 

« os  co 


mu 


IESSSS88& 

mSSSslS' 

csmc  eo  ioV  -*£00 


smsiiiis 

mmms' 

rHlOrt"  rjT« 


g§s®ii 


§ 


hmV  woo" 

Ssllll 

ssrw 


A 


J.S.S2 


1 :§|.2>S 

h fill 


Appendix  II. Mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries  of  the  United  Stales , by  specified  industries,  according  to  the  census  0/I88O. 


102 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


103 


llSIsIllSIlllsIsesllssillllllSIlllsll&esligllssIlssi 
-s'g”  is  ssrH's-r  S"  •*  s'sf  s””"  sit'fs  "“‘"‘s  rt'nvr  s 


asIlSsilsilssssSsilsIlsIlSlIlslIlllasISslssIsISsllSI 

rf  oo'  Of  -rjT  o oo'  — ' rf  of  oc*of  rf  c-' oo'  rf  of  of  of  rf  ■*+' 

III  H f— 1 CO  t— I COr-IrH  r-tH  i->.  <M 


Of  Of  Iff  uf  rf 


lllSsllsSSssIgelllellllsliglslIlllsIllllgllislslIllS 

35WsWs'a"S^§’SlifiI8‘^»sss'SW^IiSla!MsWli^MS‘l'§¥S" 

OfcOrf  Cfr-T  ^r«f  Iff  of  00  r-T  r-T  lOCD~  rfrfrH  of*  r-T  r-T  JO  -f  rf 


2111-11 


111 


OWN 

rfof 


— S£-ir2 

rf  rf 


s» 


irss; 

CO* 


:sl3l  21 

r-T  r-T 


C W rf  O X 
W H l>  t>  00 

r-i  L-O 

00* 


”12S§1 

ssf 


Cf  rf 


1§ 


'C^COiCCO 

§ 


Pi 


oo'  of  rf  uf  cf 


S? 


O of  t—'  r-T  of  i-T  o' 


'cf  cf  co  of  co'rf  cf 


S1s1!I11!11SI!!pI11I!1!111!!!s!!!1I!sIsI!I!!I11I1!s1 

oTt^'rO  roef  of  rf  oft-'  tfrf  of  cf  of  oo'  o'  uf  if  oo'cf  t-‘  rf  of  of  i-T of  oo' 


slii2t'i2^C005  2®il0SS®l50£lt'C0^^?1^”lSC0iiS”«ll§ls^3si'DS§2®si 

<C«f  of  CO'  of  «>'  rf  of  rf 


Appendix  II. — Mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries  of  the  United  States,  cfc. — Continued. 


104 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


„ ilillllselsllsslllllllssclillsislls 

*0  ^ CQ1^  rH  rHCQ  CO  rH  CQ  CO  CO  CQ  O t— T H g C^T  hT  tH  rH  OC  05  00 


Materials. 

lisillisilllllglgllllllllllllllisil 

slsg!lll»-ll»Sllla8l3“lsllls5Sgllll 

*MCO  Cf  r-TcJlO  rH*  rH-Tg  cf 

MTJO.f  oqa  Siii.inp  soSuai 
m pied  junonre 

IlllslllillSlslsI^gsIlIslIllllsssl 

S5SBIl”-“SSlI§lll§issaislgss|s3||i 

r4  rH'  d M £ W d Cl' © CC  r-H~ 

Average  number  of  bands 
employed. 

•qjno.f 

pan  ao.ipnqo 

75 
1,  872 
6 
15 
8 

95 

1 

;||g^ 

H iff  : ’nV 

•eano^  gj 
OAoqn  soxema^ 

IIs  i«s  ; 

cf  : : 

jSS53g|  :s|  jllSI 

i ! a l»‘  hc^ 

•eanoi! 

91  OAoqn  S'-q^It 

!8Sa8lSsS*!S58SS8ES25a8Ji!8SB!i853S3 

cT  t-T  r-T  rH  rH  H cf  H*  00  ©"  O r-'iaVH 

®ON  cl  00  «««CO 


•sjaoni 

-iIsH(msa  jo  aoqainjs[ 


ms 


i! 

si . „ ... 

«iy§  ® : : ; : *"S  j : : s 
•5-=  - -2  : ;5.®  • .£  : 

«|s§  2 : : x : Sfe-s'g  :«  : 

^a5*2fct(£5  :|s^?  ,'S. 

Effip 
stall c 


| :S| 

iii-rirni 


rS£ 


II 


-J-—  M?  c «-  1 =r--  : ® 

■°  = .=A  5*2:  £j*g  §|2  3 


lla^s^-43 

5 as 


§£  5 § § 

I J § Illllf#lllll  IfJlil  1 if  fill  1 1 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


105 


IllsllalslIsISSISsISglslIISslSIllllllSSIlIslailllHS 

^-^••,4  of  t-T  CO  Wl-T  HMNMh'n  g£r-T  r-T  r-T  O o'  to  in  so"  r-T  c<f  i-T  sf  »'  tC^ 


llll!llIsllsHsl!s!s!S§ll!ls3glasll!iisIll§llsl!Elll 

HH  OOfH^reoefofrH  rH  IN"  OHH®H  JO  ^CO"  eii'oc  cT  rH  © r-T  r-T  rJ  ni“ 

l§slfII§lSfsllsllllllIllsl5lllsgIlSSs!elslllll.lllig| 

rH  of  r-T  CO"  CO"  <©“  JOr-T  r-T  r-T  r-T  CO" 


« 

3 
30 

5 

386 

4 
60 

1,  508 
175 
41 
530 

eo  t- 

243 
12 
741 
139 
5,  249 
5 

186 

Is" 

r-T  VO~  £ 

£23  : 

iO 

137 
24 
1,  998 
31 
302 
3 

14 

81 

81 

17 
46 

18 
8 

Sllells«lsSgSll-°sllSlslsSslllsllSs3lKalSlHliS25llss 

<N  t-"r4(M"-ri-T  r-T  rH^r-T  J-T  t-"  r-TfO^"  «n"<n"^"  t-T  ©“  r-T  r-T  r-T 


liliIs!sl!l|s|lllalslHl82sll!IlssSlls!igIlIll!is!!l 

^S¥f^sg‘issstfs»fgffff^sssfs^ssi*!ss‘ss^^8-|^gggs-f 

WHO  CO  MOO  IN"  nT  r-TjO  VO"r-T  JO  HrTrroV  COCO©"  j-H~  r-‘r-T  t-T  <M~  Cf 


: : 


APPENDIX  II. — Mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries  of  the  United  States,  fc. — Continued. 


106 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


IS8S8ISSsS811i§Si8i83Slg21§llg813 


**  of  o'  i-T  os'  so  so  ac  iH  — o'  rp'  in  of 


s 


sllslISIiei!lililSllllg5|gs§3||g 

*gs'"  s CT‘  as'"”  ■•'jfsw  ss‘”  *•'  s' 


Mua.C  9qj  Suxatip  S9§bm. 
hi  piBd  }aaouiB 


•®  & 
§3, 

S s 


•qqnoA 

pnB  na.ipqqQ 


Qt 

9AoqB  sapjaiaj 


*BJB9X 

9X  9A0qB  B9[BJ\[ 


•B^n9ni 

-qsnq«}69  jo  .iaqum^r 


BSBsiIlcslSlSlSSSS3!il3Si5S!!ii!! 

^ •*£  c\f  of  i-T  cfcf  cf  cfo  rn'i-T  o' so'  i-T  .-T  co' 


&S§5*,eqg 


■issag-sag' 


^SS11’ 

r-T  O' 


HsF-lS121|gsl|31ll3glIggS|S5|»l 

o'tp'  gf  O'  50  0 CIS  o'^'^'of  jJo  r-T  <M~  t-' 


SSS§l§3g811ii3i3iSS31311§gS13§Sili 

*052  o'  50'  ^'g'cf^T  WCOr-T  rfof  IN"  tj 


*S86""a*3“SS§S188IS!*SS*aSSsS*-§8' 

of  so  cf  HO  ofr-T 


1 

2 
5 


BErORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


107 


$SSM«81ia§8gl§Sl!gf31335Sf 

<Oofl-f  t-"  iH-^SO  NMjfllB'  ^fr-T 


83§§iaS8ISSSSSgSSSSSiiSS311 

of  in  in  -*f  of  of  eo  ief  of  t-"  eo"  eo"  o" 


8SSagiliSI3SS68SiS8358S8SSI 


of-* 


■ C^l  00  rH 


s ss^f^ 

8 

21 

G 

41 

41 

20 

16 

322 

103 

649 

658 

jg«gss 

8°g^§8gS§ 

5,  839 
20 
36 

3 

38 

46 

41 

294 

10 

3 

89 

57 

380 

79 

h-  oo 

<M  1C  GO 

144 
188 
7,  640 
137 
84 

1, 186 

144 

19 

230 

357 

9 

986 
30 
230 
65 
831 
15 
416 
18 
6,  759 
7 
3 

1-1 

376 

94 

22 

2,  281 
150 

1 

2H*13E83£g8*3SSZ9SSi"3g38* 

CO  to  CO  r-T  r-T  t-NjTttTrH  of 


slslilSlllssSssllHlIl 

f^iwiw«rr^s‘ig^ 

of  in  of  aocor-T  ©"  eo"  r-T  eo  o"co“ 


ils!!s31!llll!ll§lss!s 
I^Wlllllir¥  Siis'r 

r-T  r-T  rf  -*"of  of  of  cf  eo"of 


O'KOOOTffflWfflt-Ot'OOfflOOfflt't'M^O'f 
" **  § 


r-Tof 


l“I”llgsl3lsl"sc'Slsl|s 

of  eo"  of  io“  h coco 


Isslllelle^lllllllilllllls! 

eo"  of  rf  eo"  HIGH  o" 


sllllllsllllslllllSSll 

£¥l¥lW 

eo"  io"m"  of  of  of  iff 


eo" 


• r-T  of  eo" 


Appendix  II. — Mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries  of  the  United  States,  $-c. — Continn 


108 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


i 


Products. 

$39,  595,  651 

3,  352,  396 

4,  829,  566 
361,  656 

262,  374 
36,  621,  325 

3,  913,  105 

3,  252,  460 
2, 184,  532 

13,  863, 188 
2,  064,  837 
47,  952 
36,  800,  327 
20, 125,  031 

4,  989,  615 
1, 172, 172 

41,  033,  045 

263,  93d 

2,  253,  630 
8,  411,100 

303,  562,  413 
26,  552,  627 
1,  075,  569 
1,  182,  142 
1,  679,  258 

3,  797,  034 
3,  512,  423 
7,  477,  742 

5,  898,  322 
5, 127,  842 

472,  514 
724,  689 
7,  943,  229 

Materials. 

$20,  725,  257 

1,  431,  083 

2,  074,  049 
280,  693 
148,  477 

20,  790,  919 

1,  744,  083 
654,  711 
935,  800 

4,  829, 106 

1,  239,  400 
20,  470 
19,  736,  358 
11,  306,  444 

3,  366,  650 
519,  585 

22,  467,  701 
102,  058 

1,  028,  504 

8, 171,  900 

267,  738,  902 
19,  907,  444 
565,  538 
417,472 
787.  616 

2,  458,  248 

2,  104,  141 

4,911,060 

3,501,426 

3,  443,  000 
144,  554 
200,491 

2,  564,  159 

• xeo-f  oqj  guunp  soSbav 
ui  pped  junorae  ibjox 

$8,  408,  588 

1,  096,  504 

1,  260,  023 
44,  997 
30,  970 

8,  539,  4»0 

1,  226,  370 
783,  019 
456,  542 

4,  636,  099 
683,  338 

11  3Q4 
12,  713^  813 

5,  403,  696 
400,  326 
329,  230 

9, 146,  705 
76,  640 
675,  943 
158,  300 
10,  508,  530 

2,  219,  513 
169,  235 
450,  897 
428,  854 
711,  510 
868,  043 
919,197 

1,159,893 

1,305,739  I 
139,639  j 
312,208 

3,  279,  535  | 

! i 
i - 

•qinoi; 

: pore  uojppqQ 

r-T  r-T  O'  : t— T r-T 

} number  < 
employed. 

•sjboI  gx 
OAoqu  S9|Burox 

I js  jgs^i00"  j ;|£2rPI§ 

I : S : j ~ j 

ft 

<o 

1 > 
< 

•8.IB9i 

91  9A0qB  SapiJ^ 

1 

o'  cf  t*  o'  cf  r-T  oo'  rf  rf  cf  cf  O r-T  r-T  c4  r-T  Cf  t~ 

llslllsIlIlgEglllsIlsSIllllSSsslI 

Jj1  t~"  cf  00  o'  co  co  ■»*'  of  o'  o'  r-T  of  r-T  o'  jgT  r-T  >-1'  cf  o'  co  co  o' 


•s^uatu 

-qsiTOsa  jo  jaqrunx 

oo“  o'  cf 

! ! 1 1 ! 1 . . ! ! • . ! i . . i I i i i . ! i 1 1 . i . r i 

s 

E 

3 


* 


£ 

3 

£ 


l! 

if 

&S 

id 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


109 


Essiiiiii 

lIllWsI 

S' 

iSlIlilsi 

SSlWs'SI 


ass 

r«f 


sllli-gll 

to  ler  rf 


Illllesli 

lillPlll 


E^SSgSSS'-' 


LABOR  AND  WAGES  IN  EUROPE  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


While  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  in  European  countries  and  in 
the  United  States  has  been  alluded  to  by  a majority  of  the  witnesses, 
and  the  higher  price  of  American  labor  urged  as  a reason,  in  almost 
every  case  where  witnesses  have  asked  for  increased  rates  of  duty,  it  is 
to  be  regretted  that  the  evidence  taken  before  the  Commission  as  a whole 
does  not  contain  more  than  half  a dozen  carefully  prepared  comparisons 
of  wages  at  home  and  abroad.  This  may  be  due,  in  part,  to  the  fact  ex- 
pressed by  one  of  England’s  most  eminent  statisticians,  that  “No  one, 
unless  he  shall  have  made  the  attempt  to  obtain  information  as  to  the 
rate  of  wages,  can  be  aware  of  the  difficulties  opposed  to  his  success.’7 
But  while  fully  realizing  the  obstacles,  it  must  still  remain  a matter  of 
regret  that  so  many  of  the  most  intelligent  witnesses  entirely  neglected 
to  give  anything  more  definite  than  to  say  that  wages  were  about  fifty 
per  cent,  higher  in  America  than  Great  Britain,  and  that  labor  in  the 
other  European  countries  is  proportionately  lower  than  in  England. 

A few  statements  were  received  from  artisans  themselves  and  persons 
representing  them.  They,  too,  fail  to  furnish  any  definite  information, 
but  here  and  there  a terse  statement  of  some  value  may  be  found.  For 
example,  it  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  while  in  all,  or  nearly  all,  indus- 
tries in  the  United  States  the  workman  receives  a larger  income  than 
his  fellow-workmen  in  Europe,  on  the  other  hand  his  rent,  clothing,  and 
possibly  his  provisions  cost  him  more  here.  Yet  it  must  be  remembered 
that  he  lives  in  a better  way  and  has  more  of  the  comforts  and  luxuries 
of  life,  so  that  in  the  end,  if  his  surplus  earnings  are  but  little  in  excess 
of  the  European,  he  has  worked  no  harder,  is  more  of  a man,  and  occu- 
pies a position  some  grades  higher  in  civilization  than  the  European, 
or,  to  quote  from  the  words  of  a witness : 

As  American  labor,  owing  to  various  causes,  requires  aud  demands  a higher  wage  to 
supply  its  wants,  needs,  or  luxuries — that  is,  to  own  a decent  house,  read  books  and 
papers,  pay  pew  rent  and  doctor’s  bills,  send  his  children  to  school,  aud  buy  good 
clothing  for  himself  and  family — the  American  manufacturer  must  pay  100  per  cent, 
higher  wages  than  his  foreign  competitor,  as  well  as  higher  taxes  and  rate  of  interest. 

Another  witness  (testifying  about  the  manufacture  of  saddlery  hard- 
ware), who  lias  had  experience  in  bringing  over  English  workmen,  said  : 

In  order  to  keep  these  men  in  our  employment  we  have  to  allow  them  fully  as  high 
wages,  or  higher  wages,  than  they  were  receiving  in  England.  The  reason  for  this  is 
that  the  cost  of  living  in  this  country  is  much  greater.  Men  who  are  able  to  make  five 
shillings  a day  in  England  want  to  make  here  at  least  $20  a week.  We  have  men  in 
our  employment  who  make  from  $27  to  $30  a week.  The  reason  for  this  difference  in 
wages  is  on  account  of  the  scale  of  living.  In  England  they  are  content  to  live  on 
plain  food  aud  ale  and  cheese,  and  the  families  all  assist  in  the  labor,  while  here  the 
children  do  not  want  to  work — society  is  different,  and  they  are  sent  to  school — and 
the  larger  salaries  are  based  upon  these  different  social  conditions.  The  laborers  in 
this  country  have  to  pay  more  rent,  and  the  cost  of  living  in  every  way  is  greater; 
therefore  they  must  have  larger  wages.  The  result  is  that  our  goods  cost  us  double 
the  amount  as  far  as  the  labor  is  concerned.  We  had  a filer  in  our  establishment  who 
made  $27  last  week,  and  lost  one  day’s  work  during  the  week.  That  same  man  in 
England  would  work  for  one-half  that  sum  and  be  fully  satisfied  with  it,  because  he 
would  be  able  to  live  on  the  same  scale  with  his  neighbors.  But  here  he  is  not  satis- 
fied with  lower  wages. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Ill 


One  of  the  most  striking  comparative  statements  of  the  rates  of  wages 
in  the  United  States  and  in  foreign  countries,  was  that  given  by  the 
manufacturers  of  cotton  thread,  which,  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  have 
similar  manufactories  in  each  country,  and  are  paying  persons  working 
on  the  same  kind  of  machinery,  from  information  obtained  from  the 
counting-houses  of  two  establishments  with  the  same  system  of  book- 
keeping and  covering  the  same  period  of  time,  it  may  appear  upon  the 
face  to  be  very  reliable.  But  when  the  two  locations  are  taken  into 
consideration,  part  of  the  force  is  destroyed  and  the  whole  statement 
should  be  qualified  on  account  of  the  isolated  condition  of  the  Paisley 
manufactories. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Scotch  mills  draw  largely  from  the 
country  population  where  there  is  an  excess  of  females,  and  their  wages- 
are  low,  but  that  when  the  owners  came  here  they  fdanted  their  facto- 
ries in  large  metropolitan  centers,  like  Providence,  R.  I.,  and  Newark,. 
N.  J.,aud  they  have  to  compete  in  getting  their  labor  (for  this  nice  grade 
of  work  in  spinning  and  twisting)  with  factories  that  are  going  into  sim- 
pler work.  With  us  it  is  a different  case.  Their  statement  is  truthful 
enough  on  the  face  of  it,  but  it  would  be  unsafe  to  draw  any  general 
conclusions  as  to  the  relative  cost  of  labor  at  hoin6  and  abroad  from 
this  statement,  which  applies  so  particularly  to  the  case  it  describes. 

“The  fortuitous  dispute  of  an  English  labor  trouble”  enabled  one  wit- 
ness to  present  a valuable  table  in  regard  to  the  average  earnings  for 
three  months  for  each  man  engaged  in  fifteen  potteries  in  England  com- 
pared with  the  earnings  of  a similar  number  of  potters  at  Trenton,  N.  J. 
The  result  of  this  inquiry  (complete  tables  of  which  will  be  found  in  the 
testimony)  shows  that  the  manufacturers  of  pottery  in  the  United  States 
were  paying  a little  more  than  113  per  cent,  above  the  rate  paid  in  Eng- 
land for  the  same  work. 

Statistics  were  presented  at  Cleveland  to  show  the  disparity  between 
the  wages  paid  and  the  labor  cost  in  this  country  and  abroad  in  some 
manufactures  of  iron,  as  follows: 


Classes  of  labor. 

England. 

Pittsburgh. 

Puddling per  ton. . 

Shingling do 

Polling  in  pnddle  mill  do 

Rolling  and  heating,  1 in.  x No.  18,  hoop do 

Common  labor .• per  day. . 

$1  94 
29 
29 
1 80 
56  to  72| 

$5  50 
77 
68J 
4 80 

1 80  to  $1  50 

It  is  also  shown  that  while  the  cost  of  English  and  Scotch  iron,  with- 
out duty,  laid  down  on  the  wharf  at  New  York,  is  $14  to  $1G  a ton,  in- 
cluding freight,  the  average  cost  of  labor  alone  in  the  manufacture  of  a 
ton  of  charcoal  pig  iron  in  this  country,  as  gathered  from  nineteen  re- 
ports from  that  number  of  owners  of  charcoal  furnaces  in  the  United 
States,  was  $16.68,  divided  as  follows: 


Labor  in  ore,  per  ton  of  metal $3  30 

Labor  in  limestone,  per  ton  of  metal 35- 

Labor  in  transportation  and  handling  to  the  furnace 1 60 

Labor  for  charcoal 7 40 

Labor  in  smelting 2 35 

Labor  in  transportation  and  handling  of  pig  iron  to  nearest  market 1 70 


Total 16  68 


Mr.  Marshall,  of  the  Montague  Paper  Company,  Massachusetts,  stated 
that  in  England  machine-tenders  were  paid  in  July,  1882,  $9  to  $10  per 


112 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


week $ that  girls  were  at  work  doing  tbe  labor  we  employ  men  to  do,  the 
girls  doing  for  10  shillings,  or  $2.40  per  week,  what  we  pay  men  $9  to 
$10  per  week  for,  and  that  rag-room  and  finishing-room  girls  receive  in 
England  $2.50  per  week,  while  our  girl  help  received  $5  to  $7  per  week 
for  the  same  kind  of  work.  Mr.  Stowell  stated  that  rag-engineers  re- 
ceived in  England  $4.50  per  week,  and  here  he  paid  them  $13.50  per 
week. 

The  following  table  was  submitted  to  the  Commission  at  Saint  Louis, 
and  shows  the  amount  paid  per  month,  in  francs,  to  workmen  in  glass 
manufactories: 


Department. 

si . 

o s 

'bi 

W 

7; 

O) 

C3 

m 

p 

Casting  department : 

Founders 

225 

253 

500 

Skimmers  and  teamers 

150 

196 

400 

Casters 

90 

135 

200 

Kiln  flrers 

95 

135 

227 

Producer  flrers 

110 

140 

250 

Grinding  department : 

No.  1 

135 

169 

375 

325 

No.  2 

100 

146 

118 

No.  3 

80 

250 

Boys 

20 

26 

100 

Smoothing  department: 

No.  1 

| 135 

169 

350 

No.  2 

100 

146 

300 

No.  3 

80 

118 

250 

Boys - 

20 

34 

90 

Polishing  department : 

No.  1.. 

160 

196 

400 

No.  2 

125 

157 

300 

Bovs 

20 

54 

125 

Cutting  room : 

Chief 

130 

196 

500 

Assistants 

120 

J 69 

375 

Blockers 

70 

118 

160 

Packers ....... ............ ........ 

65 

135 

250 

Emery  washer. ......... ........... ... ........ 

120 

225 

400 

Crocus  burner 

120 

169 

375 

Laborers - 

55 

98- 

150 

Bricklayers 

195 

198 

500 

Carpenters 

165 

198 

325 

t The  Silk  Association  showed  that  they  paid  their  operatives,  in  addi- 
tion to  receiving  less  work  from  them,  about  100  per  cent,  more  than 
the  same  class  of  work  jieople  receives  in  England  ; over  200  per  cent, 
more  than  in  France  ; over  300  per  cent,  more  than  in  Italy,  and  a still 
greater  percentage  than  is  paid  in  Germany,  as  follows : 


United 

States. 

England. . 

France. 

Italy. 

Germany. 

A female  hard- silk  winder  receives 

$5  25 
5 18 
5 00 
5 57 
5 98 
8 00 
10  00 

8 44 

14  15 

11  43 
7 94 

15  00 

12  00 

9 00 
24  71 

5 30 
12  77 

$2  96 

$1  40 
2 45 
2 00 

A female  hard-silk  doubler  receives 

A female  spinner  receives 

$1  44 
2 10 

A male  spinner  receives 

A male  hard-silk  twister  receives  

3 42 
2 00 

2 40 

3 00 
5 40 

A female  soft-silk  winder  receives 

A female  warper  receives 

A female  weaver,  hand-looms,  receives 

2 28 
4 80 

$2  72 
3 93 
3 00 

A male  weaver,  hand-looms,  receives 

A null e weaver,  power-looms,  receives 

5 40 
4 38 

A female  weaver,  power-looms,  receives  

A weaver  in  best  ribbons  receives 

9 60 
6 00 

(*) 

A male  weaver  in  dress  goods  receives 

2 73 
1 66 

A female  weaver  in  dress  goods  receives 

A male  designer  receives .... .....  .. 

12  00 

A female  fringe-maker  receives 

1 43 
3 30 

A dyer  receives 

7 00 

Switzerland,  $4.50. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


113 


The  above  comprises  all  the  facts  brought  out  by  the  testimony  on 
the  wage  question.  A few  statements  showing  the  rates  of  wages  paid 
by  the  iron  ore  producers  were  presented  to  the  Commission  after  the 
testimony  had  closed,  and  were  considered  worthy  of  publication  in  the 
appendix,  with  some  statistical  exhibits  furnished  by  Special  Agent 
Joseph  D.  Weeks,  who  has  charge  of  the  labor  statistics  for  the  Census 
Office;  also  some  tables  of  Carroll  D.  Wright’s,  and,  for  comparative 
purposes,  a series  of  tables  furnished  by  Mr.  Robert  Giffen,  chief  of 
the  statistical  department  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  London,  England. 
This  wTas  all  the  information  that  the  Commission  thought  worthy  of 
publication,  and  both  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Giffen’s  figures  and  those  of 
Mr.  Weeks,  the  years  1877,  1878,  and  1879  are  taken. 

In  1874  Mr.  Young,  then  chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  iniblislied 
a useful  volume  which  he  called  “Labor  in  Europe,”  and  in  which  he 
attempted  to  give  not  only  the  wage  quotations  at  home  and  abroad,  but 
also  the  prices  of  commodities.  The  book  is  valuable  in  regard  to  wage 
quotations;  but  when  he  comes  down  to  the  cost  of  living  he  bases 
his  results  on  too  small  data. 

Laudable  attempts  have  been  made  by  the  State  Department  to  fur- 
nish information  in  this  line,  and  in  1878,  under  Secretary  Evarts,  a pam- 
phlet was  issued  entitled  “State  of  Labor  in  Europe.”  The  data  for 
this  volume  was  obtained  from  the  consuls.  Some  of  them  took  great 
pains  to  prepare  their  returns  carefully,  while  others  sent  statements  of 
little  or  no  value. 

The  most  valuable  work  that  has  been  done  in  this  line  in  the  United 
States  is  that  accomplished  by  the  bureau  of  statistics  of  Massachusetts, 
and  that  now  in  course  of  preparation  by  Mr.  Weeks.  The  bureau  of 
statistics  of  Massachusetts  never  publishes  statements  of  wages  except 
as  taken  from  the  books  of  the  counting-rooms  of  the  concerns,  and 
involving  thousands  of  operatives.  They  never  publish  wages  as  given 
to  a few  persons,  or  for  one  part  of  the  State.  The  advantage  of  this 
method,  is  that  if  errors  occur  in  any  one  place,  the  wide  range  of  in- 
quiry acts  as  a check.  This  is  true  of  the  work  being  conducted  by  Mr. 
Weeks,  who  employed  very  careful  men  and  sent  them  to  the  counting- 
rooms,  and  wherever  the  proprietors  could  give  the  wages  for  a series 
of  years  comparisons  were  made.  No  such  work  as  this  was  ever  done 
in  England,  or,  with  the  exception  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  in 
this  country,  until  it  was  inaugurated  by  the  superintendent  of  the 
tenth  census. 

From  the  tables  which  the  Commission  publishes  in  the  Appendix,  as 
taken  from  the  reports  of  Mr.  Giffen  for  Great  Britain,  and  those  from 
Mr.  Wright’s  forthcoming  report  on  the  factory  system,  and  those  of 
Mr.  Weeks,  the  Commission  draws  the  general  conclusion  that  in  some 
divisions  of  cotton  manufactures  and  textile  labor  the  wages  in  Amer- 
ica do  not  greatly  exceed  those  in  England,  while  in  other  subdivisions 
they  will  ran  ge — like  spin  ning,  for  instance — from  30  to  40  per  cent,  greater 
in  this  country  than  in  Great  Britain.  As  shown,  in  Paisley,  under  ex- 
ceptional circumstances,  the  difference  reaches  113  per  cent.  These 
facts  demonstrate  the  absolute  folly  of  undertaking  to  compare  the 
wages  of  Great  Britain  with  the  wages  in  this  country  on  the  basis  of 
percentages. 

An  examination  of  the  exhibits  of  Mr.  Giffen  and  Mr.  Weeks  shows 
that  both  in  the  earthenware  and  glassware  and  iron  industries  the 
percentage  of  difference  often  reaches  100  per  cent.,  and  in  some  cases 
even  more.  This,  in  a less  degree,  is  true  in  all  the  building  trades, 
judging  from  the  exhibits  of  Mr.  Giffen,  and  the  general  knowledge  of 
H.  Mis.  6 8 


114 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


the  Commission,  as  no  similar  tables  for  the  United  States  were 
obtainable. 

The  last  Congress  appointed  a committee  of  its  own  members  to 
examine  into  and  report  upon  the  subject  of  wages  at  home  and 
abroad.  This  may  result  in  some  valuable  additions  to  the  statistical 
information  on  the  subject,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that,  as  the  wage 
question  so  vitally  affects  the  tariff  legislation,  an  effort  will  be  made 
on  the  part  of  Congress  to  pursue  this  inquiry  still  further. 

The  following  tables  of  the  wages  paid  operatives  in  some  of  the 
principal  industries  in  Great  Britain  were  furnished  by  Mr.  Robert 
Giffen,  chief  of  the  statistical  department  of  the  board  of  trade. 
They  are  for  1877  and  1878.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  figures  for 
1880  or  1881  could  not  be  obtained;  but  Mr.  Giffen  assures  the  Com- 
mission that  wages  in  England  have  practically  undergone  no  change 
since  that  time : 

IRON  MANUFACTURES. 


BAR  ROLLING. 


Hours  of  labor,  66  in  Darlington  district  and  50  in  Xortli  Staffordshire  district. 


Occupation. 


Rollers  and  bloomers  * 

Rollers  and  bloomer's  helpers* 

Rurnace-men* 

C utter  s-down* .. 

Heavers-on  or  hookers 

Heavers-on  or  hookers 

Catchers  

Straighteners 

Bolter-down  or  rougher 

Coal-wheelers 

Chargers 

Pullers-out 

Bogie-men 

Saw-man 

Roll-turners 

Assistant  turners 

Ash-wheelers 

Laborers 

Laborers 


.SP 

8* 


men  . . j $ 

.lads  and  boys.. 

men  . 

do ... ! 

do. . . 

lads  and  boys. 

men. . 

do.. . 

..do  . 

do . . . 

do. . . 

do. . . 

do . . . 

do. .. 

do 

do. . . 

do. . . 

do . . . 

.lads  and  boys.. 


92 

23 

36 

35  , 
68 
45 
01 
or 

36 
90 

12 


2 
9 
7 
6 
2 
6 
6 
9 
4 
4 

4 

5 35 
7 00 


6 20 
4 98 
4 26 


II 

SJ 


$10  34 


8 51 
4 86 


2 43 

3 65 

5 41 

6 08 
3 95 
3 34 


4 46 

5 47 
7 78 


4 46 
3 65 


Piece  work. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIPF  COMMISSION. 


115 


Iron  manufactures  —Continued. 

PUDDLING. 


Occupation. 


Puddlers* 

Puddlers’  underhands 

Shinglers  or  hammermen* 

Shinglers’  helpers 

Rollers* 

Forge  managers,  first  grade. .. 
Forge  managers,  second  grade 

Stock  takers 

Stock  takers 

Ash  and  coal  wheelers 

Cinder  burners 

Coal-unloaders 

Bar  drawers 

Metal  breakers  and  wheelers  . 

Bogie-boys 

Hammer-drivers 

Roll-turners 

Laborers 

Laborers 


* Piece  work. 


Darlington. 

North  Stafford- 
shire. 

Hours  per  week. 

$8  02 

$8  14 

55 

4 14 

55 

12  20 

8 51 

55 

8 27 

4 26 

55 

13  16  ! 

8 51 

55 

. .do 

8 75 

55 

. . do 

6 56 

55 

5 10 

7 29 

60 

. boys. . 

2 33 

60 

4 38 

4 46 

60 

6 28 

4 74 

60 

4 62 

3 95 

60 

..do...1 

6 56 

6 80 

55 

. . do . . . 

5 83 

6 56 

55 

hoys . . 

3 28 

2 43 

55 

3 89 

3 65 

60 

..do...; 

6 20 

7 78 

55 

..do...! 

3 65 

3 65 

60 

boys..1 

1 62 

60 

IRON  MANUFACTURES  IN  ENGLAND. 

l 

BLAST  FURNACE. 

Hours  of  labor  in  Cleveland  and  Darlington  districts,  12  per  dag,  compensation  given  bg  the 
dag  in  Cleveland  district  and  bg  the  week  in  Darlington  district ; and  in  North  Staffordshire 
district  63  per  week , compensation  given  bg  the  week. 


Keepers 

Keepers,  helpers 

Chargers 

Chargers,  helpers 

Slaggers  

Mine  fillers 

Time  fillers 

Coke  fillers  — 
Metal  carriers  — 
Rnginemen  ...... 

Weigh  man 

Masons 

Fitters 

Smiths 

•Joiners 

Boilermen 

Laborers 

Apprentices  


I 


a 


t 


O 


o 


men. . 

do... 

do... 

do... 

do. . . 

do... 

do. . . 

<lo . . . 

do ...  I 

do... 

do... 

do... 

do..' 

do...1 

do... 

. ...  do..  . 

do... 

lads  and  boys. . 


$1  72 
83 

$10.  78  to  $16.  00 

$10  22 

1 34 

8.  51  to  10.  70 

7 66 

87 

1 09 

7.  05  to  9.  00 

7 66 

1 05  ) 

(7  66 

1 °5  y 

5.  83  to  8.  27 

< 7 66 

90  ) 

(7  66 

1 22  ; 

1 12 

7.  05  to  8.  75 

8 08 

85 

5.  35  to  6.  08 

.5  39 

1 39  1 

8.  51 

6 56 

1 24 

1 24 

1 24 

;; 

99 

79 

4.86 

4 38 

37 

The  wages  of  a large  number  of  men  employed  at  blast  furnaces  in 
the  Cleveland  and  Darlington  districts  are  earned  by  a combination  of  * 
time  and  piece  work,  i.  e .,  a bonus  according  to  make  of  furnaces,  in 
addition  to  a standard  rate  of  wages.  But  this  does  not  apply  to  me- 
chanics, who  are  paid  by  time,  and  work  from  nine  to  eleven  hours  per 
day. 


116 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


COAL  MINING  IN  ENGLAND. 


Hours  of  labor , 48  per  week  in  North  Staffordshire,  and  from  48  to  60  hours  per  week  in 

Darlington. 


Overman 

Deputy  overman 

Heweis 

Tunnelers ! 

Master  shifters 

Shifters 

Master  wastemen 

Wastemen 

Bank  men 

Inspectors  on  the  heap 

Weighmen 

Screenmen  and  hank  laborers 

Ousetters 

Hand  putters 

Jiggers 

Drivers 

Trappers 

Furnacemen 

Tamp  keepers 

Horse  keepers  

Token  lads  and  pick  carriers. 

Smiths 

Smiths,  foremen 

J oiners 

Wagon  wrights 

Enginemen. 

Hi  emeu 

Plate-layers 


men. 

do. . 

do. . 

do.. 

do.. 

do . . 

do. . 

do . . 

do.. 

do.. 

do. . 

do. . 

do.. 

lads  and  boys. 


$7  73 

$9  79 

6 56 

7 29 

5 83 

5 32 

6 20 

6 80 

5 22 

7 13 

4 74 

5 35 

5 22 

5 53 

1 95 

4 74 

4 38 

6 44 

6 56 

7 45 

5 83 

5 59 

4 38 

3 53 

5 35 

7 29 

2 92 

men.. 

lads  and  boys. . 

boys.. 

do.. . 

do... 

do... 

do.. . 

men.. 

do . . . 

do.. 

do.. . 

do. . . 

do... 

do... 


3 93 

3 28 

1 38 

1 46 

4 50 

4 26 

6 08 

5 10 

6 56 

4 86 

2 19 

1 18 

5 83 

5 47 

7 29 

6 80 

5 83 

5 71 

4 86 



*6  80 

7 ()5 

*5  10 

5 83 

4 38 

4 62 

* Includes  Sunday  duties. 


WOOLEN  MANUFACTURES  IN  ENGLAND. 


Hours  of  labor,  56  per  iveek. 


Preparing  woolen  cloth,  &c. : 

Wool  sorters 

Wool  scourers,  driers,  &c 

Dyers 

Dyers,  foremen  

Teazers  and  willgers 

Scribblers,  foreman 

Scribblers,  feeders  

Condenser  minders 

Condenser  minders 

Spinners  

Spinners,  piecers 

Spinners,  foremen. 

War  pers  and  beamers 

Heal  ders  

Winders 

Fel  lers 

Weaving: 

Pattern  designers 

Pattern  weavers 

Weavers 

Weavers,  foremen  or  timers 

Burlers 

Kn otters,  menders,  and  sewers 
Fulling: 

Fullers 

Fullers,  foremen 


05 

5 

o 5 

rao 

cz 

a 

O 

Dewsbury. 

Batley. 

$6  56 

$6  56 

$6  32 

$7  29 

....do... 

5 34 

5 34 

5 58 

5 34 

5 58 

4 62 

5 82 

5 82 

...do... 

13  36 

9 00 

14  58 

12  16 

5 34 

4 86  : 

5 83 

5 59 

13  36 

8 98  1 

10  95 

2 40 

2 43 

3 41 

3 41 

1 5 34 

4 26 

women . . 

! 2 68 

2 43 

8 51 

6 80  1 

8 50 

2 40 

1 82 

2 92 

9 72 

6 80 

10  95 

6 56 

6 32 

5 83 

5 59 

5 10 

6 08 

5 10 

women. . 

2 55 

3 16  1 

2 43 

2 43 

5 10 

4 62  ! 

5 34 

13  36 

12  65 

12  16 

14  59 

6 56 

5 34 

6 32  ! 

4 86 

6 56 

5 34  1 

6 32 

4 86 

...  do  .. 

6 56 

7 04 

9 72 

2 68 

2 92  1 

2 92 

2 68 

3 16 

2 80  , 

2 92 

3 16 

5 58 

4 38 

5 83  | 

6 08 

8 51  | 

7 04  | 

14  59  1 

9 72 

REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


117 


Woolen  manufactures  in  England — Confirmed. 


Dressing  find  finishing: 
Dressers  or  giggers 

Tenterers 

Cutters  or  croppers 

Press  setters 

Steamers 

Burlers 

Drawers 

Brushers 

Brushers 

Engine  tenters 

Stokers 

Mechanics 

Carters 

Warehousemen 

Laborers 


men.. 

do... 

do... 

do . . . 

do  .. 

women. . 

men. 

do. . . 

hoys  and  lads.. 

men. . 

do... 

do  .. 

do. . . 

do. . . 


2 

® 

u 

[3 

>5 

© 

r=> 

03 

>> 

® 

0 

® 

oi 

H 

O 

0 

$5  95 

$6  32 

$5  59 

$5  34 

5 95 

4 62 

6 08 

6 08 

6 08 

5 83 

6 08 

7 29 

6 56 

4 38 

5 83 

6 08 

6 56 

4 14 

6 08 

2 68 

3 16 

2 92 

2 68 

8 98 

5 83 

9 72 

9 72 

5 34 

5 83 

5 75 

3 16 

3 16 

6 56 

6 32 

9 60 

9 72 

6 32 

5 83 

5 83 

8 50 

7 04 

7 29 

8 50 

5 34 

5 83 

5 59 

9 72 

5 83 

5 34 

5 10 

4 38 

WORSTED  MANUFACTURE  IN  ENGLAND. 


HOURS  OF  LABOR,  56  PER  WEEK. 


Wool  sorters 

$7 

53 

to 

$8 

02 

Machine  wool-combers 

do 

3 

89 

to 

4 

25 

Dyers 

4 

38 

to 

6 

32 

Overlookers 

7 

04 

to 

8 

26 

Overlookers’  assistants 

do.... 

2 

43 

to 

5 

10 

Spinners 

2 

19 

to 

2 

68 

Spinners 

2 

43 

to 

2 

68 

Spinners 

girls... 

97 

to 

1 

46 

Weavers 

4 

38 

to 

5 

34 

Weavers 

3 

41 

to 

4 

14 

Reelers 

2 

92 

to 

4 

14 

Drawers 

2 

43 

to 

2 

68 

Packers 

4 

62 

to 

5 

10 

Wool  washers 

4 

14 

to 

4 

62 

WAGES  PER  DAY  IN  A BLACKBURN  COTTON-SPINNING  MILL. 


HOURS  OF  LABOR,  56  PER  WEEK. 

Spinning 

Shinners 

Piecers 

Creelers 

Rovers 

P lubbers 

Drawers 

Grinders 

Blow-room  hands 

Engine  drivers 

Fireman 


$1  20  to  $2  00 
1 20  to  1 40 
46  to  56 
28  to  34 
58  to  66 
50  to  60 
52  to  56 
85  to 

48  to  85 
84  to  2 00 
64  to  84 


WAGES  PER  DAY  IN  AN  OLDHAM  COTTON-SPINNING  MILL. 
HOURS  OF  LABOR,  56  PER  WEEK. 


Mule  overlookers $1  60  to  #2  00 

•Carders 1 60  to  2 00 

Strippers 88  to  96 

Jobbers 88  to  96 

Grinders 88  to  96 

Drawing  and  stubbing  hands * 65  to  76 

Intermediates  and  roving 62  to  76 

Little  tenders  (full  time) 36 

Little  tenders  (half  time) 16 


118 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


WAGES  PER  DAY  IN  AN  EAST  LANCASHIRE  COTTON-WEAVING  MILL. 


HOURS  OF  LABOR,  56  PER  WEEK. 


Weavers,  3 looms $0  64  to  $0  72- 

Weavers,  4 looms 80  to  96- 

Weavers,  6 looms 1 20  to  1 44 

Weavers,  children,  half-timers 14 

Beamers  or  warpers ..  ... 70  to  .90 

Winders 50  to  80 

Tapers  or  sizers 1 20  to  1 68 

Tacklers  or  overlookers 1 12  to  1 68 

Engine  drivers  and  fireman 96  to  1 68 


HOSIERY  MANUFACTURE,  LEICESTER  AND  NEIGHBORHOOD. 


HOURS  OF  LABOR,  56  PER  WEEK — PLAIN,  FANCY. 


Wide  frames  (hand) men . . 

Wide  frames  (power) do*... 

Circular  frames  (power) women. . 

Winding  machine  (power) do 

Winding  machine  (power) men.. 

Winders  (hand) do . . . 

Sewing  machines  (power) women.. 

Seamers  (done  at  home) do 

Menders do 


$7  29  to  $7  77 
7 29  to  7 29' 

2 92  to  4 62 

3 65  to  3 41 
3 65  to  3 90 

1 95  to  1 95 

2 55  to  2 55 
1 95  to  1 95 

3 65  to  2 92 


LINEN  AND  FLAX  MANUFACTURE  IN  IRELAND. 


HOURS  OF  LABOR,  56  TO  60  PER  WEEK. 

Spinning  : 

Roughers  and  hecklers 

Sorters 

Machine  hoys 

Time  spreaders 

Tow  carders 

Drawers 

Back  winders 

Rovers 

Tayers 

Spinners 

Piecers 

Doffers 

Reelers 

Overlookers 

Laborers 

Mechanics 

Weaving : 

Tenters 

Dressers 

Weavers 

Pern  or  weft  winders 

Spool  or  warp  winders 

Warpers 

Drawers  in 

Givers  in i 

Winding  masters 

Cloth  passers 

Cloth  tappers 

Cloth  pickers 

Oilers 

Mechanics 

Laborers 

Bleaching : 

Bleachers 

Bleachers 

Washmill  men 

Iveevemen 

Fieldman 


men..  $4  86 

do 5 83* 

boys..  1 46 

. . , women..  1 70 

do. . . 1 76 

do...  182 

do . . 1 52 

do...  1 58 

do...  1 70 

do — 1 95 

do...  1 82 

do...  1 34 

do...  8 891 

men..  8 51 

do...  2 92 

do . . 8 02 

men. . 9 24 

do. ..  8 28 

women . . 2 80 

do...  2 19 

do...  2 19 

do...  2 92. 

do...  2 43 

girls..  61 

men . . 4 86 

do 6 32 

do  ..  2 92 

do...  219 

do...  1 95 

do...  8 02 

do...  292 

men..  5 TO 

lads  and  boys..  1 95 

men..  5 82 

do 5 58 

do...  5 10 


R k PORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


119 


Bleaching : 

Eugineman... 

Sewers 

Store  finishers 

Calenders 

Bluers. 


lads  and  boys. . 

women .. 

do. . . 

men . . 

do... 


JUTE  MANUFACTURE  IN  DUNDEE. 


Spinning : 

Preparers  for  spinning 
Preparers  for  spinning 

Spinners 

Spinners 

Spinners 

Twisters 

Reelers 

Reelers 

Reelers 

Overlookers 

Laborers 

Weaving: 

Winders 

Warpers 

Beamers 

Weavers 

Weavers 

Overseers 

Tenters 


HOURS  OF  LABOR,  56  PER  WEEK. 


lads  and  boys. . 

women .. 

do . . . 

lads  and  boys. . 

girls  . 

women . . 

do.  .. 

lads  and  boys.. 

girls . . 

men . . 

do . . . 

women . . 

dov. 

men. . 

women.. 

girls.. 

men. . 

do... 


LACE  MANUFACTURE  AT  NOTTINGHAM  AND  NEIGHBORHOOD. 


$5  82 
1 95' 
1 70 
4 86 
3 89 


$1  95 
2 19 
2 55 
1 82 
1 82 
2 80 

2 92 
1 95 
1 34 
6 44 

3 77 


2 86 
3 16 
5 32 
2 80 
1 95 
5 93 
5 82 


HOURS  NOT  GIVEN. 

Piece-work  : 

Lace 

Lace-makers 

Winders 

Menders 

Treaders 

Warpers 

Designers  and  draughtsmen 

Curtain  and  other  classes: 

Makers 

For  cotton 

For  silk 

Winders,  silk 

Winders,  cotton 

Menders 

Treaders,  cotton 

Treaders,  silk 

Warpers 

Designers  and  draughtsmen 

Plain  net: 

Makers,  cotton 

Makers,  silk 


$6 

08 

to ; 

£19 

44 

..  men. . 

2 

19 

to 

2 

43 

.boys. . 

4 

19 

to 

2 

68 

2 

19 

to 

2 

68 

1 

22 

to 

2 

19 

4 

86 

to 

7 

29 

..do... 

9 

72 

to 

23 

30 

men. .. 

7 

29 

to 

19 

44 

. . do . . . 

6 

08 

to 

9 

72 

..do... 

7 

29 

to 

10 

95 

.boys.. 

2 

43 

to 

3 

65 

..do... 

1 

95 

to 

2 

92 

.girls.. 

1 

95 

to 

3 

89 

.boys.. 

l 

46 

to 

2 

43 

2 

43 

to 

3 

41 

7 

29 

to 

9 

72 

..do... 

14 

59 

to 

29 

16 

4 

86 

to 

9 

62 

7 

29 

to 

10 

95 

EARTHEN  AND  PORCELAIN  MANUFACTURE  IN  ENGLAND. 


Clay  makers 
Throwers. . . 
Throwers  . . . 

Turners 

Turners 

Handlers 

Handlers 


Earthen- 

Porce- 

ware. 

lain. 

$4  86  to 

$7  29 

8 02 

10  20 

2 92 

2 92 

6 32  to 

7 77 

2 92 

2 92 

6 56  to 

6 80 

2 92 

2 92 

120 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Molders . 


Burnishers 


Earthen- 

Porce- 

ware. 

lain. 

. . . men . . 

$6  80  to 

$9  72 

2 43 

2 43 

9 72  to 

19  44 

6 32  to 

9 72 

2 68  .. 

. . men . . 

7 04  to 

9 72 

8 74 

10  68 

....do... 

6 32 

7 29 

5 83  .. 

women . . 

2 43  .. 

1 46 

1 46 

10  68  to 

10  95 

do. .. 

6 32 

9 72 

women.. 

3 16 

3 89 

1 22 

1 22 

. . . men.. 

7 53 

9 72 

. . . boys . . 

1 95 

2 19 

men.. 

10  44 

9 72 

women.. 

2 68 

2 48 

...girls.. 

1 22 

1 10 

. . . men . . 

4 38  .. 

...  .do... 

6 08  to 

7 77 

. . .boys. . 

1 82 

1 58 

7 29  .. 

GLASS  MANUFACTURE. 

PIECEWORK. 


Glass  manufacture: 

Workmen  and  blowers 

Serirters  and  finishers 

Pot  makers 

Lads  and  boys — 

(flass  cutting: 

Glass  cutters men. 

Glass  cutters lads  and  boys  . 

Teazers men. 

Packers ..  -do 


Birming- 

Sunder- 

ham 

land 

bottles. 

bottles. 

$13  14 

S5  83 

9 48 

6 80 

6 56 

7 77 

1 95 

2 07 

6 25 

75 

7 77 

5 43 

5 59 

4 86 

BUILDING  TRADES— GREAT  BRITAIN. 
HOURS  FROM  47  TO  56  PER  WEEK. 
[This  table  gives  compensation  per  hour.] 


Foremen  

Boys  and  lads 

Bricklayers 

Boys  and  lads 

Masons 

Boys  and  lads 
House  carpenters 


Plasterers 
Boys  a: 
Slaters  


Painters 

Boys  and  lads  . . 

Plumbers 

Boys  and  lads  . 

Glaziers 

Bojts  and  lads  . . 
Smiths 


0 

s 

q 

l £ 
! O 

§ 

O 

o 

a 

'o 

® 

fl 

<D 

0? 

0) 

C 

ti 

yl 

yA 

M | 

5 

A 

< 

Q 

$0  18 

$0  22 

$0  24 

$0  17£ 

15 

19 

17 

$0  18 

15 

,$0  17 

(*> 

19 

08 

06 

(*) 

18 

05 

1 04 

16 

m 

17 

15 

18 

(*> 

18 

06 

05 

(*) 

16£ 

05 

04 

15 

18 

16 

14 

16 

(*) 

08 

05 

! (*) 

05 

034 

18 

15 

18 

16 

18 

16 

18 

(*> 

18 

05 

(*> 

18 

05 

04 

15 

17 

15 

13 

17 

! (*) 

17 

1 07 

H 

15 

04 

034 

13 

05  j 

16  I 

14 

13 

i (*) 

15  ! 

04  1 

(*) 

04 

03.V 

20 

16  | 

17  ' 

15 

17 

13 

15 

(*) 

15 

04  ! 

(*) 

04 

02J 

17 
(*) 

18 

17 

15 1 

17 

13 

15 

04 

(*) 

04 

024 

14 

13  | 

15  ; 

13 

1 (*)  1 

05  ! 

(*)  1 

03*1 

024 

Wages  vary;  hoys  generally  commence  when  13  years  of  age  at  4 cents  per  hour,  and  gradually  rise 
until  they  icach  the  general  rate. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


121 


Building  trades — Great  Britain — Continued. 


London. 

Northampton. 

Bolton. 

Bradford. 

Liverpool. 

Aberdeen. 

Darlington. 

'G-as-fitters 

$0  18 

$0  17 

$0  13 

$0  15 

Boys  and  lads 

(*) 

04 

04 

02! 

Bell-hanger 

18 

13 

13 

13 

Boys  and  lads 

(*) 

05 

03 

02| 

Paper-hangers 

17 

16 

$014 

13 

13 

Boys  and  lads 

(*) 

05 

(*) 

03 

02! 

Laborers  (when  scaffolding  or  hoisting) 

13 

$0  12 

13 

09! 

12! 

Boys  and  lads 

(*) 

05 

Joiners 

18 

15 

18 

16 

$0  16J 

14 

16- 

Boys  and  lads 

(*) 

08 

05 

04 

(*) 

05 

03! 

Laborers  (generally) 

11| 

09 

12 

12 

11 

08 

Boys  and  lads 

(*) 

07 

(*) 

04 

* Wages  vary;  boys  generally  commence  when  13  years  of  age  at  4 cents  per  hour,  and  gradually  rise 
until  they  reach  the  general  rate. 


The  following  tables,  which  were  furnished  at  the  request  of  one  of 
the  Commissioners,  did  not  reach  the  Commission  in  time  to  be  put  in 
the  testimony,  and  are  therefore  made  part  of  the  appendix: 

AVERAGE  WAGES  OF  MEN  WORKING  FOR  GLENDON  IRON  COMPANY  TO  NOVEMBER  1, 
1882.  TEN  MONTHS.  MORRIS  COUNTY,  NEW  JERSEY. 

Per  day. 


Contracting  miners  (in  drifts  and  sinks,  &c.) $2  00 

Miners  and  laborers 1 50 

Engineers  2 00 

Blacksmiths 2 25 

Carpenters 2 25 

Masons 2 75 


AVERAGE  WAGES  OF  MEN  WORKING  IN  THE  NEW  JERSEY  MINES. 

Per  day. 


Machinists $2  50 

C bargemen 2 00 

Blacksmiths 2 00 

Engineer 1 75 

Drill-reamer 1 75 

Miner 1 50 


Numerical  classification  of  men  employed  in  the  Chateaugay  mines  for  the  months  of  July , 
August,  and  September,  1882. 


Month. 

j No. 

Rate. 

Month. 

No. 

Rate. 

Month. 

No. 

Rate. 

$2  10 
1 60 
1 35 

1 50 
to 

2 00 
1 25 
1 85 
1 60 
1 72! 
1 47! 
1 10 
3 00 

July. 

August. 

September. 

Foreman 

Strikers 

Wallopers 

Laborers,  ordinary  J 

Machine  men 

Machine  helpers 

Drill  sharpeners 

Assistants 

Drill  boys 

Teams 

20 
190 
I 136 

: 180 

17 

59 

37 

15 

22 

23 

10 

2 

1 

20 

15 

58 

$2  10 
1 60 
1 35 

1 50 
to 

2 00 
1 40 
1 85 
1 60 
1 72J 

1 47! 
1 10 
3 00 

2 00 
1 00 
1 60 
1 47! 
1 47! 

Foreman 

Strikers 

Wallopers 

Ordinary  laborers  j 

Machine  men 

Machine  helpers. . . 
Drill  sharpeners  . . . 

Assistants 

Drill  boys 

Teams 

25 
218 
142 

139 

6 

61 

45 

16 

21 

26 
9 

$2  10 
1 60 
1 35 

1 50 
to 

2 00 
1 25 
1 85 
1 60 
1 72! 
1 47! 
1 10 
3 00 

Foreman 

Strikers 

Wallopers 

Ordinary  laborers  -j 

Machine  men 

Machine  helpers . . . 
Drill  sharpeners  . 

Assistants 

Drill  boys 

Teams 

29 

223 

205 

151 

6 

71 

48 

16 

19 

28 

7 

Do  

Do 

Do 

Do  

Do  .. 

Do... 

Engineers 

Firemen 

Dump  men 

Engineers 

Firemen 

Dump  men 

17 

23 

1 60 
1 47! 
1 47! 

Engineers 

Firemen 

Dump  men 

15 

18 

73 

1 60 
1 47! 
1 47! 

122  REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


LAKE  SUPERIOR  IRON  COMPANY. 

ISHPEMING,  MICH. 

Statement  of  labor  employed,  month  of  October. 


l 

l 

l 

l 

l 

l 

l 

1 

2 
1 
1 

23 

40 

40 

34 

14 

4 

13 

12 

8 


26 

1L 

67 

16 

11 

9 

20 

10 

30 

6 

18 

17 
2 

11 

10 

5 
4 

6 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 

3 

4 
4 

8 

67 

9 

4 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

2 

18 
1 
1 
1 
1 

12 

8 

10 

10 

1 

1 

49 


s 

Class  of  labor.  S ^ 

W -*-> 

<©  a 

CJC  o 
a a 

® § 
M® 

F 

$65  00 

$0  75 

60*00 

1 75 

150  00 
100  00 
125  00 
65  00 

2 50 
2 25 

1 90 

2 05 

1 75 
j 2 75 

2 50 
2 43 
2 40 
2 34 
2 16  | 
2 10 

1 76  , 
( 1 90 

1 t0 
( 2 00 

2 07 
2 10 
2 00 
2 08 
2 08 
2 18 
2 19 
2 20 
2 21 
2 22 
2 25 
2 27 
2 40 
2 55 

2 87 

3 09 

do I 

do 

do 

l 

Miners  (average) 

do 



do 



do 

do 

do 

do _• 

do 

do 

do  .. 

do ! 

. . . do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Rope  splicer 

65  00 

Ore  weigher 

1 45 

2 25 
1 60 
2 25 
2 00 
1 80 
1 60 
2 00 
1 70 
1 75 
1 60 
1 50 
1 45 
1 25 
1 00  ; 

Ore  inspector 

do 

| Torch  repairer 

do * 

do 1 

do... 

Surface  men 

Surface  men 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Pumpman 

70  00 

do 

2 00  1 
1 75  | 

1 70 

2 25 
2 75 
2 00 

do 

do 

Carpenters  (average) 

Painter 

do 

i Blacksmith 

70  00 

do 

2 75  ' 
2 25  j 

1 65 

2 00 

2 23  ! 

3 00 
2 00 
1 80 

..  ..  do 

Blacksmith  helpers 



Machinists 

Diamond  drill  men 

Boiler-shop 

..  do 

Engineer 1 

REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION 


123; 


Lake  Superior  Iron  Company — Continued. 


& 

2 

3 

'A 

• 

Class  of  labor. 

u 

& . 

It 

£ 

k 1 1- 

SS  I $1 

spg  ; 

E 1 £ 

1 

Barn  boss 

$65  00  .. 

4 

Barn  men 

$1  67 

18 

Teamsters 

1 65 

10 

Hired  teams 

2 33 

1 

Mason 

3 ro 

4 

do 

3 25 

7 

do 

3 00 

11 

Mason  helpers 

1 50 

5 

Tipfinet  first  five • not  inolnfied  

Men  employed,  788.  Average  wages  per  day,  not  including  salaries  of  agents,  gen- 
eral manager,  the  surface  superintendent,  and  book-keeper  and  paymaster. 


Amount  of  pay-roll  fdr  month  of  October $42,  792  70- 

Mi  ning  supplies 3,849  37 


46,642  Ki 

Add  salary  of  agent  and  general  manager,  surface  superintendent,  book-keeper  and 
paymaster,  tools,  wagon-car,  hay  and  grain,  insurance,  taxes,  fuel  for  engines,  repairs., 
special  repairs,  railroad  freights,  lake  freights,  marine  insurance,  commission  on  sales. 

Mining  contractors  mining  ore  by  the  ton,  brought  forward  during  drifts  and  sink- 
ing winzes  and  shafts  by  the  foot : 

Average  number  employed,  105. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $2.85. 

Fillers,  breaking  ore  and  rock,  and  filling  into  cars  in  the  mine,  paid  by  the  ton: 
Average  number  employed,  61. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $1.97. 

Miscellaneous  labor,  being  men  on  surface,  cage-tenders,  brakemeu,  pocket,  incline? 

men,  &c. : 

Average  number  employed,  115. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $1.56. 

Number  employed,  not  including  office,  611. 

Average  daily  wages,  $205.50. 

The  above  is  the  force  regularly  employed  in  the  production  of  ore.  There  is,  in 
addition  to  this,  a considerable  number  of  men  employed  temporarily  on  new  work,., 
such  as  new  engine-houses,  buildings,  &c.,  and  loading  stock,  piles;  but  above  state- 
ment is  sufficient  for  comparison  of  wages  of  the  regular  working  force  of  the  mines.. 
Republic,  Mich.,  November  20,  1882. 


Statement  of  average  wages  paid  by  Republic  Iron  Company. 

Blacksmiths: 

Foreman,  per  month,  $85. 

Smiths,  $2.50,  $2.40,  $2.35  per  day. 

Drill-sharpeners,  $2.50  per  day. 

Helpers,  $1.60  and  $1.70  per  day. 

Average  number  employed,  21. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $2. 

Carpenters : 

Foreman,  $70  per  month. 

Carpenters,  $2  and  $2.25  per  day. 

Average  number  employed,  14. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $2.08. 

Teamsters : 

Double  team,  $1.70  per  day. 

Switching,  one  mule  or  horse,  $1.15. 

Average  number  employed,  24. 

Average  wages,  $1.32. 


124 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Engineers  and  drum-men : 

Foreman,  $125  per  month. 

Engineers,  $2  per  day. 

Drums,  $1.80,  $1.70. 

Small  portable  hoisting  engines,  run  by  air,  $1.60,  $1.50,  $1.40. 
Average  number  employed,  43. 

Average  wages,  $1.83. 

Blasters:  Per  month,  $75,  $72.50,  and  $70. 

Average  number  employed,  3. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $2.79. 

Machine-shop : 

Machinists,  $3,  $2.50,  $2.25. 

Helpers,  $2  and  $1  per  day. 

Average  number  employed,  5. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $2.12. 

Firemen  : $1.75  per  day. 

Average  number  employed,  7. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $1.75. 

Timbermen : 

Foremen,  $78  per  month. 

Men,  $2,  $1.90,  $1.70. 

Average  number  employed,  17. 

Average,  $2. 

Drilling-machines : 

Runner,  $2.25  per  day. 

Helper,  $2  per  day. 

Average  number  employed,  41. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $2.12. 

Pit  bosses:  $2.50  per  day. 

Average  number  employed,  1G. 

Miners,  $2.25,  $2.10,  and  $2  per  day. 

Average  number  employed,  139. 

Average  wages  per  day,  $2.04. 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


125 


126 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


2 r5= 

SS 

2 ei 

Zl 


-si 

S' 

2 K 

2 e 

V. 

8,1 


...2 


2 

ff 

.2 

~ s 

!■§ 

§ 55 


^ « 

S s' 


s ^ 
~ ss 
o e 
S - 

e -2 

•51 

1C 

1 1 

=5*  =>. 

s "fe 

S’? 


5 S', 
c 

8 - 

s s 


C>£ 

to 

111 

S sT^ 


-5  §<;o 

J§ 

©s'®4  - 
.2 

1'S.s 

© Jr  x 

§ I’i 

1^1 

Hi 


1 i 


P-Ot 
o h 
Ph 


; mill 

iiigli 

^^S8“SS“ 


\mm 

is's^ss 

, CO  <N  rt<  S N CO 


1 

fi 


I .1 
Its  . 

;iss 


illSal! 


If 


l.i 
|-l 
& ° 


fill 


s« 
U 3 


© j 

a 

H 


Saaowloo 

S • ’rA 


_ IO  O CO  05  IO  05 

! 00  t~  t-‘  <?4  00 


iiiilsl 


psslll 

IsWisi 


«8SISS8 

lisffsi 


isslslS 

isags2§ 

.Q0005  10  050 
1 1>  t>  co  io  co* 


llsiSI 

§3§Wf  I 

siS§g§SfS  ] 

pSlila 

?3"ssaes 


jssssad' 

fX,^1  CO  r-t 


^slssll 

Islllfl 

i-T  co  in  Th  co  i n 


£13388 

bills'! 

\ ao  oo  no  co  a> 


*o  c-  oo 

00  JO  00 


Statement  showing  the  imports,  by  countries,  of  wool  (sheep's ) and  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  like  animals,  during  the  fiscal  years  1876  to  1881, 

both  inclusive. 


REFORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION 


127 


gllssSl 

O Cl  ^ fO 
WplOO 

|g?§3|S'!'2  ' 

C)  vf 

r-T  io"  of  — r 
co^  to 

1 

“sIsSS! 

ssss 

g’Sggljj 

^8  CO  ^ 

llliiilllliil 

! rf  of  rj<'  t-“  CO  lO 

;L'SS"3"  S 


^IlslSSlIlIs 

! 1 1 pi  f a""  i'""'"" 

f'l  t*  fff  Cg  CO 


i is 

CO 


1111 

ci  to 


gllllg 

?“l£gS'8 

CO- 

«s lies  1 

tmm  '■* 


!l£5Sf8''g" 

of  _ 

^isgsis 

!?>W 


plsll*!! 

-•§- 


■sglill-Sl 

tSSw-' 


"S 


Is 

1 


II 


Is 

i* 


11 


IS 


Is 

II 

Tfr-r 


II 

gfs“ 


£3 

ggf 


IS 

II 


II 

If 


SS 


II 


1 1 i |5  !li  _ a 
g|?ll£fS8f1| 

o<  23  £ o O M Pl,  X 02  H < 


I 


ISSil 

•r-T 


SIS1!  1 

SW  * 


sill! 

iSi'F 

rH  r-T 


sis!!  1 


IsllS 

g“l¥ 


sill! 

1111s' 


isssa 

ssse" 


alsll 

fiiss‘ 


Ills! 

aoNr-oort 


I 


mil  i 

slW  s' 

00  of  of 


pill  i 
ISis 


s 

(N  H 1C  (M  »G  CO 

ASSESS"®"  ^ 

COC5WI- 


. 

3 : 
*s  : 

:!  i j 

§ 

*e 

1 

1 i 

ill : 

s 

2 ; 

E 

<5  : 

•’C'g  • 

3 . 

p,  • 

w 

3 

"o 

,d  ■ 
11 

ills 

,a 

13 

0 

^ ! 
II  j 

H 

mm 

3 

0 

H 

£ a- 

s 

$ 

2 
a 

8 

•;,i  & i 

rt  (- 


Total  South  America 12,295,095  1,655,698  j 14,556,554  jl,  843,  360  j 18,439,658  j 2,  363,  405  12,087,042  1,329,281  | 26,227,260  3,738,175  j 13,530,996  2, 184,  81 1 


■Statement,  showing  the  imports , by  countries,  of  wool  { sheeps ) and  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  animals , <fc . Continued. 


128 


REPORT  OF  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


tsir 


»!!1S 

Ills2' 

I CQ  <M" 


cillll 

g a>  S 


4IISS 

ISllI 


I gisSS 

1 «3gfB3 


s 

i 


§ I 

mM 


gsa§s 


.$£118 

|1!1S 

fts  Cl" CO 

"ssiis 


»ils! 

fill 

^ N« 


'sr 


-SsSI 

Ili'P  i 

Ps  <m"c4" 


si?! 


No.  127. — Quantities  of  wool  produced,  imported,  exported,  and  retained  for  consumption  in  the  United  States,  from  1876  to  1881, 


REPORT  OP  THE  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


129 


|ll 


Illsls 

fill'll" 

I'fsl'fl' 

mm 


i 


mill  1 
I : |si¥i'i¥  ‘ 1 

g i O r-T  CO  lO  ^ CO  m | O/] 

^ ^ -S 


,883883  ' | 

isggfss  , = 


it 

11! 


X 


IsfsSl  | i 
li'SIll’l  % 
lllllll  3 


l 

.888388  I 

|f  all’ll  = 

|3838§S8  3 O 

— 'I 

mill  & 

! i 'ii  i if  1 
Sllffsl  5 


mill 

H.  Mis.  6 9 


TESTIMONY 


TAKEN  BY  THE 

TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


1 S S 2. 


0 

Reported  by  JAMES  L.  ANDEM, 

STENOGRAPHER  TO  THE  COMMISSION. 


H.  Mis.  G 9 


HENRY  BOWER.] 


CHEMICALS. 


131 


\ 


HENRY  BOWER. 


Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  22,  1882. 

Mr.  Henry  Bower,  of  Philadelphia,  in  response  to  the  invitation  of 
the  Commission,  appeared  and  gave  his  views  on  the  chemical  industry 
of  the  United  States  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  I desire  to  say  that  I do  not  rep- 
resent the  chemical  industry  at  large..  The  manufacturing  chemists  in 
general  have  no  organization.  I am  simply  here  at  the  request  of  one 
of  your  members  with  whom  I have  conversed  on  the  subject.  I hope 
to  be  able  to  give  you  some  information  in  regard  to  this  industry,  and 
the  reclassification  of  Schedule  M,  which  contains  most  of  the  articles 
that  come  in  the  line  of  our  manufacture. 

In  starting,  I may  say  that  the  science  of  chemistry  embraces  all 
animate  and  inanimate  matter.  It,  therefore,  covers  a very  broad  field, 
and  takes  within  its  scope  all  the  other  industries,  with  the  exception, 
I believe,  of  those  of  the  very  lowest  order.  The  iron  manufacture  to-day 
is  really  a chemical  manufacture.  The  textile  manufacture  may  be 
classed  as  the  same  when  we  get  beyond  the  mere  spinning  and  weav- 
ing of  the  goods.  The  large  industries  are  not  now  carried  on  under 
the  old  fashioned  rule  of  thumb,  but  every  iron  manufactory  and  every 
large  concern  which  consumes  quantities  of  ores  and  other  materials, 
work  entirely  with  the  aid  of  the  science  of  chemistry.  The  mechanical 
portion  of  the  process  is  entirely  supplemental. 

To  give  you  an  instance  of  the  manner  in  which  this  art,  as  it  may  be 
called,  governs  the  world,  I will  call  your  attention  to  the  condition  of 
an  industry  that  existed  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  a few  years 
ago,  that  of  raising  madder,  an  agricultural  product.  This  madder  was 
ground  and  shipped  all  over  the  world  in  casks  for  use  as  a dye.  An 
extract  was  made  from  this  ground  madder,  producing  what  is  called 
garancine,  which,  strange  to  say,  is  a product  that  is  hardly  known  to- 
day. Yet  the  trade  in  this  ground  madder  and,  garancine  ran  into  mil- 
lions of  dollars  within  the  last  twenty  years. 

The  colors  obtained  from  the  madder  are  now  nearly  all  produced 
from  what  was  then  a waste  product,  viz,  the  waste  trom  the  coal-tar 
distilleries  of  the  gas  works.  An  aitificial  madder  has  been  produced 
which  has  cheapened  the  product  very  much,  and  revolutionized  the 
world  in  the  matter  of  that  particular  dye. 

Looking  at  this  phase  of  the  subject  a little  further,  you  will  see  by 
the  large  consumption  of  those  products — not  speaking  of  madder 
(which  is  an  agricultural  product),  and  possibly  could  be  raised  in  much 
larger  quantities  than  before,  but  of  every  substance  used  largely  in  the 
arts — if  it  had  not  been  for  those  investigations  and  the  establishment 
of  large  manufactories  on  the  work  of  the  investigator,  the  world  to- 
day would  have  been  paying  the  most  extravagant  prices  for  a great 
number  of  its  most  necessitous  materials.  We  used  to  read  of  the  Ty- 
rian purple  commanding  a fabulous  price,  it  was  always  understood 
that  it  could  be  manufactured  only  at  one  point.  Almost  the  same 
condition  of  things  would  exist  in  dyes  and  medicinal  preparations  also, 
had  not  the  large  manufacturing  establishments  of  to-day  been  founded 
on  the  work  of  the  analytical  or  investigating  chemist. 

It  has  been  a matter  of  thought  with  me  whether  we  could  not  ivided 
our  tariff  classifications  under  three  Leads,  as  we  usually  divide  nature, 
viz,  the  animal,  vegetable,  and  mineral  kingdoms.  To  illustrate,  I 


132 


TARIFF  COMMISSION 


[HEXRY  BOWER. 


would  take  a vegetal  Je  product  uot  grown  in  this  country.  When  you 
came  to  classify  that  article,  it  would  be  placed  on  the  free  list.  You 
would  then  ascertain  what  is  the  next  advancement  towards  preparing 
it  for  market.  Say  it  was  ground  to  powder,  which  would  require 
labor.  A low  rate  of  duty  could  be  placed  upon  it  when  in  that  form. 
Next,  an  extract  might  be  made  from  the  powder,  which  would  be  the 
third  step;  and,  fourth,  we  would  arrive  at  what  is  called  the  proximate 
principle,  which  would  require  the  ultimate  amount  of  labor  and  skill 
to  produce,  on  which  would  be  placed  a fourth  rate  of  duty.  There  is 
scarcely  anything  outside  of  the  great  schedules,  as  I may  call  them,  of 
the  tariff,  which  could  not  be  classified  in  that  way;  noting  always  that 
whenever  alcohol  is  used,  a special  rate  of  duty  would  apply  to  that 
article.  When  you  revise  the  schedule  of  the  chemical  products,  those 
articles  in  which  alcohol  is  used  as  a vehicle  or  is  destroyed  in  their 
manufacture  should  be  noted  separately,  owing  to  the  internal-revenue 
tax  on  the  whisky. 

Turning  to  the  animal  kingdom,  the  first  article  that  would  probably 
present  itself  would  be  an  ox.  That  I believe  should  be  dutiable  in  order 
to  be  protective  in  its  character.  The  products  from  the  ox  would  be 
tallow,  bones,  horns,  hoofs,  the  hair,  gelatine  or  glue.  These  would  be 
the  first  products.  If  you  were  to  adopt  the  scientific  system  of  classi- 
fication I am  speaking  of,  those  articles  would  pay  a higher  rate  of  duty 
because  they  are  in  advanced  condition.  Then  we  would  come  to  the 
third  stage  of  advancement.  The  tallow’  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
soap,  candles,  and  glycerine.  An  advanced  rate  -of  duty  would  be 
placed  on  the  candles  and  crude  glycerine.  When  you  came  to  soap  it 
would  be  plain  sailing,  because  you  would  add  the  amount  of  duty  to 
cover  the  soda  duty,  and  you  would  obtain  a fair  equitable  rate.  Then 
by  classifying  soaps  into  common  and  fancy  soaps,  as  they  are  classified 
under  the  present  schedules,  paying  two  rates  of  duty,  you  would  be 
working  in  the  same  direction.  The  crude  glycerine  would  be  dutiable 
at  the  same  rate  as  candles,  but  the  refined  article,  owing  to  its  increase 
in  condition,  would  pay  a higher  rate  of  duty. 

There  are  some  points  in  regard  to  the  mineral  kingdom  which  would 
require  to  be  thought  over  before  I could  make  any  precise  statement. 
It  would  be  interesting  for  a metallurgist  to  look  into  the  matter  and 
see  if  this  system  could  be  worked  into  this  special  form.  I doubt 
whether  the  layman  could  readily  understand  the  subject  as  it  comes 
before  him. 

In  illustrating  the  classifications  into  the  animal  and  vegetable  king- 
doms, I have  touched  upon  some  articles  that  comparatively  few  people 
know  anything  about.  Few  people  know,  for  instance,  how  glycerine 
is  produced,  but  this  system  would  simplify  the  whole  matter.  Before 
the  system  could  be  adopted,  however,  it  would  require  considerable 
thought  and  attention.  The  French  tariff,  so  far  as  1 am  able  to  judge, 
is  based  on  this  system ; at  all  events,  the  classifications  are  in  that  di- 
rection. But  the  French  tariff  cannot  be  any  guide  for  our  people,  inas- 
much as  the  French  seem  to  have  devoted  almost  their  entire  thought 
to  the  improvement  of  a special  industry,  which  I suppose  is  the  most 
desirable  one  for  them  to  promote,  viz,  the  textile  fabric  industry.  The 
chemical  industry  has  a very  important  bearing  on  the  textile  fabric 
interest  of  any  country,  because  its  products  are  so  largely  used  in  dye- 
ing and  coloring.  Sometimes  we  hear  it  remarked  that  a certain  chem- 
ical product  should  be  free  of  duty  because  it  is  used  in  manufactures. 
Now,  if  a chemical  product  is  not  a manufacture  itself,  what  is  it1?  That 
view  of  the  chemical  manufactures  has  permeated  a great  deal,  until  it 
has  gotten  hold  of  some  of  our  statesmen.  For  example,  wdien  Mr.  W. 


HENRT  BOWER.] 


CHEMICALS. 


133 


B.  Morrison,  of  Illinois,  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  he  made  nearly  every  chemical  production  free.  It  was  very 
difficult  to  convince  him  that  chemical  products  should  not  be  free.  The 
ground  is  often  taken  that  they  are  used  for  medicine,  and  that  all 
medicinal  preparations  should  be  free.  The  only  answer  is,  if  a chemi- 
cal product  is  not  a manufacture,  what  is  it?  It  is  almost  impossible 
to  state  the  question  in  any  other  way. 

To  give  you  an  idea  of  the  magnitude  of  the  chemical  industry,  I will 
state  that  the  census  which  is  just  about  to  be  formulated  is  the  tirst 
one  made  of  the  chemical  industry  and  allied  products.  When  I speak 
of  allied  products,  I refer  to  everything  that  can  be  enumerated  in 
Schedule  M,  outside  of  those  belonging  to  other  schedules  by  right,  and 
also  some  that  are  in  the  free  list.  The  number  of  establishments  in 
the  United  States  is  1,349,  representing  a capital,  in  round  numbers,  of 
$85,000,000.  The  annual  sales  are  about  $118,000,000  ; the  number  of 
people  employed,  30,000,  and  the  annual  consumption  of  coal  600,000 
tons.  The  capital  invested  in  those  establishments  ranges  from  $500  to 
$5,000,000  in  individual  concerns. 

The  question  of  labor,  of  course,  enters  very  largely  into  our  manu- 
factures, and  as  that  is  probably  the  most  important  element  in  asking 
protection  for  our  industries,  we  have  looked  into  the  relative  cost  of 
labor  in  the  United  States  and  England.  We  find  that  on  the  value  of 
our  output  of  $118,000,000  we  pay  6.4  per  cent,  more  than  the  English 
manufacturers  pay  for  their  labor.  Of  course,  this  does  not  foot  up  as  it 
does  in  the  iron  tra.de,  or  other  industries  where  labor  counts  very  high ; 
at  the  same  time  it  is  a very  large  item.  It  is  a large  profit  alone  when 
carried  through  the  good  and  bad  years  of  business.  But  this  differ- 
ence in  the  cost  of  labor  is  only  a countervailing  requisite  that  we  ask. 
Our  working  apparatus  is  generally  rapidly  destroyed. 

We  use  a large  amount  of  iron,  lead,  and  fire-bricks.  In  one  of  my 
own  special  branches  I use  up  every  five  weeks  30,000  pounds  of  cast 
vessels,  fire-bricks,  with  the  destruction  of  iron,  copper,  and  lead  in 
other  directions.  The  price  of  apparatus  here  is  much  higher  than  in 
England.  Within  reasonable  bounds  the  additional  cost  of  our  repairs 
is  not  less  than  3.6  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  our  output;  that  is,  the 
additional  cost,  compared  with  the  cost  in  English  manufactories. 
Taking  our  industry  at  large,  these  items  would  make  us  ask  you  for  a 
compensatory  duty  of  10  per  cent.  Now,  that  would  not  be  protectingl 
The  protective  duty,  as  I take  it,  comes  afterwards,  as  it  does  in  al. 
manufactures.  We  want  to  be  protected  against  occasional  floods  of 
foreign  manufactures. 

Branching  off  into  another  direction,  we  would  then  inquire  as  to 
what  is  necessary  to  produce  goods  cheaply.  We  should  be  able  to 
produce  them  in  as  large  a quantity  as  possible.  We  have  shown  in 
our  industry  that  by  the  heavy  duties  placed  on  some  of  those  goods 
under  the  war  tariff,  by  the  inculcation  of  their  manufacture  here,  from 
the  skill  of  our  people,  and  by  obtaining  the  home  market,  we  have 
been  able  to  produce  cheaper  than  in  England,  and,  indeed,  we  are  ex- 
porting large  quantities  of  goods  to  England  to-day. 

You  may  say,  then,  what  do  you  want  with  those  duties?  Well,  we 
do  not  want  them,  but  at  the  same  time  it  would  not  he  wise  to  disturb 
them.  But  if  you  do  disturb  them,  do  not  mark  them  down  so  low  that 
the  foreign  producer  can  take  our  place  to  any  great  extent.  Should 
you  do  so  the  effect  will  be  bad  in  two  directions.  In  the  first  place,  you 
would  curtail  our  home  market,  which  would  increase  our  cost  of  pro- 
duction and  increase  the  cost  to  the  consumer.  If  you  give  the  foreigner 
the  market  here  to  any  large  extent  the  effect  is  to  advance  the  price  on 


134 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  BOWER 


his  side.  Instead  of  gettingyour  goods  cheaper,  there  is  an  advance  on 
both  sides  of  the  line. 

The  duties  on  the  goods  to  which  I refer  have  no  more  effect  on  the 
value  of  the  goods  that  if  they  did  not  exist.  We  produce  them  here 
better,  and  put  them  on  the  market  in  a more  reliable  shape.  People 
know  in  buying  our  goods  that  they  get  a reliable  grade,  and  to-day  we 
are  independent  of  the  rest  of  the  world  in  hundreds  of  articles  in  our 
lines.  That  is  the  way  we,  in  common  with  the  other  industries,  want 
to  be  placed — so  that  we  shall  be  independent  of  the  rest  of  the  world. 
Domestic  competition  in  trade  is,  after  all,  the  great  leveler.  I have  al- 
ways found  it  so.  The  moment  the  profits  of  manufacture  become  in- 
ordinate, competition  springs  up.  In  our  business  we  are  constantly 
turning  up  something  new.  But  it  does  not  last  long.  Competition 
soon  throws  the  large  profit  overboard. 

As  I stated  earlier,  works  are  established  very  often  on  mere  labora- 
tory researches.  For  instance,  a chemist  may  be  at  work  in  some  small 
laboratory,  and  he  produces  a new  and  hitherto  unknown  substance, 
which  may  be  immediately  adopted,  as  the  artisan  endeavors  to  find  out 
what  he  can  use  it  for,  or  the  physician  commences  his  experiments 
therapeutically  to  ascertain  what  lie  can  use  it  for.  If  it  is  proven  to 
be  advantageous,  factories  will  be  erected  for  its  production.  For  the 
same  reasons,  the  new  substances  which  are  produced  from  time  to  time 
obliterate  the  old  things  that  were  formerly  used,  and  the  plant  engaged 
in  their  manufacture  becomes  idle.  That  is  a very  important  element 
in  the  manufacture  of  chemicals.  Goods  that  are  in  demand  to-day  may 
not  be  wanted  at  all  this  time  next  year,  and  we  would  have  a large 
amount  of  money  in  plant  lying  idle. 

When  you  investigate  the  free  list  thoroughly  you  will  find  that  nearly 
all  crude  drugs  and  some  chemicals  are  on  it.  Some  are  there  which 
ought  not  to  be  there,  and  there  are  a f ew  things  that  can  be  added  which 
will  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  reduction  of  the  revenue.  Those 
articles  are  spices  not  produced  in  this  country.  I think  the  only  spice 
produced  in  the  United  States  is  mustard.  I am  not  prepared  to  name 
any  other  articles  which  I think  should  be  placed  on  the  free  list.  'There 
are  some  productions  which  may  possibly  loom  into  importance  within 
the  next  decade.  Persons  interested  in  them  will  probably  come  before 
you  to  ask  you  to  examine  those  matters  very  carefully  with  a view  to 
giving  them  a rate  of  duty  which  would  be  protective  in  its  character 
and  inculcate  the  production  of  those  goods  here.  Considerable  capital 
is  invested  in  some  of  those  productions  to-day,  and  I believe  it  would 
be  wise  whenever  such  an  application  is  made  to  endeavor  to  promote 
the  industry  even  at  the  risk  of  a little  discomfort  to  the  present  con- 
sumer. An  unimportant  rate  of  duty  at  times  would,  I am  satisfied, 
be  sufficient  to  put  us  in  a position  by  which  within  the  next  ten  years 
we  will  be  able  to  compete  with  the  world  in  some  of  those  new  produc- 
tions which  will  come  before  you.  I am  not  at  liberty  to  mention  what 
those  articles  are.  I am  not  their  accredited  agent.  When  the  persons 
interested  come  to  make  their  statement,  I shall  know  something  about 
it,  and  shall  endeavor  to  aid  them  all  I possibly  can. 

With  regard  to  the  points  I gave  as  to  the  production  and  cost  by 
reason  of  the  duty,  I understand  that  the  same  thing  can  be  shown  in 
other  industries  to  a very  great  extent,  but  not  to  the  same  extent  as  it 
can  in  ours.  I have  been  told  that  in  iron  productions  the  difficulty  is  to 
trace  them.  The  expressions  signifying  the  same  article  are  different 
in  other  countries.  For  instance,  what  we  call  a butt  some  call  a hinge; 
and  what  it  is  called  in  Germany  or  Belgium  I do  not  know.  If  those 
designations  were  translated  into  English  you  would  find,  perhaps,  they 


HENRY  BOWER.] 


CHEMICALS. 


135 


are  cheaper  here  than  on  the  other  side.  One  insignificant  chemical 
article  pays  a duty  of  222  per  cent.  It  is  so  insignificant  that  it  is  not 
worth  mentioning  its  name.  The  price  here  is  22  cents  per  pound,  and 
the  price  abroad  is  28-^-  cents  per  pound.  That  is  high  rate  of  duty, 
owing  to  the  tax  on  whisky.  When  we  commenced  to  tax  whisky,  they 
made  all  the  acetates  from  whisky ; but  the  attention  of  the  manufact- 
uring chemist  was  turned  to  the  utilization  of  the  well-known  acid  that 
exists  in  wood.  The  consequence  is  that,  owing  to  our  large  wood  areas, 
we  are  now  exporting  acetates  to  England. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  What  is  that  article? 

Witness.  Acetate  of  soda.  There  is  another  interesting  article — 
licorice  paste — which  is  an  article  of  a good  deal  of  importance,  and  is 
used  largely  by  tobacco  manufacturers  in  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  other 
States.  The  duty  is  10  cents  per  pound.  It  was  formerly  15  per  cent. 
The  price  now  is  about  14  cents  in  large  quantities.  Under  the  lower 
rate  of  duty  it  was  28  cents,  a reduction  of  one-half  by  domestic  compe- 
tition. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  What  is  the  relative  reduction  in  the  foreign 
price? 

Witness.  I am  unable  to  say;  but  it  was  by  the  encouragement  of 
its  manufacture  in  this  country  that  the  price  was  reduced.  Another 
reason  was  that  it  took  it  out  of  the  hands  of  a large  monopoly  on  the 
other  side.  Monopoly  is  a term  which  is  sometimes  applied  to  chemical 
manufactures;  but  we  are  not  monopolists  in  any  sense  of  the  word. 
Every  article  that  we  manufacture  is  as  free  as  air.  All  that  is  wanted 
is  capital  and  skill,  and  persons  can  compete  with  us  or  do  whatever 
they  please  with  any  article  you  can  find  in  Schedule  M.  It  is  becom- 
ing a custom  in  Europe  to  make  very  large  combinations  in  certain 
manufactures.  It  is  our  protective  tariff  up  to  this  point  that  has  pro- 
tected us  against  that.  The  moment  you  give  an  article  a rate  of  duty 
which  will  permit  the  American  to  furnish  it,  the  foreign  monopolist 
has  no  opportunity  to  come  here  to  use  this  market  to  help  his  own  to 
break  down  this.  The  moment  we  become  independent  our  goods  are 
cheaper.  That  is  shown  in  17  articles  mentioned  in  the  little  pamphlet 
I have  in  my  hand,  and  you  can  go  through  the  entire  list  and  see  the 
same  condition  of  things. 

When  you  touch  articles  bearing  on  our  industry,  I will  ask  you  to 
give  us  good  and  ample  opportunity  to  discuss  with  you  the  reasons  for 
placing  articles  on  the  free  list,  and  also  for  placing  some  which  are 
now  on  the  free  list  on  the  dutiable  list. 

Commissioner  Garland.  Did  I understand  you  to  recommend  that 
articles  in  Schedule  I (spices)  should  be  placed  on  the  free  list? 

Witness.  Yes,  sir;  everything  in  Schedule  I,  with  the  exception  of 
the  last-named  article. 

The  President.  How  about  ground  pepper? 

Witness.  It  ought  to  be  dutiable  if  you  adopt  the  advancement  sys- 
tem. There  is  another  point  I have  not  mentioned,  that  apart  from  labor 
and  apart  from  capital — which  are  to-day  protected  in  a certain  degree 
under  our  system — skill  should  be  protected.  That  is  to  say,  in  con- 
sidering whether  a man  is  entitled  to  protection  for  his  goods,  the  ques- 
tion as  to  how  much  skill  is  required  in  producing  those  goods  should 
also  be  taken  into  account.  If  a common  refuse  is  advanced  to  a vain 
able  product,  that  is  as  good  as  gold  dollars  in  the  market,  and  the  skill 
which  does  that  demands  protection,  in  allowing  that,  you  confer  a 
benefit  upon  the  country  at  large,  because  you  give  people  an  incentive 
to  become  skillful.  It  is  not  only  the  raw  bone  and  muscle  that  needs 
protection,  but,  if  I may  so  speak,  the  brains  as  well. 


136 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  BOWER. 


Commissioner  Kenner.  In  the  earlier  part  of  your  remarks  you  sxated 
you  had  a system  by  which  the  articles  classed  in  Schedule  M could  be 
greatly  simplified,  and  you  divided  them  into  three  classes — the  animal, 
vegetable,  and  mineral.  Kow,  the  simplification  of  the  tariff  is  a very 
important  matter  to  the  country.  Have  you  framed  a schedule  for  a 
tariff  based  on  the  system  you  have  expounded?  If  you  have,  can  you 
furnish  the  Commission  with  a copy  ? 

Witness.  I think  that  before  you  are  ready  to  report  a tariff  bill,  if 
you  should  do  so,  Mr.  Alexander  H.  Jones,  of  Philadelphia,  and  myself 
will  be  enabled  to  elaborate  one  and  place  it  before  you  in  some  com- 
prehensive form.  At  the  same  time,  it  would  assist  us  very  much  if,  in 
the  course  of  your  deliberations,  you  would  suggest  the  matter  to  the 
persons  who  come  before  you.  If  you  find  an  industry  or  an  individual 
inclined  to  view  the  proposition  in  a favorable  light,  and  will  be  good 
enough  to  allow  your  secretary  to  notify  us  of  the  fact,  we  would  then 
have  the  benefit  of  their  views,  and  it  would  assist  us  very  much. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  You  will  understand  that  gentlemen  will 
frequently  appear  before  us  and  propound  theories  of  a plausible  and 
captivating  character.  We  necessarily  desire  to  see  whether  those 
gentlemen  can  reduce  their  theories  to  a practical  purpose  by  preparing 
such  an  arrangement  as  you  contemplate.  I have  no  doubt  the  Com- 
mission would  be  pleased  if  you  would  carry  out  your  theory  in  a prac- 
tical form,  not  expecting,  of  course,  that  it  would  be  adopted  as  you 
present  it.  It  would  simplify  matters  very  much  to  have  it  before  us. 
I would  also  ask  if  you  are  disposed  in  such  an  arrangement  to  mention 
on  what  particular  articles  you  think  there  should  be  a change  of  duty; 
what  change  you  desire,  whether  an  increase  or  diminution  of  the  duty, 
and  your  reasons  therefor.  It  would  probably  consume  some  time  to 
give  us  the  reasons  at  length;  but  where  the  reasons  are  not  manifest 
on  the  schedule  itself,  would  it  be  asking  too  much  for  you  to  make  such 
an  explanation  ? 

Witness.  I have  already  stated  that  we  have  that  in  view.  We  in- 
tend to  ask  for  changes,  but  inasmuch  as  I am  not  here  officially  to-day, 
and  am  only  representing  my  own  factory,  I am  not  prepared  to  say 
wffiat  articles  should  be  reduced  or  advanced.  Although  I entertain 
certain  views,  I prefer  having  further  consultation  among  ourselves  be- 
fore expressing  them. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  You  will  understand  that  chemistry  and  the 
products  of  chemistry  are,  as  a rule,  matters  but  little  understood  by 
the  community  at  large,  and  this  Commission  form  a portion  of  that 
community,  and  are  more  or  less  in  that  category.  Therefore,  the  more 
explicit,  definite,  and  enlarged  manner  in  which  you  can  give  your 
views  on  that  subject,  the  better  it  will  be  for  us.  You  speak  of  a de- 
sire you  have  to  see  skill  protected.  Is  not  skill  protected  through  the 
Patent  Office  already  to  such  an  extent  as  does  not  justify  a tariff  com- 
mission to  consider  it  at  all? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Is  there  any  mode,  except  through  the  Patent 
Office,  of  protecting  skill? 

Witness.  When  I mentioned  skill  in  the  results,  I did  not  mean  to 
take  it  in  as  an  element  of  the  cost  of  manufacture  in  dollars  and  cents, 
but  at  the  same  time  I meant  it  should  come  in  as  a guide  to  the  rating 
of  duties.  I think  you  will  admit  that  would  come  in  properly  under 
the  framing  of  a tariff'  law  in  the  manner  I have  suggested,  the  advance- 
ment of  the  conditions  of  a product.  It  takes  more  skill  to  produce 
articles  of  the  fourth  class  than  articles  of  the  second  class. 

The  President.  It  would  involve  a higher  class  of  labor? 

Witness.  Yres,  and  a higher  class  of  intellect  altogether.  That  intel- 


HENRY  BOWER.  ] 


CHEMICALS. 


137 


lect  weaves  itself  into  the  product  in  some  way  or  other.  There  should 
he  some  indescribable  kind  of  protection  for  it. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  You  speak  of  skill  as  distinct  from  labor. 

Witness.  I endeavored  to  state  it  in  this  way — that  not  only  bone 
and  muscle,  but  the  brain  also  should  be  protected.  Bone  and  muscle 
cannot  produce  the  higher  articles  without  skill. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Suppose  an  article  is  patented  in  England, 
and  it  costs  £1  without  the  royalty  and  £2  with  the  royalty,  would  you 
put  a duty  on  the  royalty  ? 

Witness.  I do  not  understand  that  subject  at  all ; that  is  something 
new  to  me. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I understood  you  to  say  that  at  some  time 
before  we  get  through  you  will  present  your  classified  schedule.  I 
think  I express  the  sentiments  of  the  Commission  when  I say  that  we 
are  ready  to  take  up  this  question  immediately,  and  I think  you  cannot 
present  the  matter  too  quickly.  As  our  work  proceeds  it  will,  of  course, 
increase,  and  I for  one  would  like  this  case  presented  in  detail — what 
duties  should  be  advanced  and  what  reduced,  what  taken  off  the  free 
list  and  what  put  on. 

Witness.  The  matter  will  be  presented  to  you  in  such  shape  that 
you  can  take  it  up  comprehensively,  and  the  few  points  you  will  like  to 
have  discussed  will  not  take  much  of  the  time  of  the  Commission. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Do  you  propose  to  present  your  statement 
in  writing? 

Witness.  It  will  be  printed.  We  have  a quarto  book  now  in  print. 
All  it  wants  are  the  figures  the  manufacturing  chemists  would  like  you 
to  adopt,  to  be  filled  in.  It  will  give  their  views  why  the  changes  should 
be  made.  There  are  one  or  two  industries  that  I know  will  come  before 
you.  So  far  as  the  goods  in  which  I am  concerned,  I do  not  ask  very 
much  change;  but  if  you  adopt  my  system  of  formulating  Schedule  M 
they  would  come  in.  Some  of  the  manufacturers,  I understand,  are  very 
much  disatisfied  with  the  present  state  of  affairs. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  you  would 
make  a change  in  the  productions  in  which  alcohol  is  a component  part? 

Witness.  Our  schedule  will  contain  a separate  list  in  which  we  will 
enumerate  those  articles  that  are  known  to-day  as  being  produced  through 
the  aid  of  or  from  alcohol. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Why  would  you  make  a separate  list? 

Witness.  Because  of  the  tax  on  alcohol.  It  might  be  said,  “We  will 
give  that  man  20  per  cent,  duty  on  his  manufacture P But  when  you 
come  to  examine  the  matter  you  will  see  that  he  uses  alcohol,  and  has 
to  pay  an  internal-revenue  tax  in  addition.  If  he  uses  a gallon,  the  tax 
is  $1.60.  That  enters  into  the  cost  of  manufacture. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Does  not  a party  using  alcohol  in  that  way 
necessarily  in  selling  add  the  tax  to  the  cost  of  manufacture  and  make 
a price  accordingly  ? 

W itness.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Then,  in  calculating  the  duty  on  the’  com- 
peting article,  I do  not  see  exactly  why  we  should  add  to  it  the  cost  of 
the  alcohol. 

Witness.  Alcohol  for  manufacturing  purposes  is  free  of  duty  in  Great 
Britain.  They  make  there  what  is  called  a methylated  spirit  in  such 
shape  that  it  cannot  be  drank,  but  answers  for  almost  all  the  purposes 
of  chemical  productions.  There  are  very  good  reasons  why  the  system  of 
methylated  spirits  is  not  practicable  in  this  country.  It'  I make  a cer- 
tain article  in  the  manufacture  of  which  1 must  use  alcohol,  I am  obliged 
to  go  into  the  market  and  pay  $1.60  tax  per  gallon  for  it.  Of  course  I 


138 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  ugweb. 


have  to  add  that  to  the  cost  of  my  manufacture,  and  if  you  do  not  pro- 
tect me  against  Great  Britain  I lose  my  market. 

The  President.  What  do  you  think  of  the  desirableness  of  having  a 
separate  and  distinct  schedule  for  the  branches  of  your  manufacture  $ 
Schedule  M is  at  present  not  only  composed  largely  of  chemicals,  but 
includes  other  articles  having  no  relation  to  chemistry. 

Witness.  I think  it  would  be  desirable  to  have  a special  schedule. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  in  general  that 
your  plan  is  to  formulate  a tariff  on  the  principle  that  crude  articles 
shall  be  admitted  free;  that  a duty  shall  be  paid  on  tbe  first  stage  of 
manufacture ; the  next  stage  a higher  duty,  and  so  on u? 

Witness.  Yes ; providing  the  crude  material  is  not  the  product  of 
this  country. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Is  borax  a product  of  this  country  ? 

Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner.  Kenner.  It  is  alleged  to  be  a product  of  California 
and  Nevada. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I understood  you  to  say  you  would  put  re- 
fined borax  on  the  free  list. 

Witness.  Oh,  no.  Boracic  acid  is  produced  only  in  Italy. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  speak  of  glycerine  as  a product  of  tal- 
low. 

Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Did  I not  understand  you  to  say  you  would 
put  refined  glycerine  on  the  free  list ? 

Witness.  Oh,  no. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Is  it  not  difficult  to  find  out  whether  gly- 
cerine is  refined  or  not  ? 

Witness.  No,  sir;  it  is  very  simple,  indeed.  A great  deal  of  glycer- 
ine has  been  imported  as  crude  glycerine  that  was  really  refined,  because 
of  the  manipulation  of  its  color.  Where  a custom-house  appraiser, 
however,  understands  his  business,  no  mistake  can  be  made  now.  A 
new  officer  might  fall  into  tbe  error. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  would  rather  have  specific  than  ad  va- 
lorem duties  ? 

Witness.  Yes,  wherever  an  article  has  had  a somewhat  even  value 
fora  number  of  years,  and  observation  leads  us  to  think  it  is  likely  to 
remain  at  that  value,  I think  it  is  tbe  most  desirable  form  of  duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Glycerine,  I think,  has  varied  from  170 
francs  to  250  francs  per  1,000  kilograms  within  the  last  six  months. 

Witness.  Yes;  that  was  due  to  a certain  advancement  in  tbe  use  of 
blasting  materials,  but  the  price  is  gradually  receding.  I think  you 
will  find  that  a great  many  of  those  things  do  not  vary  more  than  a few 
cents  per  pound  for  a long  time,  so  that  the  ad  valorem  rate  would  not 
make  any  great  difference  in  tbe  amount  of  duty.  Therefore  it  would 
be  safe  to  put  a specific  duty  on  them.  It  would  aid  in  simplifying  the 
tariff.  The  difficulty  you  suggest  shows  the  advantage  of  adopting  the 
system  I have  proposed.  You  would  bring  the  different  articles  before 
a man’s  mind,  and  see  them  in  certain  positions  on  the  schedule;  he 
would  see  at  once  whether  the  article  was  in  an  advanced  condition  or 
not,  even  if  he  did  not  understand  their  absolute  chemical  and  mechan- 
ical relationship.  It  would  be  a sort  of  iudex  or  guide  to  the  customs 
officers. 

Adjourned. 


ALEXANDER  H JONES.] 


CHEMICALS. 


139 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  25,  1882. 

Mr.  Alexander  H.  Jones,  of  Philadelphia,  appeared  before  the 
Commission  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and  made  the  following  state- 
ment : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I desire  to 
say  a few  words  on  behalf  of  the  Manufacturing  Chemists’  Association  of 
the  United  States.  I happen  to  be  chairman  of  the  tariff  committee  of 
the  association,  and  I regret  very  much  that  I am  not  as  fully  prepared 
as  I should  like  to  be  in  appearing  before  you  ; but  I was  summoned  so 
hastily  from  home  by  your  telegram  of  Saturday  that  I have  not  had 
the  necessary  time  for  preparation. 

The  Manufacturing  Chemists’  Association  is  composed  of  manufac- 
turers of  chemicals  in  various  parts  of  the  country — in  Boston,  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  Chicago,  and  else- 
where. The  chemical  industry  is  quite  a large  and  important  one. 
There  are  millions  of  dollars  of  capital  invested  in  the  business,  and 
employment  is  given  to  thousands  of  working  people.  At  the  last 
meeting  of  the  association  the  tariff  committee  were  instructed  to  con- 
fer with  the  various  manufacturers  of  chemicals  connected  with  the 
association  in  order  to  get  their  views  as  to  the  rates  of  duties  that  they 
would  suggest  to  your  honorable  body  ; and,  with  that  in  view,  I had 
collated  from  Heyl’s  Duties  on  Imports  a full  list  of  all  drugs  and 
chemicals,  and  matters  pertaining  thereto,  which  I have  brought  with 
me,  simply  to  show  you  that  we  are  taking  active  steps  towards  pre- 
senting tins  matter  to  you  in  the  proper  shape.  It  is  not  ready  yet 
for  presentation,  but  I have  brought  a blank  copy  of  it  with  me  so  as 
to  show  you  that  we  were  at  work.  This  preparation  will  occupy  prob- 
ably several  weeks’  time.  This  schedule  presents  the  present  rates  of 
duties  on  all  drugs  and  chemicals,  with  a blank  column  left  for  the  pro- 
posed rates,  and  another  column  for  any  remarks  the  manufacturers 
may  want  to  make.  The  intention  is  that,  after  the  different  manufac- 
turers have  put  their  views  in  writing,  the  whole  subject  will  be  con- 
sidered by  the  tariff  committee  of  our  association  (the  Manufactur- 
ing Chemists’ Association),  and  they  will  prepare  a schedule  which  shall 
be  presented  again  to  the  full  association.  Then  we  propose  to  give 
you  a tabulated  statement  of  such  duties  as  we  think  would  be  proper 
to  be  imposed  upon  foreign  drugs  and  chemicals.  I have  had  about 
100  copies  of  that  struck  off,  and  a number  of  them  have  been  mailed 
to  manufacturers,  but  up  to  this  time  I have  received  very  few  replies. 
The  tariff  committee  consists  of  three  gentlemen  from  Philadelphia, 
two  from  New  York,  one  from  Boston,  one  from  Baltimore,  and  one 
from  Cleveland.  In  this  way  we  expect  to  get  at  the  views  of  the 
manufacturers  in  various  parts  of  the  country. 

I may  say  here  that  we  are  not  entirely  in  accord  as  to  the  abstract 
question  of  free  trade  and  protection  to  home  industries.  The  reason 
of  that,  perhaps,  is  that  some  are  manufacturers  of  acids,  and  do  not 
come  in  competition  with  foreign  manufacturers.  The  nature  of  the 
article  is  a sufficient  protection,  and  they  are  therefore,  to  some  extent, 
indifferent.  But  the  manufacturers  of  chemicals,  as  a rule,  are  decid- 


140 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEXANDER  II.  JONES. 


edly  in  favor  of  protection  to  home  industries.  Leaving  out  at  the 
present  time  all  reference  to  the  abstract  question  of  protection  and 
free  trade,  we  are  a unit  in  regard  to  one  point,  namely,  that  the  man- 
ufacturers of  chemicals  are  as  much  entitled  to  a fair  share  of  the  ac- 
cepted policy  of  this  government,  no  matter  what  it  may  be,  as  are  any 
other  manufacturers,  whether  that  policy  be  protection  to  home  indus- 
tries, or  whether  it  be  what  is  called  free  trade.  We  contend  that  we  are 
loyal  citizens,  tax  payers,  subject  to  the  same  conditions  as  are  other 
manufacturers,  paying  the  same  wages,  and  so  on.  All  that  we  use  and 
wear,  and  all  that  we  consume,  is  dutiable  to  a very  great  extent.  I 
might  say  all,  pretty  much.  Therefore  we  take  this  ground  most  de- 
cidedly, and  in  this  respect  we  are  a unit : that  whatever  the  policy  of 
the  government  may  be,  that  policy  should  be  applied  to  the  chemical 
industry  just  as  much  as  to  the  woolen  industry,  or  to  the  cotton,  iron, 
steel,  or  pottery  industries,  or  any  other.  I make  these  remarks  for 
the  reason  that  the  last  two  Committees  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the 
House  of  Representatives — one  under  the  chairmanship  of  Mr.  Morri- 
son, and  the  other  under  the  chairmanship  of  Mr.  Wood — seemed  to 
select  chemicals  for  special  differen  tial  legislation.  They  seemed  to  think 
that  chemicals  could  be  put  on  the  free  list,  while  every  other  sort  of 
manufactured  product  was  entitled  to  protection.  Against  that  we  took 
a most  decided  stand.  We  say  we  are  just  as  much  entitled  to  protec- 
tion as  anybody  else. 

In  formulating  our  schedule  you  will  find  that  we  will  not  ask  for  ex- 
cessive rates  of  duties.  I am  satisfied  that  the  manufacturing  chemists 
will  be  very  moderate  in  their  views.  They  certainly  want  rates  of  du- 
ties that  will  offset  the  disadvantages  they  labor  under.  Yvre  pay  the 
same  wages  and  conduct  our  business  on  the  same  basis  as  other  manu- 
facturers. Therefore  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  we  should  receive  a 
fair  share  of  the  accepted  policy  of  the  government.  That  is  one  point 
I want  to  bring  prominently  before  you.  The  manufacturing  chemists 
do  not  probably  represent  as  large  a body  of  persons  as  some  associa- 
tions who  will  appear  before  you  ; they  do  not  represent  an  industry 
quite  as  large,  for  instance,  as  the  woolen,  the  iron,  the  steel,  and  cot- 
ton industries  do.  Yet,  as  I have  said,  it  is  a large  industry,  giving 
employment  to  thousands  of  people  and  having  millions  of  dollars  in 
invested  capital.  If  the  policy  of  the  government,  is  for  the  abolition 
of  protective  duties  on  imported  products,  we  will  fall  into  line  and  will 
not  say  a word  in  opposition.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  object  of 
the  government  is  to  protect  home  industries  against  foreign  competi- 
tion, then  we  say  we  cannot  exist  without  receiving  a fair  share  of  what 
others  are  receiving. 

Another  point  is  that  under  u Title  33,  Revised  Statutes,”  chemicals 
are  put  under  u Schedule  M,  Sundries”.  Important  articles,  such  as  mor- 
phia, alum,  cream  tartar,  tartaric  acid,  and  many  other  articles,  are 
mixed  up  with  bladders,  peanuts,  corsets,  and  things  of  that  sort.  Now, 
we  think  that  there  should  be  a separate  schedule  for  chemical  products. 
I have  taken  the  liberty  of  bringing  with  me  a copy  of  the  French  tar- 
iff, which  I thought  would  be  of  some  service  to  you,  and  which  I would 
be  most  happy  to  loan  to  you.  It  is  not  only  in  regard  to  chemicals 
that  I speak,  for  I have  an  interest  in  the  tariff  question  outside  of 
chemicals.  You  will  find  by  reference  to  this  document  that  the  French 
tariff  commences  with  crude  materials,  with  matters  animal,  vegetable, 
and  mineral,  substantially  crude  substances.  Then  the  very  first  de- 
partment of  manufactured  goods  is  devoted  to  chemical  products. 
Then  it  goes  to  the  various  textile  industries,  and  so  on.  You  will  see 


CHEMICALS. 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.  | 


141 


that  it  gives  prominence  to  chemical  manufactures,  and  gives  a separate 
schedule  to  them. 

Then  I also  happen  to  have  with  me  the  British  act  in  regard  to  al- 
lowing spirits  of  wine  to  be  brought  in  duty  free  in  the  arts  and  manu- 
factures of  the  United  Kingdom.  I refer  to  the  act  commonly  known  as 
the  “methylated  spirits  act.”  The  British  government  allows  manu- 
facturers of  chemicals  to  use  methylated  spirits  free  of  tax.  Methylated 
spirits  consists  of  a mixture  of  alcohol  and  wood  naphtha.  It  cannot  be 
used  for  drinking  purposes,  but  will  answer  very  well  in  many  cases 
for  manufacturing.  I do  not  present  this  to  you,  recommending  the  pas- 
sage of  an  act  of  that  sort;  but  I think  the  matter  will  be  brought  be- 
fore you,  and  therefore  it  might  be  well  for  you  to  have  a copy  of  the 
act.  I do  not  urge  this  measure  upon  you  at  all;  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  subject  to  some  objections.  The  manufacturers,  I am  sure  a large 
part  of  them,  would  rebel  at  having  their  operations  under  government 
espionage,  which  would  be  inseparable  from  the  enforcement  of  such  an 
act.  Many  persons  are  in  favor  of  giving  manufacturers  of  chemicals 
free  spirits,  which  I suppose  could  best  be  done  if  such  a plan  was 
adopted  of  promoting  the  manufacture  of  methylated  spirits,  the  same  as 
is  done  in  Great  Britain.  The  only  objection  to  the  passage  of  such  a 
law  that  suggests  itself  to  me  is,  that  we  could  not  work  without  having 
government  officers  coming  constantly  to  our  establishments  and  taking 
note  of  all  that  we  were  doing  and  using,  and  that  would  be  very  dis- 
tasteful to  us. 

I do  not  know  that  at  the  present  moment  I need  say  anything  more  in 
regard  to  the  chemical  industry  in  general,  but  I take  it  that  the  disposi- 
tion is  to  certainly  revise  the  present  rates  of  duties  on  chemicals,  and 
perhaps  in  the  direction  of  a reduction.  It  was  stated  the  other  day  that 
the  manufacturers  of  chemicals  did  not  expect  or  desire  any  change  ; on 
the  other  hand,  my  impression  is  that  the  manufacturers  of  chemicals 
will  be  perfectly  willing  to  accept  a reduction  in  certain  cases,  or,  in  fact, 
recommend  it.  There  are  a number  of  cases  where  the  duties  are  un- 
necessarily high;  for  instance,  take  alcoholic  preparations.  The  tariff, 
as  it  stands  to-day,  was  arranged  when  the  tax  on  distilled  spirits  was 
$2  a gallon.  The  duty  on  chloroform  is  $1  a pound.  Chloroform  is 
selling  to-day  at  65  cents  a pound.  You  all  know,  irrespective  of  your 
peculiar  views  on  the  tariff*  question,  that  it  is  sometimes  stated  as  a 
fact  that  the  duty  is  always  added  to  the  cost,  and  that  the  tax  is  paid 
by  the  consumer.  I give  you  this  as  an  illustration  that  it  is  not  the 
case,  and  you  must  admit  it,  because  the  bold  fact  stares  you  in  the 
face  that  the  duty  on  chloroform  is  $1  a pound,  while  at  the  same  time 
chloroform  is  selling  at  65  cents  a pound  to-day.  But  the  duty  of  a 
dollar  a pound  on  chloroform  is  unnecessarily  high.  It  was  imposed, 
as  I say,  when  the  duty  on  distilled  spirits  was  $2  a gallon,  or  nearly 
$4  a gallon  on  alcohol. 

There  have  been  certain  changes  in  the  manipulation  of  articles,  and 
you  will  find  that  we  are  disposed  to  be  as  conciliatory  in  our  requests 
as  any  other  class  of  manufacturers.  My  own  impression  is  that  the 
object  of  the  formation  cf  a tariff*  commission  was  to  make  a tariff*  bill 
that  would  stand  as  the  result  of  careful  inquiry  and  deliberation;  and 
of  course  in  order  to  present  all  the  facts  necessary  to  enable  you  to 
come  to  a proper  conclusion,  we  must  have  a little  time  for  preparing 
our  schedule. 

In  regard  to  the  manufacture  of  chemicals,  1 desire  to  state  that  this 
industry  has  been  brought  to  a very  high  standard.  It  is  not  an  infant 
industry  at  all;  but,  at  the  same  time,  no  matter  how  long  an  industry 


142 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEXANDER  H.  JONES. 


may  ha  ve  existed,  unless  everything  is  equalized,  you  are  not  ready  for 
the  repeal  of  protective  duties.  If  you  find  that  there  has  been  a change 
in  the  price  of  wages  and  materials  since  the  tariff  was  framed,  you  must 
adjust  the  new  tariff  to  conform  to  those  changes.  We  use  alcohol  very 
largely  in  our  business,  and  we  have  to  pay  the  regular  price  for  it, 
based  on  a tax  of  90  cents  a gallon  for  distilled  spirits,  which  is  equiv- 
alent to  $1.70  a gallon  on  alcohol.  Then  on  labor  we  pay  the  ordinary 
working  man  $1.50  a day  against  30  or  40  cents  a day  paid  in  Italy;  and 
to  skilled  labor  a much  higher  rate  of  wages.  These  matters  must  all 
be  taken  iuto  consideration.  I do  not  care  how  old  an  industry  may  be, 
if  you  have  to  pay  three  times  as  much  in  wages,  and  a proportionate  in- 
crease in  other  things,  you  cannot  compete  with  foreign  products,  unless 
there  is  a protective  duty.  But  that  you  understand  perhaps  better 
than  I do. 

There  is  another  thing  which  I desire  to  state,  and  that  is,  we  make 
just  as  good  chemicals  in  this  country  as  can  be  made  anywhere  in  the 
world.  There  is  no  question  about  that  at,  all.  It  is  not  like  the  mat- 
ter of  pottery,  for  instance,  because  it  is  of  course  well  known  that  we 
cannot  make  as  fine  pottery  in  this  country  as  they  make  abroad.  But 
American  chemicals  will  stand  right  along  side  of  those  that  are  made 
anywhere  in  the  world.  So  far  as  quality  is  concerned,  the  people  of 
this  country  are  supplied  with  as  good  chemicals  as  have  ever  been 
made  up  to  this  time. 

If  any  member  of  the  Commission  desires  to  ask  me  any  questions,  I 
shall  be  very  happy  to  answer  them  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  You  have  mentioned  a few  articles  on  which  you  think  the 
duty  is  unnecessarily  high  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  enumerate  any  on  which  you  think  the  duties  are  not  high 
enough? — A.  lean,  and  I want  to  ask  your  permission  to  refer  to  one  article 
in  particular,  after  I am  dismissed  as  a representative  of  the  Manufactur- 
ing Chemists’  Association.  I cannot  speak  on  that  subject  as  a repre- 
sentative of  the  association,  for  I am  not  authorized  to  name  any  par- 
ticular article  nor  specify  any  particular  rate  of  duty.  But  if  you  think 
I have  sufficiently  exhausted  the  subject  so  far  as  the  manufacture  of 
chemicals  in  general  is  concerned,  then  I would  like  very  much  indeed 
to  be  permitted  to  say  a few  words  in  regard  to  one  article  where  the 
duty  is  not  high  enough,  for  in  fact  there  is  no  duty  at  all ; and,  not 
only  that,  but  legislation  has  operated  directly  against  the  American 
manufacturer  by  retaining  duties  upon  the  crude  materials  to  some  ex- 
tent, and  permitting  the  foreign  product  to  come  in  free.  But  that  I 
cannot  bring  before  you  as  a representative  of  the  Manufacturing  Chem- 
ists’ Association. 

The  President.  Are  there  any  questions  which  any  member  of  the 
commission  desires  to  put? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I would  like  to  ask  if  your  efforts  in  the 
direction  of  reporting  a schedule  of  readjusted  rates  have  any  reference 
to  the  simplification  of  the  rates  ; that  is,  making  fewer  rates? 

The  Witness.  In  regard  to  that  I would  say  that  crude  chemicals 
and  crude  drugs,  as  a rule,  are  on  the  free  list. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I know  they  are. 

The  Witness.  You  will  find  that  the  free  list  is  largely  made  up  of 
crude  chemicals  and  crude  drugs.  Then  there  are  a few  chemicals  on  the 
list  which  are  manufactured  on  the  other  side,  and  which  are  not  made 
here,  and  which  certainly  never  will  be  made  here  unless  there  is  a 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.] 


CHEMICALS. 


143 


duty  imposed  upon  the  foreign  products,  such  as,  for  instance,  chlo- 
ride of  lime,  a bleaching  powder  largely  used  in  this  country,  and 
which  comes  in  free  of  duty.  It  is  not  made  in  this  country  at  all.  I 
do  not  wish  to  make  any  statement  which  is  not  absolutely  correct ; but 
I honestly  believe  that  chloride  of  lime  will  never  be  made  in  this  coun- 
try unless  there  is  a protective  duty.  There  was  a duty  on  it,  it  is  true, 
although  it  was  not  made  in  this  country,  until  within  a few  years;  and 
that  duty  will  have  to  be  reimposed  if  it  is  desired  to  encourage  the 
manufacture  of  it  in  this  country.  I did  not  intend  to  refer  to  chloride 
of  lime  except  just  in  that  way,  that  it  happens  to  be  on  the  free  list. 
But  crude  chemicals,  such  as  nitrate  of  soda  and  crude  brimstone,  you 
will  find  on  the  free  list  already.  I do  uot  know  of  anything  on  the 
dutiable  list  as  manufactured  chemicals  that  can  safely  be  put  upon 
the  free  list;  and  part  of  the  duties  that  are  imposed  are  specific  duties. 
There  are,  of  course,  some  ad  valorem  rates  of  duties,  and,  if  you  desire 
to  simplify  those  matters,  you  can  convert  some  ad  valorem  rates  of  du- 
ties into  specific  rates  of  duties. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  What  I mean  to  ask  is  this:  You  will 
find  on  the  manufactured  chemical  list  articles  which  pay  a duty  of  3, 
6,  or  10  cents  a pound.  Do  you  propose  to  simplify  the  matter  by  put- 
ting them  all  at  5 or  10  cents  a pound,  or  have  you  any  such  idea? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  we  could  not  do  that,  because  the  articles 
vary  so  much  in  value.  We  could  not  put  one  rate  of  duty  on  morphia, 
w'hicfi  sells  at  $3.50  an  ounce,  and  the  same  rate  of  duty  on  an  article 
that  sells  for  40  cents  a pound;  nothing  of  that  sort:  I do  not  see  any 

way  of  simplifying  the  matter  by  grouping  a whole  class  and  putting 
them  at  one  rate,  although  that  might  possibly  apply  to  a large  num- 
ber of  articles. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  might  apply  to  articles  which  are  not 
imported  in  any  very  large  quantities. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  and  we  might  group  together  a number  of  arti- 
cles where  one  rate  of  duty  would  be  applicable,  if  that  would  meet  your 
idea.  It  would  be  very  convenient  for  ready  reference. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  My  object  wras  to  ascertain  if  any  idea  had 
been  suggested  in  your  consultations. 

The  Witness.  No,  sir ; I cannot  say  that  it  has  been,  up  to  this  time. 
But  if  the  Commission  has  any  suggestions  to  make,  I should  be  glad 
to  hear  them,  and  the  association  which  I have  the  honor  to  represent 
will  give  them  the  most  respectful  consideration  and  would  be  happy 
to  act  upon  them. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you  would 
recommend  a separate  schedule  for  chemicals  as  contradistinguished 
from  corsets,  bladders,  peanuts,  &c. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  you  do  not  think  the  grouping  of  a 
whole  class  would  be  practicable,  except  for  ready  reference  ? 

The  Witness.  My  idea  is  that  there  should  be  a separate  schedule 
for  all  articles  of  chemical  industry,  the  same  as  there  is  at  present  for 
iron  and  steel,  cotton  and  woolen  goods.  The  chemical  industry  is  a 
large  and  important  one,  much  larger,  for  instance,  than  earthenware, 
and  earthenware  has  a separate  schedule  given  to  it.  Therefore,  why 
not  put  chemicals  under  a separate  schedule  as  well  ? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  seems  to  be  ordy  a question  of  the 
dignity  or  relative  importance  of  chemicals. 

The  Witness.  It  is  a matter  of  dignity  to  some  extent,  certainly.  I 


144 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEXANDER  H.  JONES. 


do  not  think  it  is  becoming  for  an  industry  as  large  as  ours  to  be  put 
under  the  head  of  sundries,  while,  as  I say,  earthenware  has  a separate, 
dignified  position  under  a separate  schedule. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Are  methylated  spirits  used  for  any  other  purposes  than  for  manu- 
facturing purposes  ? — A.  No,  sir.  They  are  not  used  in  this  country  at 
all ; but  they  are  used  in  Great  Britain  exclusively  for  manufacturing 
purposes. 

Q.  Can  they  be  used  for  any  other  purpose-? — A.  No,  sir ; I think 
not.  That  is  the  object  of  mixing  the  alcohol  with  the  wood  naphtha — 
so  as  to  prevent  its  being  used  for  drinking  purposes.  I do  not  sup- 
pose anybody  could  drink  methylated  spirits. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Can  spirits  be  distilled  from  it  ? — A.  Possibly ; but  the  matter 
seems  to  work  very  well  in  Great  Britain,  subject  to  the  disadvantage 
of  which  I tell  you.  It  has  never  been  tried  in  this  country. 

The  President.  I understand  that  you  desire  now  to  give  some  tes- 
timony in  your  individual  capacity. 

The  Witness.  If  you  will  dismiss  me  as  a representative  of  the  Man- 
ufacturing Chemists’  Association,  I should  like  to  say  a word  in  behalf 
of  the  manufacturers  of  sulphate  of  quinine  in  this  country.  There  are 
five  manufacturers  of  sulphate  of  quinine  in  this  country.  I have  been 
asked  if  there  was  any  article  on  which  I should  suggest  a higher  rate 
of  duty.  Now,  sulphate  of  quinine  has  been  manufactured  in  this  coun- 
try almost  from  the  time  it  was  discovered,  or  about  sixty  years,  I sup- 
pose, and  until  within  the  last  few  years  we  were  able  to  supply  almost 
the  entire  home  demand.  The  quality  of  the  American  sulphate  of  qui- 
nine is  undoubtedly  as  good  as  any  quinine  that  is  made  in  the  world. 
The  wholesale  druggists  throughout  the  country,  from  Maine  to  Cal- 
ifornia, who  are  the  large  distributors  of  the  sulphate  of  quinine,  have 
time  and  time  again,  sometimes  voluntarily  and  sometimes  at  our  sug- 
gestion, stated  in  the  most  unqualified  way  that  it  would  be  to  their  in- 
terest as  dealers,  and  they  think  to  the  interest  of  the  consumers,  if  the 
duty  should  remain  upon  the  article  of  sulphate  of  quinine.  The  duty 
was  removed  under  what  is  known  in  Congress  as  a suspension  of  the 
rules.  There  was  a great  deal  of  clamor  made  that  sulphate  of  quinine 
was  very  high  in  price.  At  times  it  has  been  very  high,  but  again  at 
other  times  it  has  been  very  low.  It  depends,  like  everything  else,  upon 
the  cost  of  the  crude  material.  If  you  pay  very  high  for  your  wool, 
your  woolen  goods  are  going  to  be  high.  If  cotton  is  high,  cotton  goods 
are  high.  And  so  with  everything  else.  In  the  same  way,  if  we  have 
to  pay  a very  high  price  for  the  bark,  quinine  is  high ; and  if  we  get 
the  bark  cheap,  then  the  price  of  quinine  is  low.  There  was  much  talk 
about  the  manufacturers  of  quinine  having  made  large  sums  of  money  out 
of  it.  That  is  true.  The  manufacturers  of  quinine  are,  some  of  them, 
quite  wealthy.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  these  gentle- 
men are  among  the  oldest  of  our  manufacturers.  Mr.  Bosengarten 
has  been  in  the  business  at  least  fifty  years ; and  Messrs.  Powers  & 
Weightman,  the  old  firm  preceding  him,  fully  as  long;  and  other  firms 
for  a shorter  period,  but  for  quite  a number  of  years.  These  concerns 
have  amassed  their  property  in  a legitimate  way  as  manufacturers,  not 
only  of  sulphate  of  quinine,  but  of  other  products  ; they  are  large  man- 
ufacturers of  other  chemicals  as  well.  I presume  our  house  is  one  of 
the  largest  in  the  world,  manufacturing  chemicals  not  only  for  use  as 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.  J 


CHEMICALS. 


145 


medicine,  but  for  use  in  the  arts  and  sciences.  We  have  two  laboratories 
where  we  manufacture  these  goods.  We  have  one  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia, where  we  make  all  our  tine  chemicals,  quinine,  &c.  The  man- 
ufacturers have  been  careful,  prudent,  and  industrious  men,  and  have 
made  money  just  exactly  as  men  have  made  money  in  other  branches 
of  business  in  the  United  States,  England,  France,  Germany,  and  else- 
where. They  do  not  make  all  their  money  on  sulphate  of  quinine  by 
any  means.  I do  not  want  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  they  have 
never  made  any  on  sulphate  of  quinine  ; but  to  say  that  they  have  made 
it  all  in  that  way  would  be  absurd. 

As  I have  said,  a popular  clamor  has  been  raised  against  the  manu- 
facturers of  quinine,  audit  has  been  stated  that  it  was  so  high  that  the 
common  people  could  not  buy  it  to  use.  Recently  a gentleman  from 
Mississippi  told  me  that  his  constituents  were  too  poor  to  use  quinine, 
and  that  they  had  to  use  boneset  and  whisky  in  the  place  of  it.  At  that 
very  time,  however,  you  could  buy  a substitute  for  quinine  of  a good 
quality  for  from  25  to  50  cents,  and  a better  article  for  75  cents  an  ounce. 
Still,  on  account  of  this  clamor  and  talk  about  the  high  price,  under  a 
suspension  of  the  rules,  the  duty  on  foreign  sulphate  of  quinine  was 
taken  off,  and  the  law  went  into  immediate  effect,  which,  as  you  know, 
is  something  quite  unusual.  The  result  was  that  foreign  sulphate  of 
quinine  was  brought  in  here  to  a large  extent. 

The  manufacturers  of  quinine  abroad  can  produce  it  much  cheaper 
than  we  can  in  this  country.  I have  with  me  a little  memorandum 
which  was  handed  me  just  on  the  eve  of  my  departure  from  home,  from 
one  of  our  largest  manufacturers,  stating  that  it  cost  just  about  double 
the  amount  of  money  to  work  100  pounds  of  bark  in  this  country 
that  it  does  to  do  the  same  thing  in  Italy,  where  labor  is  so  very  cheap. 
I have  with  me  a rough  draft  of  a communication  to  your  honorable 
body,  which  I am  sorry  to  present  to  you  in  this  shape  ; but  it  was 
prepared  by  some  of  the  Philadelphia  manufacturers,  and  has  not  yet 
been  signed  by  them.  I came  away  in  such  a hurry  yesterday  after- 
noon that  I could  not  get  the  matter  attended  to.  But,  with  your  per- 
mission, I will  read  the  paper  and  then  will  have  it  properly  signed  and 
laid  before  you. 

Quinine  is  much  lower  now  than  it  was  when  the  duty  was  removed ; 
there  is  no  question  about  that;  that  is  a matter  of  fact.  Quinine  would 
have  been  lower  whether  the  duty  had  been  on  or  off',  because  the  bark 
is  lower.  But  those  who  do  not  desire  to  look  at  the  matter  fairly  and 
honestly  naturally  say  at  once  that  the  low  rate  is  owing  to  the  taking 
off  of  the  duty.  They  say,  “take  the  duty  off  and  you  will  have  cheap 
quinine.”  When  the  duty  was  taken  off  quinine  the  rate  was  only  20 
per  cent.,  which,  I think,  is  very  mudi  below  the  average  rate  of  duty. 
I do  not  know  a class  of  manufacturers  in  the  United  States  who  would 
say  that  they  would  be  willing  to  submit  to  a duty  of  20  per  cent.,  if 
they  could  get  a higher  rate.  They  would  say  that  they  could  not  live 
on  that  rate  of  duty.  We  went  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
and  stated  that  we  were  willing  to  accept  10  per  cent.;  that  that  was 
better  than  nothing.  There  was  such  a howl  all  over  the  country  that 
we  said  make  it  10  per  cent.;  but  they  did  not  make  it  anything.  Then 
they  kept  the  duty  on  soda  ash,  and  a duty  of  $2  a gallon  on  fusil 
oil  so  that  we  are  restricted  to  a home  market  for  fusil  oil;  and  they 
bring  in  quinine  free.  East  India  bark  is  subject  to  a duty  of  10  per 
cent,  under  what  is  known  as  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  discriminating 
duty  clause. 

Row  that  is  the  position  of  the  American  manufacturers  of  quinine. 

H.  Mis.  G 10 


146 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEXANDER  H.  JONES, 


They  have  to  pay  just  the  same  rate  of  wages  that  anybody  else  pays 
in  this  country,  and  they  have  to  use  all  the  appliances,  machinery,  and 
everything  else  the  same  as  all  other  manufacturers  do.  They  pay  the 
same  taxes;  they  live  under  the  same  conditions  that  the  other  manu- 
facturers do;  nobody  can  question  that  fact.  If  we  use  cotton,  woolen, 
iron  or  steel  goods  in  our  manufactures  of  course  they  are  dutiable. 
That  is,  if  we  import  them  they  are  subject  to  a duty.  If  we  buy  them  in 
this  country  we  have  to  pay  our  share  to  the  manufacturer  who  is  pro- 
tected in  his  industry.  We  use  fusil  oil.  The  duty  on  that  article  was 
made  $2  a gallon  at  the  time  the  tax  on  alcohol  was  so  large.  It  is  true 
we  can  buy  fusil  oil  in  this  country  very  much  cheaper,  but  if  there  was 
no  duty  on  fusil  oil  we  could  have  two  markets  and  now  we  have  only  one. 
For  alcohol  we  pay  just  as  much  as  any  one  else  does  who  buys  in  large 
quantities  and  pays  cash.  Alcohol  and  fusil  oil  are  our  solvents.  Then 
we  use  soda  ash  which  is  subject  to  a heavy  duty  and  almost  everything 
we  use  is  dutiable.  Besides  this  we  pay  $1.50  a day  wages  to  laboring  men 
while  in  Italy  the  rate  of  wages  paid  is  only  thirty  to  forty  cents  a day. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  compete  with  the 
foreign  manufacturer.  Give  us  the  same  conditions  that  the  manufac- 
turers abroad  have  and  the  same  low  rate  of  wages,  and  the  other  favor- 
able conditions  that  manufacturers  of  quinine  have,  and  I think  we  can 
compete  with  them  or  with  anybody  in  the  world.  I think  the  manu- 
facturers of  quinine  in  this  country  are  just  as  smart,  bright,  and  intel- 
ligent as  can  be  found  anywhere,  and  they  have  the  necessary  capital  and 
apparatus  for  making  quinine.  I repeat,  there  is  no  better  quinine  made 
in  the  world  than  in  this  country;  I say  that  unhesitatingly.  It  is 
as  good  as  any  that  is  made  by  Howard  of  England,  Pelletier  of  France, 
or  by  any  of  the  German  or  Italian  manufacturers.  Our  articles  are  on 
the  open  market  and  can  be  tested  analytically. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Quinine  being  used  as  a medicine  in  the  malarious  districts  of  the 
country  by  a large  number  of  people,  should  not  the  rate  of  duty. upon 
it  be  placed  with  a view  to  affording  it  to  those  people  at  as  low  a price 
as  possible? — A.  That  is  true,  but  sulphate  of  quinine  is  used  as  a rule 
in  very  small  doses.  It  may  be  that  there  are  some  exceptional  cases 
where  a man  would  buy  a whole  ounce  of  quinine  at  a time  just  as  a 
man  would  buy  a hogshead  of  molasses  at  a time.  But  that  is  not  the 
general  custom  where  a person  buys  it  for  consumption.  Quinine  is 
given  to  the  consumer  in  doses  of  a few  grains,  and  I do  not  believe  that 
the  consumer  has  been  benefited  at  all  by  the  abolition  of  the  20  per 
cent,  duty  on  foreign  quinine.  You  must  remember  that  the  duty  was 
not  40,  GO,  or  80  per  cent.;  it  was  only  20  per  cent,  at  the  time  of  the 
removal  of  the  duty.  The  American  manufacturers  of  quinine  went  be- 
fore the  Committee  of  Ways  aud  Means  of  the  House  of  Bepresentatives, 
and  that  committee  heard  arguments  pro  and  con.  The  manufacturers 
of  quinine  were  satisfied  with  even  a duty  of  10  or  20  per  cent.,  which 
surely  would  not  be  a burden  on  the  consumer.  I desire  only  to  present 
the  case  honestly  and  truthfully.  I want  to  tell  you  fairly  as  an  honor- 
able man  whether  or  not  I think  the  consumer  of  sulphate  of  quinine  is 
benefited,  so  far  as  the  price  is  concerned,  by  the  abolition  of  the  duty 
of  20  per  cent,  on  it.  I tell  you  I do  not  believe  he  is.  The  fair  average 
price  of  quinine  in  England  is  about  8,9.;  that  is  the  ordinary  price.  I 
have  known  it  to  be  as  high  as  16s.,  and  as  low  as  Gs.;  but  I am  speaking 
of  the  average  price.  Now,  supposing  we  should  not  get  any  better  rate 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.] 


CHEMICALS. 


147 


of  duty  than  10  or  20  per  cent.,  the  duty  would  be,  say,  20  or  40  cents  on 
an  ouuce  of  437 J grains.  This  article  is  given  to  persons  in  very  small 
doses;  and  I thiuk  I can  say  without  hesitation  that  the  retail  apothecary 
who  dispenses  the  product  to  the  consumer  will  charge  the  same  price 
to  the  consumer  whether  the  price  of  quinine  is  $2  or  $2.40  an  ounce, 
for  the  reason  that  the  consumer  does  not  buy  five  or  ten  ounces  at  a 
time,  as  a rule,  but  he  goes  to  the  retail  apothecary  and  he  gets  a pre- 
scription of  a few  two-grain  pills,  or  something  of  that  sort,  and  I hon- 
estly believe  that  he  pays  as  much  for  the  quinine  he  gets  whether  it  is 
subject  to  a duty  of  10  or  20  per  cent.,  or  whether  it  is  free  of  duty.  That 
is  my  honest  conviction.  That  is  an  answer  to  the  question  I understand 
the  Commissioner  to  ask  me  as  to  whether  the  consumer  had  been  bene- 
fited by  reason  of  the  lower  price  of  quinine. 

Q.  At  any  rate  the  price  of  quinine  has  evidently  fallen  ? — A.  Yes, 
the  price  has  evidently  fallen;  but  it  would  have  fallen  had  not  the  duty 
been  taken  off.  The  price  was  $3.40,  and  the  price  to-day  is,  we  will  say,  $2. 
I am  speaking  of  American  quinine  in  both  cases.  The  price  can  easily 
be  ascertained  by  referring  to  any  of  the  trade  newspapers.  But  I want 
it  distinctly  understood,  and  I call  the  especial  attention  of  the  Commis- 
sion to  it,  that  that  great  reduction  in  price  from  $3.40  to  $2  was  not  the 
result  of  the  taking  off*  of  the  20  per  cent.  tax.  The  great  reduction  is 
due  to  the  reduction  in  price  of  the  crude  material.  That  principle  will 
apply  to  everything.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  enlarge  on  that.  We 
all  know  that  if  any  crude  material  lowers  in  price  the  manufactured 
product  must  also  lower  in  price.  That  is  a statement  that  needs  no 
argument. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  fusil  oil  and  alcohol  were  the  solvents 
which  you  used? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  they  both  now  taxed? — A.  One  is  dutiable,  while  the  other  is 
taxable  under  the  internal-revenue  system. 

Q.  If  the  tax  was  taken  off*  of  both  alcohol  and  fusil  oil,  what  effect 
would  that  have  upon  the  high  price  of  quinine? — A.  If  everything  in 
the  way  of  taxes  was  taken  off;  if  the  10  per  cent,  discriminating  duty 
was  taken  off  (as  I believe  it  will  be),  and  we  had  wages  and  every  con- 
dition as  favorable  as  they  have  on  the  other  side,  we  would  not  ask  for 
any  protection  at  all. 

Q.  But  admitting  things  to  be  as  they  are,  if  the  duty  was  taken 
off  fusil  oil  and  alcohol,  what  effect  would  that  have  on  the  price  of  qui- 
nine?— A.  That  might  reduce  the  juice  some ; but  I still  would  say  most 
unhesitatingly  that  we  should  have  a protective  duty. 

Q.  Would  it  not  balance  the  reduction  of  20  per  cent.  ? — A.  jSTo,  sir;  it 
would  not.  Look  at  the  wages  paid. 

Q.  I am  not  talking  about  wages. — A.  But  I am.  That  is.  a very  im- 
portant matter  when  you  consider  that  we  are  paying  $1.50  a day 
wages,  while  for  the  same  labor  they  are  paying  in  Italy  only  30  to  40 
cents  a day. 

Q.  You  have  to  pay  the  same  price  for  wages  whether  it  has  a pro- 
tective duty  or  not? — A.  That  is  all  true,  but  then  you  must  consider 
whether  the  manufacturers  can  exist  under  these  conditions. 

Q.  But  you  have  not  answered  my  question  as  to  whether,  if  the  duty 
was  taken  off  alcohol  and  fusil  oil,  it  would  not  compensate  for  the  tak- 
ing off  of  the  20  per  cent.  ? — A.  I said  it  would  not,  and  1 gave  you  as  one 
reason  the  fact  that  we  pay  such  large  wages  in  proportion  to  those  paid 
in  Europe.  There  are  quite  a number  of  elements  that  enter  into  this 
whole  matter.  As  I have  told  you,  every  pound  of  East  India  bark 


148 


TARIFF  COMMISSION'. 


[ALEXANDER  H.  JONES. 


we  bring  into  this  market  is  subject  to  a duty  of  10  per  cent.  The  law 
imposes  a duty  of  10  per  cent,  under  what  is  known  as  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope  discriminating  duty  clause.  Every  article  that  is  produced  east 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  bought  west  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope 
is  subject  to  10  per  cent.  duty.  This  bark  is  produced  east  of  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  and,  ex  necessitate , it  must  be  bought  west  of  the  Cape. 
The  fact  is,  it  is  all  bought  and  sent  to  European  markets  to  be  sold  at 
auction.  The  English  manufacturer  and  the  other  European  manu- 
facturers have  the  markets  of  the  world  to  draw  their  supply  of  cinchona 
bark  from.  The  American  manufacturers  have  been  restricted  to  the 
South  American  market  for  their  bark.  You  can  get  cinchona  bark 
duty  free  coming  in  from  South  American  ports,  while  it  is  subject  to  a 
10  per  cent,  discriminating  duty  when  it  is  grown  in  the  East  Indies. 
Now  that  is  one  point.  All  the  East  India  bark  we  have,  has  been, 
and  is  yet,  subject  to  a 10  per  cent,  discriminating  duty.  In  fact,  nearly 
everything  we  use  is  subject  to  the  conditions  that  I have  referred  to. 
All  our  pots,  kettles,  and  pans,  and  everything  we  use  in  the  manufact- 
ure, if  they  are  brought  from  abroad,  are  subject  to  a duty.  If  we  im- 
port we  pay  a duty  on  them;  and  if  we  buy  them  of  the  manufacturer 
in  this  country  we  buy  them  of  men  who  are  protected  against  foreign 
competition.  I think  I have  sufficiently  stated  the  disadvantages  under 
which  we  labor  in  the  matter  of  wages  and  discriminating  duties. 

Q.  Then  I understand  that  if  the  tax  was  taken  off  the  alcohol  and 
fusil  oil,  it  would  not  compensate  you  for  the  loss  of  the  L.0  per  cent, 
duty? — A.  I have  said  no,  and  I say  no  most  positively,  and  have  given 
my  reasons  for  it. 

Q.  What  per  cent,  of  reduction  would  it  make  ? — A.  I cannot  tell  you 
at  this  moment ; I have  not  the  facts  and  figures  to  enable  me  to  say. 

I would  state  that  there  is  a large  association  composed  of  wholesale 
druggists,  called  the  Western  Wholesale  Druggists’  Association.  They 
meet  once.a  year.  That  association  has  on  at  least  two  occasions  rec- 
ommended that  Congress  should  impose  a duty  of  at  least  10  per  cent, 
on  foreign  sulphate  of  quinine.  Now,  you  must,  I think,  admit  that 
those  gentlemen  certainly  know  whether  they  have  been  benefited  and 
whether  the  consumer  has  been  benefited.  The  American  manufacturers 
have  always  endeavored  to  keep  the  prices  of  quinine  as  steady  as  pos- 
sible and  to  keep  on  hand  a large  supply  of  it,  which  we  consider  very 
important  indeed.  At  present  we  are  unable  to  fill  our  orders  as  they  come 
in  to  us.  We  have  to  give  our  customers  sometimes  one-half,  one-fourth, 
or  one-fith  of  the  amount  they  order  on  account  of  the  scarcity  of  the  sup- 
ply. But  in  former  times  a customer  would  telegraph  that  he  wanted  500 
or  1,000  ounces  of  quinine,  and  in  half  an  hour  it  would  be  in  the  wagon 
to  be  sent  by  express  to  Chicago  or  wherever  it  might  be,  because  we  had 
a large  stock  on  hand  and  were  able  to  fill  orders  to  almost  any  extent, 
and  were  able  to  anticipate  the  large  demand  that  used  to  come  in  dur- 
ing the  summer  and  fall  months.  It  is  very  important  that  the  people 
of  this  country  should  have  a large  supply  of  sulphate  of  quinine,  as 
any  wholesale  druggist  can  tell  3011,  and  it  is  also  important  that  they 
should  have  an  article  that  is  of  unquestionable  purity.  Both  these 
conditions  were  met  so  long  as  a duty  was  imposed  on  foreign  sulphate 
of  quinine.  The  duty  was  not  large ; only  20  per  cent.  American  man- 
ufacturers came  forward  and  said  they  would  try  to  get  along  with  10 
per  cent. ; but  there  is  no  other  manufacturer  in  this  country  who  will 
come  forward  and  say  that  he  can  live  on  the  profits  of  business  with  a 
duty  of  only  10  per  cent.  We  went  into  this  business  under  an  implied 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.] 


CHEMICALS. 


149 


promise  from  the  government  that  we  wonhl  be  treated  the  same  as 
other  manufacturers  are,  and  I think  the  manner  in  which  we  have  been 
treated  is  a clear  violation  of  good  faith  by  the  government.  That  is 
the  way  we  look  at  it. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Does  the  plant  for  manufacturing  quinine  require  a large  invest- 
ment of  capital? — A.  I know  some  concerns  that  have  several  millions 
of  dollars  invested  in  the  business.  I do  not  mean  to  say  that  any  man- 
ufacturer has  that  amount  of  money  invested  solely  in  the  manufacture 
of  quinine.  I believe  there  is  no  manufacturer  of  chemicals  who  con- 
fines his  business  to  the  manufacture  of  quinine  simply,  i could  not 
tell  you  exactly  the  amount  of  money  in  any  one  concern.  I know  that 
our  concern  has  several  millions  of  dollars  invested  in  the  business. 

Q.  Is  it  not  necessary  that  you  should  have  trained  and  skilled  work- 
men to  carry  on  this  business  t — A.  Yes,  sir ; we  have  to  have  some 
skilled  workmen,  although,  of  course,  the  majority  of  the  work  done  in 
chemical  factories  is  done  by  unskilled  labor. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  in  case  the  manufacture  of  quinine  re- 
mains unprotected  and  a foreign  war  should  cut  off  our  supply  from 
abroad;  could  the  manufacturers  resume  the  manufacture  in  this  coun- 
try at  once  and  give  us  the  necessary  supplies  of  that  article  ? — A.  If 
the  American  manufacturers  should  suspend  the  manufacture  of  that 
article  it  would  take  but  a very  short  time  to  consume  the  small  amount 
now  on  hand.  After  that  time  we  should  have  to  rely  on  foreign  qui- 
nine alone,  and  1 think  the  price  would  immediately  go  up.  Then,  in 
case  of  war,  this  country  would  be  at  a great  disadvantage,  the  same  as 
it  would  be  if  there  was  a suspension  of  any  other  leading  industry.  I 
regard  it  as  very  important  that  quinine  should  be  manufactured  in  this 
country.  Of  course,  as  American  manufacturers,  we  have  some  pluck, 
and  do  not  desire  to  give  up  the  manufacture  of  quinine  unless  we  are 
compelled  to  do  so.  We  are  trying  to  bridge  over  the  present  difficulty, 
hoping  that  a fair  rate  of  duty  will  be  imposed  on  the  imported  article 
which  will  enable  us  to  resume  our  former  operations.  Even  if  it  should 
be  decided  not  to  impose  a duty  on  sulphate  of  quinine,  I suppose  the 
industry  would  be  carried  on  in  this  country  to  a limited  extent,  not- 
withstanding that  fact.  Still,  I do  not  pretend  to  forecast  the  future. 
I can  only  state  in  general  that  whenever  in  this  country  the  manufact- 
ure of  an  article  is  suspended,  as  a rule,  the  price  of  the  foreign  article 
goes  up.  I was  going  to  say  that  the  Dutch  Government  and  the  Eng- 
lish Government  thought  it  was  so  important  that  quinine  should  be 
manufactured  in  those  countries  that  they  spent  large  amounts  of  money 
in  cultivating  the  cinchona  bark  in  the  East  Indies,  where  they  have 
government  plantations,  and  where  large  quantities  of  the  East  Indian 
bark  is  produced.  That  is  the  bark  which  we  buy  from  time  to  time  in 
the  London  market,  as  a rule.  Under  the  auspices  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment these  plants  were  brought  from  South  America,  and  were  cul- 
tivated and  raised.  A very  fair  proportion  of  the  quinine  that  is  used 
by  the  English  manufacturers  and  other  European  manufacturers  comes 
from  the  East  Indies.  As  I have  said,  this  East  India  bark  is  grown 
and  cultivated  under  the  auspices  of  the  British  Government.  That 
will  give  you  an  idea  of  the  importance  in  which  this  industry  was  held 
by  the  various  governments  which  I have  mentioned,  especially  the 
British  Government. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  How  many  manufacturers  of  quinine  are  there  in  the  United 


150 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEXANDER  H.  JONES. 


States  ? — A.  There  are  five  manufacturers  in  this  country : two  in  New 
York,  that  of  0.  T.  White,  and  of  McKesson  & Robbins,  and  three  in 
Philadelphia,  namely,  Powers  & Weightman,  Rosengarten  & Sons,  and 
Keasbey  & Mattison.  That  makes  five,  altogether.  It  may  be  proper 
for  me  to  say  in  this  connection  that  great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the 
fact  that  there  are  so  few  manufacturers  in  this  country,  and  it  has  been 
said,  in  consequence  of  that  fact,  that  it  is  a great  monopoly  and  is  in 
the  hands  of  a few  people.  But  the  fact  is  that  everybody  has  a right 
to  manufacture  quinine,  and  there  is  not  a gentleman  in  this  room  who 
is  not  at  liberty  to  engage  in  the  manufacture  of  quinine  if  he  wishes  to 
do  so.  There  are  but  few  quinine  manufacturers  in  the  world.  There 
are  only  two  in  Great.  Britain,  four  or  five  in  Germany,  perhaps  as  many 
in  France,  one  in  Holland,  and  one  in  Italy.  It  is  not  like  the  manu- 
facture of  iron  and  iron  and  steel,  and  ^woolen  and  cotton  goods,  where 
there  are  factories  in  immense  numbers  in  various  parts  of  the  world. 
Bat  these  quinine  establishments  are  limited  in  number  to  those  I have 
stated.  I do  not  think  there  are  more  than  fifteen  or  sixteen  factories 
in  the  whole  of  Europe,  in  addition  to  the  five  in  this  country. 

Q.  Is  there  any  factory  in  the  United  States  devoted  exclusively  to 
the  manufacture  of  quinine? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  factory  in  the  United  States  where  the  principal  arti- 
cle produced  is  quinine? — -A.  We  always  regarded  quinine  as  our  lead- 
ing article  until  the  duty  was  taken  off,  although  we  manufacture  very 
many  other  articles,  perhaps,  altogether,  two  or  three  hundred  in  num- 
ber. 

Q.  Ho  you  mean  that  it  was  your  leading  article  in  quantity  or  qual- 
ity?— A.  I think  that  at  one  time  we  were  the  largest  manufacturers  of 
quinine  in  the  world. 

Q.  Ho  you  mean  that  it  was  your  leading  article  because  of  the  re- 
turns that  you  received  from  it,  or  in  the  quantity  you  made,  or  in  what 
respect? — A.  We  manufactured  it  on  a very  large  scale  ; that  is  one  of 
the  things  I meant  There  was  a fair  profit  in  it,  and  that  is  another 
element.  As  I said,  we  were  the  largest  manufacturers  in  this  country 
and  the  largest  in  the  world  at  one  time,  and  so  we  regarded  it  as  one 
of  our  most  important  articles. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Ho  you  mean  in  dollars  and  cents?— -A.  Yes,  sir;  I have  seen 
quinine  bring  as  high  as  four  dollars.  The  largest  manufactory  of 
quinine  now  is  in  Milan,  Itaty. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understand  your  meaning  to  be,  when  you  say  it  wms  your  lead- 
ing article,  that  your  profits,  or  revenue,  were  more  Jrom  that  one  article 
than  from  any  other  article  you  manufactured? — A.  The  profit  was  a 
very  fair  one  and  the  quantity  manufactured  very  large;  so  that  the 
results  were  very  satisfactory. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  proportion  of  your  establishment  or  factory  is  devoted  ex- 
clusively to  the  manufacture  of  quinine? — A.  I am  sorry  to  say  that  I 
could  not  tell  you  exactly.  I can  give  you  the  total  number  of  opera- 
tives employed  at  our  place,  but  could  not  state  the  total  number  em- 
ployed in  that  particular  branch  of  our  business,  as  it  is  only  one  of 
many  items. 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.] 


CHEMICALS. 


151 


Q.  You  say  there  are  five  factories  5 do  you  suppose  there  are  as 
many  as  five  thousand  people  engaged  in  that  manufacture  in  this 
country? — A.  Oh,  no,  sir. 

Q.  Are  there  as  many  as  five  hundred? — A.  There  might  be  that 
many  in  all  of  the  factories. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  telling  how  many  persons  there  are  en- 
gaged in  the  manufacture  of  quinine  in  this  country? — A.  Each  manu- 
facturer can  tell  you,  of  course,  how  many  hands  he  employs.  They 
have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  explaining  to  each  other  all  the  points  in 
their  business,  but  if  you  consider  the  matter  one  of  importance,  I have 
no  doubt  they  would  be  willing  to  give  you  that  information.  I have 
no  idea  of  the  total  number  of  men  employed. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  My  object  in  putting  the  question  was  to  ascertain  the  relation 
between  the  amount  of  labor  employed  and  the  amount  of  capital  in- 
vested in  this  particular  branch  of  the  business. — A.  There  are  not  a very 
large  number  of  men  employed  in  it.  It  is  small,  indeed,  in  comparison 
with  the  number  employed  in  some  other  industries.  Of  course,  the  whole 
number  of  men  employed  in  all  the  chemical  factories  is  small  in  com- 
parison with  those  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel,  and 
when  you  pick  out  one  particular  item,  of  course,  the  number  employed 
on  that  one  item  is  very  small. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  You  spoke  of  the  decrease  in  the  cost  of  your  raw  material — cin- 
chona bark — since  1874.  Are  you  able  to  give  the  commission  any  idea, 
in  general,  as  to  what  the  prices  have  been? — A.  I am  sorr5r  to  say  that 
I cannot,  but  I will  lay  before  you  all  the  information  you  want  in  a 
few  days.  1 am  very  sorry  that  I did  not  have  time  to  prepare  myself 
better  to  answer  these  questions.  Reference  has  been  made  to  the  price 
of  quinine  being  so  much  cheaper  than  it  was  when  the  duty  was  re- 
moved. But  I desire  to  state  that,  during  my  experience,  I have  seen 
quinine  sold  at  about  one-lialf  of  the  present  price,  or  less  than  that. 
I have  seen  it  selling  at  $1.18  an  ounce,  and  from  that  to  $1.25  an  ounce. 
It  was  about  $1.18  an  ounce  when  there  was  a duty  both  on  quinine  and 
on  the  bark.  O11  the  other  hand,  I have  seen  the  price  $3.50  an  ouuce 
when  quinine  was  free  of  duty.  To-day  it  is  selling  at  $2  an  ounce. 
In  I860  the  lowest  price  of  American  quinine  was  $1.20,  and  there  was 
a duty  on  quinine  then,  and  a duty  on  the  bark  also. 

Q.  What  was  the  duty  then? — A.  It  was  15  per  cent,  on  the  one  and 
20  per  cent,  on  the  other,  I think.  There  is  a work  collated  by  Mr.  Ed- 
ward Young  giving  the  rates  of  duty  for  a series  of  years  on  this  and 
other  products,  and  you  can  get  the  exact  figures  by  referring  to  that. 

Q.  What  was  the  extent  of  the  manufacture  of  quinine  in  1860,  and 
the  extent  of  its  manufacture,  say  in  1874? — A.  I am  notable  to  answer 
that  question  now,  but  all  those  matters  will  be  presented  to  you  in  a 
short  time. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I11  regard  to  the  supply  of  bark,  is  it  used  for  any  other  purpose 
than  the  manufacture  of  quinine  in  this  country? — A.  Only  to  a very 
limited  extent.  They  use  the  bark  for  some  other  purposes.  There 
are  other  alkaloids  in  the  bark  besides  quinine.  I suppose  if  we  should 


152 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEXANDER  H.  JOKES. 


cease  manufacturing  quinine  here  all  the  bark  would  go  to  Europe.  A 
few  years  ago  we  had  more  bark  coming  here  than  was  sent  to  Europe, 
but  it  is  different  now. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  market  price  of  quinine  is  now 
two  dollars  when  it  is  bought  from  the  manufacturer  ? — A.  That  is  the 
fact. 

Q.  And  the  wholesale  dealer  sells  it  for  what  price  now? — A.  The 
wholesaler,  I think,  as  a rule  would  sell  it  for  $2.05. 

Q.  And  what  price  would  the  retail  druggist  sell  it  for? — A.  I do  not 
know  what  the  retail  druggist  would  charge,  but  I can  answer  so  far  as 
the  wholesale  trade  is  concerned.  The  wholesale  dealers  in  Saint  Louis, 
Cincinnati,  Chicago,  and  elsewhere  handle  quinine  in  the  wholesale  way 
at  from  5 to  10  cents  an  ounce  profit;  in  fact,  1 have  seen  it  sold  by  them 
at  cost  price. 

Q.  It  is  a staple  article  in  medicine? — A.  Yes,  sir;  what  is  called  a 
leading  article. 

Q.  It  is  generally  believed  that  the  retail  druggist’s  profit  runs  up 
from  three  hundred  to  five  hundred  per  cent,  or  more.  What  do  you 
know  about  that? — A.  I have  never  been  in  the  retail  drug  business, 
but  I think  the  most  of  them  scarcely  make  a living.  You  must  re- 
member that  when  they  put  up  a prescription  they  charge  not  only  for 
the  ingredients  contained  in  it,  but  for  their  time  and  experience  as 
well.  W e,  for  instance,  would  charge  $2  and  the  wholesale  dealer  would 
charge  $2.05  or  perhaps  $2.10,  and  I suppose  the  retail  dealer  would 
charge  as  much  for  what  he  sells,  if  the  price  was  $2  an  ounce  as  if  the 
price  was  $2.20  or  $2.40  an  ounce.  When  you  take  an  article  sold  by 
the  ounce — an  ounce  containing  437J  grains — one  that  the  wholesale 
dealer  pays  say  $2.10  for  by  the  ounce,  and  come  to  the  retail  dealer  who 
puts  it  up  in  prescriptions  of  a few  grains  each,  and  you  have  to  divide 
the  $2.10  among  this  437£  grains,  you  are  not  going  to  have  very  much 
margin  for  a variation  of  price  on  a prescription  based  on  a difference 
of  20  or  40  cents  on  the  ounce  price.  Of  course,  if  the  price  went  up  to 
$5  an  ounce  it  would  be  quite  different. 

I desire  to  state,  in  conclusion,  that  we  had  a letter  yesterday  from  a 
party  in  Macon,  Ga.,  who  had  written  us  without  any  solicitation  what- 
ever, giving  his  views  in  regard  to  the  duty  on  quinine.  I do  not  know 
that  you  would  care  to  hear  it,  but  his  views  are  precisely  the  same  as 
those  held  by  the  Wholesale  Drug  Association,  who  unanimously  recom- 
mend the  reimposition  of  at  least  10  per  cent,  duty  on  quinine.  He 
speaks  about  the  importance  of  having  an  adequate  supply  and  a pure 
article.  I think  it  is  very  important  that  the  article  should  be  manu- 
factured here.  Certainly,  if  Great  Britain  thought  it  was  of  so  much 
consequence  as  to  have  the  bark  grown  in  the  East  Indies,  we  should 
think  it  of  enough  consequence  to  encourage  its  manufacture  so  that 
the  people  could  have  an  adequate  supply  and  a pure  article.  We 
should  be  glad  if  the  Commission  would  allow  the  manufacturers  of 
quinine  to  come  before  them  and  state  all  the  details  that  they  may  de- 
sire in  regard  to  the  subject.  They  can  answer  some  of  the  questions 
put  to  me  better  than  I can.  It  is  really  a very  important  matter.  It 
is  the  only  article  in  the  list  of  manufactured  goods  in  the  whole  coun- 
try that  lias  been  treated  in  this  way.  We  were  not  given  free  crude 
materials.  Even  Great  Britain  has  given  countervailing  duties.  You 
will  find  on  the  tariff'  list  of  Great  Britain  to-day  a duty  imposed  on  all 
alcoholic  preparations  where  they  come  in  contact  with  those  made  at 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.] 


CHEMICALS. 


153 


home.  When  they  import  alcoholic  preparations  that  are  made  in  for- 
eign countries  from  pure  alcohol  they  impose  a countervailing  duty  on 
those  preparations,  such  as  collodion,  chloroform,  and  ether,  or  any 
other  manufactured  article  that  comes  into  (x^eat  Britain  manufactured 
of  pure  spirits.  Of  course  Great  Britain  is  not  a protective  country, 
hut  she  is  just  enough  so  to  give  a countervailing  duty  where  she  im- 
poses internal  taxes. 

We  feel  that  we  have  been  singled  out  for  exceptional  legislation,  and 
have  had  hardships  imposed  upon  us  that  no  other  class  of  manufact- 
urers in  this  country  has  had,  and,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  such 
as  have  never  been  imposed  in  any  country  in  Europe.  That  is  the 
position  we  take,  and  we  feel  that  we  are  fully  entitled  to  equal  rights 
under  the  accepted  policy  of  this  government,  no  matter  what  it  may 
be,  whether  that  of  free  trade  or  protection. 


154 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  CAMPBELL. 


JOHN  CAMPBELL. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  26,  1882. 

Mr.  John  Campbell,  of  New  York  City,  a member  of  the  firm  of 
J.  Levinstein,  Campbell  & Co.,  manufacturers  of  aniline  dyes,  appeared 
in  response  to  the  invitation  of  the  Commission  and  made  the  following 
statement : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  We  are  importers  and  manufact- 
urers of  aniline  dyes.  We  pay  from  5 to  300  per  cent,  duty  on  the  dif- 
ferent articles  which  we  import.  Our  goods  are  used  by  paper-makers, 
manufacturers  of  woolens  and  other  textile  materials,  and  in  nearly 
every  class  of  industrial  pursuits.  We  are  the  third  largest  aniline- 
dye  importers  in  this  country,  and  pay  annually  duties  amounting  to 
nearly  $100,000  upon  the  dyes  we  import.  The  duty  now  is  50  cents 
per  pound,  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  upon  aniline  dyes  and  colors, 
by  whatever  name  known.  With  the  exception  of  four  small  firms 
in  the  United  States,  who  only  manufacture  two  or  three  colors,  out  of 
two  or  three  hundred  imported,  and  who  altogether  do  not  employ 
more  than  fifty  men,  these  dyes  are  all  imported  from  Germany,  Eng- 
land, France,  and  Switzerland. 

As  I have  said,  these  colors  enter  into  the  consumption  of  nearly 
every  manufacturer  of  textile  fabrics,  paper,  leather,  silk,  ink,  matches, 
soap,  printers,  and  innumerable  other  trades.  They  cannot  profitably 
be  made  in  this  country  for  various  reasons  : First,  the  raw  material  is 
here  in  only  very  limited  quantities ; second,  the  acids  and  other  chem- 
icals used  for  making  these  dyes  are  not  made  here  ; third,  the  skilled 
chemists  who  have  grown  up  with  this  particular  branch  of  industry 
are  very  few  and  are  all  engaged  in  Europe. 

In  every  country  in  Europe,  and  even  Canada,  these  goods  are  upon 
the  free  list.  There  is  one  dye,  wool  scarlet,  a substitute  for  cochineal, 
which  bears  a duty  of  135  per  cent.,  while  cochineal,  the  article  it  is  a 
substitute  for,  is  admitted  free.  This  means  a tax  upon  every  100 
pounds  of  woolen  or  worsted  yarn,  dyed  scarlet,  of  from  $1.50  to  $2,  and 
to  every  manufacturer  of  hosiery  (shirts  and  drawers  knitted)  15  cents 
per  dozen  of  shirts. 

This  compound  duty  of  50  cents  and  35  per  cent,  is  a very  unequal  tax, 
as  the  bulk  of  the  dyes  are  only  worth  abroad  from  50  to  60  cents  per 
pound,  whereas  at  this  time  this  duty  was  levied,  scarlet  dye  was  un- 
known, and  the  dyes  then  imported  were  worth  from  $2.50  to  $10  per 
pound  in  Europe.  I doubt  if  a single  consumer  of  these  dyes  would 
advocate  the  retention  of  this  portion  of  the  tariff.  I am  in  favor  of  the 
free  importation  of  these  goods,  but  still,  if  a duty  be  requisite  for  rev- 
enue, then  I say  make  it  ad  valorem  instead  of  specific  and  ad  valorem, 
as  the  fifty  cents  per  pound  alone  means  upon  some  of  these  dyes  240 
per  cent,  duty,  while  upon  others  it  means  only  5 per  cent. 

I have  no  means  of  getting  at  the  exact  quantities  imported  into  the 
United  States,  but  from  a list  of  the  imports  recorded  in  the  “ Oil,  Faint 
and  Drug  Reporter,”  which  I take  to  be  fairly  accurate,  1 find  that  from 
January  1,  this  year,  to  June  30,  there  were  532,000  jrnunds  of  aniline 


JOHN  CAMPBELL.] 


ANILINE  DYES. 


155 


dyes  imported  into  the  city  of  New  York,  so  that  it  would  not  be  far 
from  a correct  estimate  to  place  this  year’s  imports  into  the  United  States 
at  a total  of  1,500,000  pounds,  paying  a duty  of  $1,500,000.  If  these 
goods  are  placed  upon  the  freelist  it  will  go  a long  way  towards  enab- 
ling American  home  industries  to  compete  successfully  against  foreign 
manufactures  in  foreign  markets. 

The  three  largest  importers  of  these  dyes  are  William  Pickhard  & 
Kuttropp,  of  New  York,  agent  for  the  Badische  Aniline  Company,  of 
Stuttgart,  Germany;  Lutz  & Movius,  of  New  York,  agents  for  Meister, 
Luten  & Bruning,  Hoel-on-Main,  Germany,  and  ourselves.  Our  works 
are  at  Blackley,  near  Manchester,  England. 

These  three  firms  import  more  than  half  of  all  the  aniline  dyes  brought 
to  the  United  States,  while  the  remaining  half  are  distributed  between 
about  twenty  other  firms. 

Aniline  dyes,  although  a manufactured  article,  are  really  and  sub- 
stantially, to  the  American  consumer,  a raw  material.  There  has  been, 
since  the  tariff  was  last  framed,  quite  a revolution  in  this  trade,  which 
lias  brought  them  from  the  category  of  a luxury  to  a necessary  and 
essential  product,  of  great  importance  to  the  industries  previously 
stated. 

All  the  large  carpet  manufacturers  use  these  goods,  and  the  tariff  is 
quite  unequal.  When  it  was  first  framed  the  duty  was  30  to  40  per 
cent.,  but  now  the  duty  is  300  per  cent,  very  nearly  on  some  of  the 
articles. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Will  you  please  state  what  the  dyes  you  have  referred  to 
are  made  of,  and  whether  they  are  manufactured  in  England  any  better 
than  we  could  possibly  manufacture  them  here? — Answer.  Aniline  dyes 
are  manufactured  from  coal  tar,  or  gas  tar  as  it  is  called  in  England. 
In  England  they  are  produced  more  extensively  than  here,  for  one  reason 
that  the  material  is  not  found  in  this  country  in  such  abundance  as  it  is  in 
England  and  for  the  several  other  reasons  before  mentioned.  I under- 
stand that  the  coal  found  in  this  country  does  not  contain  so  great  a 
percentage  of  the  light  hydrocarbons  as  the  coal  found  in  England, 
therefore  these  dyes  cannot  be  made  here  at  such  profit.  In  Germany 
and  France  they  import  their  raw  materials  largely  from  England. 
Manchester  is  the  center  of  production  for  aniline.  There  are  four  large 
firms  engaged  in  the  manufacture  in  Germany,  two  in  France,  and  a few 
in  Switzerland.  The  raw  material  at  our  command  is  not  sufficient  or 
cheap  enough  to  enable  us  to  make  them  at  a profit  at  present,  but  if 
the  duty  is  put  up  x>retty  high  we  will  erect  works  and  manufacture 
some  of  the  dyes  here  ourselves.  If  the  duty  is  taken  off',  this  branch 
of  industry  will  remain  as  it  is  at  present. 

Q.  I would  like  to  ask  you  as  to  the  aniline  dyes  that  are  made  in  this 
country — whether  their  quality  is  good  and  whether  you  are  limited  to 
one  color? — A.  There  are  three  colors  made  in  this  country.  One  is 
magenta , the  raw  material  for  which  is  imported  from  England.  It 
is  manufactured  here  and  sold  at  a fair  price,  but  the  quality  is  not 
such  as  to  enable  it  to  compete  with  the  imported  article.  The  firm 
which  manufactures  it  is  located  at  Albany,  N.  Y.  Ido  not  think  they 
employ  more  than  about  forty  men  altogether.  There  are  three  other 
concerns,  employing  a dozen  men.  That  is  the  extent  of  the  manufac- 
ture at  present.  They  do  not  compete  with  the  foreign  goods  at  all. 

Q.  What  amount  of  these  goods  are  used  by  the  different  manufact- 
urers of  colored  prints,  for  example ; 1 mean  of  these  aniline  dyes  ? — A. 


156 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ JOHN  CAMPBELL. 


I cannot  tell  you  exactly  tlie  amount  the  different  manufacturers  consume, 
but  the  quantities  imported  last  year  were  about  1,200,000  pounds,  pay- 
ing a duty  of  $1,200,000.  These  dyes  take  the  place  of  almost  every 
color.  Cochineal  has  been  generally  used  for  dyeing  woolen  goods,  but 
wool  scarlet  is  used  as  a substitute  for  cochineal , which  comes  in  free, 
while  this  has  to  pay  135  per  cent.  duty.  They  replace  also  archill 
and  other  barks,  woods,  and  extracts  used  for  coloring  purposes.  This 
whole  trade  is  yet  in  its  infancy.  The  blue  article  that  1 introduced 
into  this  country  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  all  the  paper  used  by 
the  New  York  dailies.  It  sold  then  at  $4  a pound,  and  it  took  the  place 
of  ultra  marine.  All  the  paper-makers  use  it.  Among  the  consumers 
of  aniline  dyes  I might  mention  the  following : All  woolen  manufacturers, 
who  use  it  in  the  manufacture  of  bed-blankets,  horse-blankets,  carpets, 
shirts  and  drawers,  flannels,  hosiery,  domestic  woolen  yarns,  worsted 
piece  goods,  merinos,  ladies’  opera  flannels,  wool  hats,  overcoatings,  &c. 
It  is  also  used  in  the  manufacture  of  dress  goods,  both  woolen  and  cot- 
ton; ginghams,  prints,  and  cotton  yarns.  It  is  also  used  in  all  classes 
of  paper  manufacture,  not  only  for  newspapers,  but  for  paper  used  for 
wrapping  purposes,  for  posters,  envelopes,  and  wall  paper;  also  in  the 
manufacture  of  straw  hats,  willow  and  wicker  work,  leather  for  chair 
covers,  and  for  printing  inks,  especially  by  all  label  press  printers,  and 
by  matchmakers  and  jute-carpet  manufacturers. 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


157 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


Long  Branch,  N.  J., 

Wednesday , July  2(3,  1882. 

Hon.  Henry  F.  French,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  ap- 
peared before  the  Commission,  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and  made 
tin*  following  statement : 

The  invitation,  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission, 
which  you  were  kind  enough  to  send  me,  was  so  general  in  its  character 
that  I really  had  no  idea  what  was  wanted  of  me,  excepting  from  the 
suggestion  which  came  in  the  telegram,  that  you  wished  to  advise  with 
me  upon  the  general  subject  of  the  customs  revenue.  Being  a some- 
what old  lawyer,  as  my  friend  the  president  can  testify,  I made  a little 
brief  which  would  guide  me  and  keep  me  from  running  away  from  my 
subject,  upon  the  importance  of  simplicity  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
tariff;  simplicity  in  the  classification,  especially  with  a view  to  avoid- 
ing ambiguities  of  all  kinds.  A gentleman  came  into  my  office  not 
loug  since,  who  was  interested  in  tariff  matters,  and  said  he  thought  it 
would  be  an  excellent  thing  to  have  somebody  rewrite  the  tariff  list  and 
make  everything  plain,  so  that  everybody  would  understand  it  alike. 
That  would  be  an  excellent  thing  to  do,  but  I believe  nobody  has  ever 
succeeded  iu  writing  any  law  so  plainly  but  that  we  needed  a pretty 
large  judiciary  force  to  interpret  it.  And  when  we  consider  that  the 
whole  judiciary  of  the  world  is  engaged  in  the  business  of  the  construc- 
tion of  doubtful  laws,  the  importance  of  making  things  as  plain  as  pos- 
sible is  apparent. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  relates,  especially 
as  it  is  connected  with  the  customs  laws,  to  the  matter  of  classification, 
and  I suppose  most  of  you — all  of  you  who  have  had  any  occasion  to  be 
concerned  with  the  examination  of  the  tariff  law — know  what  classifi- 
cation means.  The  duties  of  the  customs  officers  are  essentially  two, 
the  classification  of  goods  and  the  valuation  of  goods  ; the  determina- 
tion of  the  particular  class  under  which  they  are  to  be  assessed,  and 
the  appraisal  of  them  with  a view  to  determining  their  actual  value. 
The  classification  of  goods  in  the  custom-house  belongs  to  the  col- 
lector. By  the  theory  of  the  law,  the  collector  determines  to  what 
class  the  goods  belong,  whether  iron  or  steel,  whether  cotton  or  wrool, 
whether  under  one  particular  specification  of  those  articles  or  another. 
The  valuation  of  them — the  fixing  of  the  price  when  the  class  has  been 
ascertained — belongs  to  the  appraiser.  The  classification  is  usually 
made  in  the  appraiser’s  office  primarily.  The  appraisers  report  to  the 
collector  what  class  they  understand  the  goods  to  belong  to,  and  the 
collector,  not  knowing  as  much  of  the  details  as  the  appraisers,  usually 
accepts  their  classification,  and  if  the  classification  is  wrong,  an  appeal 
goes  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from  the  opinion  of  the  collector. 
The  way  that  is  done  is  this.  In  the  first  place  a protest  is  filed  with 
the  collector  after  he  classifies  the  goods.  That  merely  states  in  a gen- 
eral way  that  the  importer  is  dissatisfied  with  the  classification,  stating 
also  how  the  goods  have  been  classified,  and  how  he  claims  they  should 
be  classified.  That  protest  goes  to  the  collector,  and  we  of  late  have 
held  (what  does  not  seem  to  have  been  held  before)  that  upon  receiving 


158 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


that  protest,  the  collector’s  duty  is  to  re-examine  to  see  whether  he  has 
made  tbe  mistake  which  is  suggested,  and  we  hope  in  Yew  York  in 
particular  that  a great  many  suits  will  be  saved  by  that  second  exami- 
nation. 

If  the  collector  persists  in  the  classification  which  he  has  made,  and 
the  importer  is  dissatisfied,  the  importer  appeals  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  The  papers  come  to  the  department  addressed  to  the  Secre- 
tary. They  go  to  what  is  called  the  mail -room,  which  is  a kind  of 
docket-room,  where  all  letters  sent  to  the  department  first  go,  and  are 
entered  on  the  books.  They  are  then  referred  to  the  customs  division 
of  the  Secretary’s  office.  The  customs  division  is  under  my  general 
supervision  as  Assistant  Secretary,  the  business  of  the  Secretary’s 
office  being  divided  between  two  assistants.  I have  perhaps  eight  or 
ten  different  classes  of  duties,  and  among  them  all  matters  relating  to 
customs. 

If  it  is  a mere  question  of  routine,  or  a question  which  has  been  set- 
tled over  and  over  again,  as  most  of  the  cases  are,  the  customs  division 
prepares  a letter  for  my  signature  without  any  consultation.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  a doubtful  matter,  and  a matter  which  deserves  special 
consideration,  the  head  of  that  division  calls  on  me,  and  w e have,  in  ad- 
vance of  the  preparation  of  any  letter,  a consultation  upon  the  point ; and 
if  we  consider  it  pretty  clear,  the  letter  is  prepared  lor  my  signature  and 
sent.  If  it  is  a matter  that  has  assumed  great  importance,  as  hoop-iron, 
for  instance,  I go  to  the  Secretary  about  it  and  ask  his  consideration 
of  it,  generally  giving  him  my  own  impressions.  If  he  is  not  clear,  and 
thinks  proper,  he  will  call  on  the  Solicitor  or  the  Attorney-General  for  an 
opinion.  Having  formed  that  opinion  upon  such  advice  as  he  gets,  he  de- 
cides upon  the  appeal,  whether  he  will  confirm  the  decision  of  the  col- 
lector or  whether  he  w ill  in  any  way  modify  or  change  it.  If  he  affirms 
the  decision,  it  stands,  unless  the  importer  within  a certain  time  brings 
a suit  in  the  court.  Then  the  question  goes  to  the  court  and  jury.  Per- 
haps two  or  three  years  after  the  question  has  arisen  in  the  custom-house 
it  gets  to  a court  and  jury.  There  are  no  samples  thereby  which  anybody 
can  judge  what  the  goods  are,  and  probably  there  is  nobody  on  the  jury 
who  ever  tried  such  a case,  or  who  can  have  any  possible  knowledge  about 
it.  The  judges  in  Yew  York  are  skillful,  in  other  places  not  so  experi- 
enced, and  the  result  is  often  quite  different  upon  the  law  and  the  facts 
in  the  different  jurisdictions.  In  Yewr  Orleans  we  get  one  decision  on 
the  classification  of  an  article  claiming  to  be  cotton  ties.  In  Yew  York  or 
somewdiere  else  we  get  a different  decision,  the  court  all  the  time  in- 
structing the  jury  rightfully  that  if  this  is  a manufacture  of  iron — the 
completed  article  ready  for  use — it  pays  35  per  cent.  duty.  If  it  is  not 
a manufactured  article  in  the  sense  in  which  the  court  explains  the  mat- 
ter, then  it  is  hoop-iron,  and  will  pay  about  three  times  that  amount  of 
duty.  And  the  jury,  understanding  the  matter  as  well  as  they  can, 
have  given  various  verdicts  on  these  points.  We  had  one  case  in  Yew 
Orleans  w here  a jury  gave  a verdict  that  the  article  claimed  to  be  a 
manufactured  article — a cotton-tie — was  hoop  iron.  In  the  course  of 
three  or  lour  w eeks  another  case  precisely  like  it  came  up  and  was  laid 
before  the  jury,  and  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  if  not  before  the 
case  came  on  lor  trial,  the  court  set  aside  the  verdict  of  the  first  jury 
because  they  had  not  been  correctly  instructed  in  the  law,  and  put  both 
cases  to  the  same  jury,  and  they  found  the  other  way. 

If  you  have  the  “Tariff  Indexed”  and  will  follow  me  along,  I will  at- 
tempt to  make  the  subject  intelligible. 

Y"ou  might  think  the  question  w hether  an  article  is  iron  or  steel  might 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


159 


be  settled  without  any  great  difficulty.  Yet  there  was  a lawsuit  tried 
within  a year  in  Boston,  which  occupied  six  weeks,  with  the  ablest  coun- 
sel that  could  be  procured,  and  quite  an  array  of  them’  on  each  side. 
Yotice  was  given  to  the  iron  and  steel  people  at  Pittsburgh,  who  came 
down  in  force  to  defend  their  view  of  the  matter,  which  was  that  the 
article  was  steel,  and  all  the  experts  who  could  be  gathered  together  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Boston,  and  I do  not  know  but  everywhere  else, 
on  the  other  side,  were  there,  and  swore  that  it  was  iron,  and  after  great 
difficulty  and  many  rulings  by  the  court,  which  were  excepted  to,  so  that 
the  losing  party  hopes  the  verdict  will  be  set  aside,  the  jury  decided 
that  the  article  was  iron. 

The  difficulties  as  to  the  duties  on  steel  arise  in  this  way:  At  the  time 
the  tariff  on  metals  was  enacted  (in  1804  I believe),  there  was  no  steel, 
as  I understand,  that  was  not  worth  from  7 to  12  cents  a pound.  Those 
articles  which  I sometimes  call  brevet  steel,  like  Bessemer  steel  and 
Martin-Siemens,  were  not  extensively  kuown  at  that  time.  The  specific 
and  ad  valorem  duties  were  no  doubt  intended  to  be  similar,  but  the 
change  in  the  value  of  steel  makes  them  very  unequal.  At  the  present 
time  crucible  steel  is  worth  10  to  11  or  perhaps  12  cents  a pound,  and 
Bessemer  steel  for  rails  is  worth  about  1J  cents  a pound.  You  will  be 
able  without  difficulty  to  so  arrange  the  duties  ad  valorem  or  otherwise 
that  there  shall  not  be  the  inconsistencies  that  now  exist.  I think  it 
is  probable,  as  the  general  idea  seems  to  run  through  the  tariff,  that 
about  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  was  the  duty  that  was  conceived  to  be 
proper  when  that  tariff  was  framed  upon  steel.  You  will  find  the  duties 
fixed  in  the  present  tariff  on  steel  at  from  2J  to  3£  cents  per  pound. 
See  Tariff  Indexed,  117. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  you  mean,  when  the  law  was  passed,  it  seemed  to  be  the  idea 
of  the  law-makers  that  about  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  would  be  the 
proper  rate! — A.  That  seemed  to  be  the  rate  they  put  on;  35  to  45  per 
cent,  was  put  on  to  manufactured  articles. 

Q.  There  was  a great  difference  in  values  at  that  time,  was  there 
not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  time  gold  was  worth  200,  so  that  that  rate  would  really 
be  70  per  cent.  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  perhaps  so.  The  duties  were  payable  in 
gold,  I suppose. 

Q.  And  the  goods  were  sold  for  currency  ? — A.  That  is  probably  so. 
It  is  pretty  hard  to  bring  these  facts  together. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Still  that  makes  a very  great  difference  be- 
tween specific  and  ad  valorem  duties. 

The  Witness.  But  what  I speak  of  particularly  is  that  the  price  of 
steel  has  so  greatly  fallen  since  that  time  by  the  introduction  of  new 
methods  of  manufacture  of  steel,  that  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  it  is  very 
little,  while  the  specific  duty  remains  very  high.  Controversy  arises 
as  to  the  classification  under  paragraph  117;  “ Steel  in  ingots,  bars, 
coils,  sheets,  and  steel  wire  not  less  than  £ of  one  inch  in  diameter,  valued 
at  7 cents  per  pound  or  less,  two  cents  and  one- fourth  per  pound.”  If 
you  put  35  per  cent,  on  that,  if  steel  was  worth  7 cents  a pound,  you  would 
not  get  anything  very  different  from  the  specific  duty;  but  you  introduce 
steel  worth  only  1 J cents  a pound  and  put  35  per  cent,  duty  on  that,  and 
it  pays  very  little  duty,  so  that  the  controversy  between  the  manufact- 
urers and  the  importers — those  who  wish  to  protect  the  importation, 
and  those  who  wish  to  get  it  in  at  a lower  rate  of  duty — is  upon  the 
classification,  whether  as  ingots,  bars,  coils,  sheets,  &e.,  or  as  manufact- 


160 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


ured  steel  at  45  per  cent.,  or  as  u steel  in  any  form  not  otherwise  provided 
for,’7  thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  (1)1, 120.) 

I now  come  to  the  hoop-iron  question.  The  present  tariff  is  found  in 
paragraphs  79,  and  80,  as  follows:  “All  band,  hoop,  and  scroll  iron  from 
one-half  to  six  inches  wide,  under  one- eighth  of  an  inch  in  thickness, 
and  not  thinner  than  No.  20  wire-guage,  1^  cents  per  pound.  All  band, 
hoop,  and  scroll  iron  thinner  than  No.  20  wire-guage,  If  cents  per  pound.77 
The  question  in  regard  to  what  are  called  cut  hoops  and  cotton-ties,  is 
whether  they  come  under  that  classification  or  under  the  classification 
contained  in  paragraph  146,  which  is  as  follows : “Manufactures,  articles 
vessels  and  wares  not  otherwise  provided  for  of  brass,  iron,  lead,  pewter, 
and  tin  or  other  metal  (except  gold,  silver,  platina,  copper  and  steel), 
or  of  which  either  of  these  metals  shall  be  the  component  material  of 
chief  value,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.77  I think  the  duty  is  about  three 
times  as  much  by  the  classification  of  these  articles  as  hoop  iron  as  by 
their  classification  as  a manufactured  article. 

So  that  you  see  controversies  will  exist  until  the  matter  is  in  some 
way  made  clear.  The  history  of  this  hoop-iron  controversy  is  very  in- 
structive. I do  not  undertake  to  say  whether  the  Treasury  Department 
has  ruled  correctly  or  not.  As  we  have  ruled  both  ways,  we  must  be 
correct  in  one  or  the  other  instance.  I can  talk  about  the  two  classes, 
the  cut  hoops  and  cotton-ties,  together,  perhaps,  conveniently.  The 
cotton-tie  is  a piece  of  hoop-iron  11  feet  long, -I  think,  either  with  or  with- 
out what  is  called  a buckle  riveted  to  one  end.  It  is  a straight  piece  of 
iron.  Some  of  them  come  with  a buckle  riveted  on  and  the  hoop  is 
wrapped  around  the  bale  and  the  end  tucked  under  the  loop  of  the 
buckle,  and  that  confines  it.  That  kind  of  a cotton-tie,  as  long  ago  as 
1867  or  1868,  by  a verdict  of  a jury  in  New  Orleans,  I think,  and  by  the 
acquiesence  of  the  Treasury  Department  and  everybody  else,  was 
classed  as  a manufacture  of  iron  at  35  per  cent.  Tor  some  reason 
there  was  not  much  controversy  in  the  matter  up  to  about  ten  years 
ago.  Then  the  importers  began  to  refine  a little  upon  it.  They 
found  that  really  there  was  not  any  need  of  riveting  that  buckle,  on. 
It  was  just  exactly  as  good  loose,  because  they  could  confine  both 
ends  as  well  as  one.  So  they  strung  the  buckles  on  at  one  end  and 
sent  the  hoops  up  in  packages  of  50  with  50  buckles,  one  on  each. 
Afterwards  they  found  there  was  no  use  in  stringing  them  on  each, 
and  they  strung  them  together.  Then  the  question  came  up  whether 
these,  not  being  riveted  on  and  not  cortiing  under  the  old  rule,  should 
be  classed  as  hoop  iron.  The  hoop-iron  people  said  they  should  pay 
the  high  rate  of  duty,  and  the  cotton  people  insisted  that  the  cotton- 
ties  were  manufactured  articles  at  35  per  cent.  On  the  question  of  the 
cotton-ties  the  department  ruled,  finally,  that  a cotton-tie  that  had  not 
a buckle  riveted  on  it  did  not  come  under  the  old  decision,  which  was 
a recognized  authority;  that  it  was  hoop-iron,  and  should  bear  the 
duty  of  hoop  iron.  And  that  decision  stands  as  the  decision  of  the  de- 
partment, but  it  stands  on  a very  slippery  foundation,  because  there  are 
people  who  contend  that  a cotton-tie  is  hoop  iron,  wdiether  a buckle  is  on 
it  or  not;  others  contend  that  it  is  a manufactured  article.  The  buckle 
is  used  with  it;  it  is  merely  wrapped  around  the  bale  and  these  ends  bent 
under  and  it  holds.  How  the  question  would  be  settled,  if  it  ever  could 
be  settled  by  the  verdict  of  a jury,  I cannot  undertake  to  say.  As  to 
cut  hoops,  1 do  not  remember  their  length. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  They  are  about  six  to  eight  feet  in  length. 

The  Witness.  They  come  in  ordinarily,  as  I understand,  with  holes 
punched  at  one  end  for  rivets,  and  they  are  put  around  the  barrel,  being 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


161 


made  of  the  righf  length  and  the  rivet  put  through  the  hole.  Some  of 
them  have  holes  at  both  ends,  so  as  to  make  them  shorter  or  longer, 
and  all  that  is  needed  is  to  bend  them  around  and  put  rivets  in  them. 
The  department  ruled  in  the  tirst  place  that  this  was  hoop-iron  and 
should  pay  duty  as  such.  The  case  was  tried  three  times  in  New 
York  (one  case,  I think,  or  a series  of  cases)  between  the  same  party 
and  the  government.  In  one  of  them  a verdict  Avas  rendered  for 
the  importer  and  the  verdict  was  set  aside;  in  the  other  the  jury  dis- 
agreed. In  the  third  case  the  jury  found  for  the  importer  that  it 
was  a manufactured  article  subject  to  the  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
duty.  That  was  in  1878.  The  question  did  not  loom  up  so  large  as  it 
has  since  loomed  up.  It  Avas  examined  and  sent  in  the  ordinary  way 
to  the  Attorney-General  to  know  whether  he  acquiesced  in  the  views 
of  the  court  and  jury ; whether  that  verdict  should  be  acquiesced  in 
or  not;  aud  it  came  back  with  his  opinion  that  we  had  better  acquiesce 
in  the  decision  and  call  it  a manufactured  article,  and  that  decision 
was  published.  The  importation  of  this  article  of  hoops  was  very  large. 
The  Standard. Oil  Company  import  a very  large  amount  of  them  but 
under  the  doubt  existing  there  are  not  as  many  imported  as  if  the 
matter  were  clear.  When  that  decision  was  made  they  began  to  order 
an  immense  amount.  As  to  the  cotton-ties,  there  are  30,000  tons  of  iron 
for  cotton  ties  used  in  a year.  It  seems  incredible,  but  it  will  give  jou 
a little  idea  hoAv  large  the  importation  would  be  in  cut  hoops  if  the 
hoops  wTere  all  imported  for  the  oil  companies  and  other  uses.  They 
sent  out  immense  orders,  and  great  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  on 
the  Treasury  Department  by  the  manufacturers,  who  said  that  they 
could  not  compete  with  the  foreign  manufacturers  with  the.  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty,  and  Secretary  Sherman  Avas  induced,  I think,  in 
1880  (I  have  not  the  exact  date),  to  change  the  ruling.  He  remitted 
the  matter  to  the  Attorney-General  to  examine  the  evidence  that  was 
on  tile  in  the  trial  at  New  York,  who  decided  that  he  was  not  satis- 
fied with  the  result  of  that  A^erdict  and  that  it  was  proper  to  reArerse 
that  decision.  Mr.  Sherman  sent  a communication  to  Congress,  in 
which  he  said  that  he  Avas  reconsidering  the  question,  and  that  if  Con- 
gress did  not  legislate  on  the  subject  before  a certain  date,  which  he 
named,  he  should  reverse  the  decision  of  1878  and  declare  that  cut  hoops 
bore  the  duty  of  hoop  iron.  Congress  did  not  legislate  within  the  time 
stated,  and  the  Secretary  reversed  the  decision  and  fixed  the  duty  on 
cut  hoops  as  upon  hoop  iron,  and’we  have  many  suits  now  pending  upon 
the  question. 

But  the  persons  who  imported  under  'the  decision  of  1878,  and  who 
had  made  enormous  importations,  came  at  cnce  to  the  department 
and  to  Congress  and  said,  u Why,  we  Avere  misled  by  this  decision 
of  the  department  and  have  invested  our  money,  and  our  merchan- 
dise is  on  the  way.  We  are  willing  to  pay  the  duty  fixed  by  the  de- 
partment when  Ave  ordered  the  goods,  but  we  are  not  willing  to  pay 
three  times  as  large  an  amount,  and  will  not  do  it.”  Congress  listened 
to  their  complaints  and  passed  an  act  that  all  importations  of  this  char- 
acter made  after  the  decision  of  1878,  and  of  goods  ordered  to  arrive 
before  a certain  date  (I  think  prospective  somewhat),  should  have  their 
merchandise  rated  according  to  the  decision  of  1878,  as  a manufaeure 
of  iron,  at  35  per  cent.,  and  the  refund  should  be  made  to  all  who  had 
overpaid  that  amount  in  adjustment  of  their  importations  of  that  article 
and  we  made  large  refunds. 

I only  state  this  in  detail  to  show  you  how  very  important  a little 
question  of  this  kind  becomes,  and  how,  if  it  is  possible,  you  will  avoid 
II.  Mis.  0 11 


162 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  f.  french. 


(and  undoubtedly  you  will),  as  to  all  these  articles,  any  ambiguity  or 
uncertainty  in  the  future,  and  how  important  it  is  in  general  to  take  a 
course  by  which  we  shall  avoid  litigation,  and  the  necessity  for  special 
legislation  to  relieve  parties  from  decisions  that  are,  under  the  circum- 
stances, onerous  or  unjust. 

At  the  present  time  cut  hoops  come  in  at  the  rate  of  duty  paid  on 
hoop-iron ; but  there  is  an  appeal  in  every  case,  and  suits  are  being 
multiplied  ; and  by  and  by  there  will  be  a trial,  and,  from  tbe  experi- 
ence we  have  had,  we  cannot  feel  any  assurance  whatever  that  the 
present  decision  of  the  department,  that  the  duty  on  hoop-iron  should 
be  imposed  upon  cut  hoops,  will  be  sustained.  We  have  never,  I think, 
got  a verdict  for  the  government  on  that  question.  Some  people  say 
that  the  New  York  juries  favor  the  importer.  But  I do  not  think 
there  is  any  more  danger  from  New  York  juries  than  from  juries  in 
any  other  portion  of  the  country.  They  always  seem  to  think  it  is  easier 
for  the  government  to  bear  the  loss  than  for  the  individual  to  do  so ; 
that  it  is  easier  for  a large  corporation  to  bear  a loss  than  for  an  indi- 
vidual; and  all  of  us  who  have  tried  cases  before  a jury  in  which  a cor- 
poration is  a party,  and  where,  for  instance,  a man  lias  lost  a limb  and 
has  brought  suit  against  them,  always  fear  that  the  jury  will  go  with 
the  individual  rather  than  with  the  corporation. 

I would  now  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  silk 
tariff,  which  is  found  in  Schedule  H,  paragraph  192.  That  article  is  all 
under  paragraph  192  now,  I believe.  I can  give  you  art  illustration  of  the 
nicety  of  the  questions  that  come  up  in  the  classification  there.  In  the 
sixth  line  from  the  bottom  of  the  section  it  reads  as  follows:  “On  all 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  not  otherwise  herein  provided  for,  made 
of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  irre- 
spective of  the  classification  thereof  for  duty  by  or  under  previous  laws, 
or  of  their  commercial  designation,  60  per  cent,  ad  valorem.”  It  would 
not  occur  to  you,  perhaps,  at  the  first  blush,  that  there  was  any  difficulty 
in  finding  out  whether  silk  was  the  component  material  of  chief  value 
or  not,  but  we  have  found  the  utmost  difficulty  in  determining  that 
question.  The  appraisers  and  examiners  who  look  at  the  goods  in  the 
first  place  have  great  difficulty  in  determining  the  actual  proportions 
that  enter  into  it,  and  to  get  an  analysis  where  the  question  runs  close. 
Besides  that,  there  came  this  question : What  do  the  words  u chief  value” 
mean  ? To  use  a political  phrase,  do  they  mean  a majority  or  a plurality  f 
Must  the  article  be  more  than  half  silk,  or  must  silk  be  only  more  than 
either  of  the  other  components,  to  come  under  that  designation'?  That 
question  nobody  could  settle.*  The  Commission  would  bepuzzled  here, 
for  I have  no  doubt  that  any  two  of  the  commissioners  would  be  as  likely 
to  disagree  as  to  agree  upon  this  point.  This  question  was  sent  to  the  * 
Attorney-General,  and  he  gave  his  opinion  (which  is  not  binding  on  any 
court  or  jury)  that  silk  was  the  component  material  of  chief  value  if 
there  was  more  silk  in  it  than  any  other  material;  and  that  we  under- 
stand to  be  the  law  now,  or  rather  that  is  the  rule  of  the  department  on 
that  decision.  It  an  article  is  not  half  silk,  but  has  more  value  of  silk 
than  any  other  component  in  it,  the  silk  is  the  component  material  of 
chief  value. 

But  we  had  another  question  running  as  close  as  this,  and  we  sent  it 
to  the  general  appraisers,  after  puzzling  our  own  heads  over  it.  Our 
own  heads  do  not  give  us  much  information  as  to  what  goods  are  made 
of  by  inspecting  them.  We  have  goods  sent  to  us,  and  we  send  them 
out  to  experts  to  find  out  what  they  are  made  of.  But  this  report  came 
from  the  appraisers.  They  said, u We  have  examined  these  goods,  and  the 
question  is  very  close.”  It  was  upon  the  question  covered  by  the  last 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


163 


proviso  in  section  192,  as  follows : u Provided , That  this  act  shall  not 
apply  to  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise  which  have  as  a component  mate 
rial  thereof  25  per  centum  or  over  in  value  of  cotton,  flax,  wool,  or 
worsted.” 

The  question  was  whether  the  goods  under  examination  had  more  than 
25  per  cent,  in  value  of  cotton  in  them.  They  said  that  depended 
on  what  kind  of  cotton  was  used.  If  it  was  Sea  Island  cotton,  there 
was  more  than  25  per  cent,  of  cotton  in  it;  but  if  it  was  common  cot- 
ton, not  so  much  ; and  they  said,  “ We  cannot  tell  which  kind  of  cotton 
it  is  made  of;  nobody  can  determine  whether  it  is  Sea  Island  cotton 
or  not.” 

I do  not  know  that  you  can  avoid  just  such  questions  as  these,  but  with 
a list  of  these  known  ambiguities  before  you  in  your  final  making  up  of 
a tariff,  you  can  avoid  these  old  questions  at  any  rate,  and  can  prevent 
any  future  litigation  upon  the  same  point. 

Xow  take  the  first  schedule,  which  is  not  a favorite  of  mine,  but  it  is 
the  first  on  the  list,  and  is  as  good  an  illustration  of  complexity  as  there 
is ; I refer  to  Schedule  A,  on  page  G of  the  pamphlet  from  which  I am 
quoting.  This  is  the  very  first  section  of  the  tariff,  and  I think  the 
reading  of  that  section,  or  a little  portion  of  it,  will  illustrate  what  I 
mean  by  complexity  as  well  as  any  explanation  I can  give.  There  are 
people  to  whom  that  schedule  is  just  as  clear  as  the  doctrine  of  election 
and  total  depravity,  or  any  of  those  subjects  that  are  so  well  defined, 
but  it  certainly  is  not  clear  to  the  ordinary  mind.  Schedule  A,  cotton 
and  cotton  goods,  reads  as  follows : 

Sec.  2504.  On  all  manufactures  of  cotton  (except  jeans,  denims,  drillings,  bed-tick- 
ings, giugliaras,  plaids,  cottonades,  pantaloon  stuff,  and  goods  of  like  description) 
not  bleached,  colored,  stained,  painted,  ox  printed,  and  not  exceeding  one  hundred 
threads  to  the  square  inch,  counting  the  warp  and  filling,  and  exceeding  in  weight 
five  ounces  per  square  yard,  five  cents  per  square  yard;  if  bleached,  five  cents  and  a 
half  per  square  yard  ; if  colored,  stained,  painted,  or  printed,  five  cents  and  a half  per 
square  yard,  and,  in  addition  thereto,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

As  1 say,  the  cotton  people  understand  what  that  means,  and  I dare  say 
the  custom  house  officers  understand  it;  but  I do  not  think  the  knowl- 
edge extends  beyond  them.  I do  not  think  any  of  us  ever  will  under- 
stand it ; I do  not  think  it  was  intended  we  should.  There  is  this  diffi- 
culty in  this  whole  cotton  schedule,  that  it  does  not  seem  as  if  it  was 
intended  that  the  ordinary  mind  should  be  able  to  understand  it  so  as 
to- classify  the  goods  without  appeal  to  a higher  authority.  In  the  first 
place,  you  must  know  how  many  threads  there  are  to  the  square  inch. 
Well,  it  is  possible  to  count  the  threads  if  you  have  a powerful  micro- 
scope and  good  eyes,  and  to  count  them  correctly,  and  to  determine 
whether  there  are  200  or  199  threads,  counting  both  ways.  Possibly  that 
could  be  ascertained  by  measuring  an  inch  of  the  cloth  exactly  and  ascer- 
taining how  many  threads  were  contained  within  an  inch.  But  that  is 
bringing  the  question  down  to  a very  fine  point  when  you  get  200  threads 
to  the  square  inch,  and  to  know  whether  you  get  a thread  on  one  or  the 
other  side  of  that  number.  Still  I understand  cotton  goods  are  bought 
and  sold  by  the  count,  and  that  is,  perhaps,  an  easy  way,  or  the  best  way 
for  the  cotton  people  to  determine.  Then  we  have,  in  addition  to  that, 
the  weight  per  yard;  five  ounces  per  square  yard;  and  then  whether 
it  comes  within  the  exception  or  not;  whether  one  of  these  dozen  things 
that  none  of  us  know  much  about,  is  excepted.  Further  than  that,  if 
these  things  are  known  that  have  been  referred  to,  then,  whether  it  can 
be  classed  as  goods  of  like  description,  because  that  is  one  of  the 
elements  which  is  provided  for  in  section  4,  which  says:  “On  cotton 
jeans,  denims,  drillings,  bed-tickings,  ginghams,  plaids,  cottonades, 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


164 

pantaloon  staffs,  and  goods  of  like  description  or  for  similar  use.v  Here 
is  a chance  for  dispute,  because  these  words  are  not  in  the  first  sec- 
tion. We  are  bound  to  presume  that  there  is  intention  in  everything 
that  occurs,  and  that  these  words  were  intended  to  make  some  dis- 
tinction, yet  it  is  pretty  difficult  to  see  why  the  clause  should  be  so 
worded.  On  this  question  we  have  lately  had  a decision.  We  had  so 
much  difficulty  in  knowing  what  “ goods  of  like  description”  or  “for 
similar  use”  were,  that  we  sent  the  question  to  the  general  appraisers. 
The  duty  of  the  general  appraisers  is  to  assist  the  customs  officers  gen- 
erally in  making  their  investigations.  There  are  four  general  appraisers 
in  the  United  States,  and  only  four,  and  they  are  generally  stationed  at 
the  principal  ports.  Their  business  is  to  assist  at  reappraisals  where 
there  is  an  appeal,  if  the  importer  is  not  satisfied  with  the  value  that  is 
put  on  his  importation  by  the  regular  appraisers.  In  that  case  he  has 
the  right  to  appeal  to  a general  appraiser  arid  a merchant  appraiser,  and 
one  of  these  four  appraisers  generally  sits  at  one  of  the  principal  ports, 
and  it  occupies  all  his  time  in  the  city  of  New  York  to  assist  in  these 
reappraisements.  These  four  men  have  good  salaries,  and  they  are 
able  men.  I do  not  know  that  we  could  improve  upon  them  if  we  were 
to  make  new  appointments.  We  asked  them  to  do  something  to  aid  us 
in  regard  to  this  doubt  we  entertained  as  to  whether  certain  descrip- 
tions of  goods  were  “goods  of  like  description”  or  “for  similar  use.” 
They  went  to  work  and  sent  us  down  a few  specimens,  which  I have  here 
in  these  books.  These  are  not  full  lines  of  cottons,  as  the  traders  say,  but 
only  a few  of  the  various  descriptions  of  goods  to  illustrate,  according 
to  the  views  of  the  general  appraisers,  how  these  different  fabrics  should 
be  appraised.  There  are  two  books  of  them,  as  you  will  see  (exhibit- 
ing), and  they  undertook  to  mark  on  each  one  of  these,  in  one  way  or 
another,  the  name  of  the  article,  such  as  denims,  pantaloon  stuffs,  cot- 
tonades,  &c.  They  went  all  through  these  specimens,  marking  them 
by  the  price,  &c.,  and  where  it  did  not  come  under  any  printed  descrip- 
tion they  wrote  the  designation  in  pencil.  They  went  through  all  these 
and  made  as  report  (it  took  them  a great  while  to  do  it),  and  they-sent 
in  their  report.  The  principle  they  fixed  upon  in  determining  this 
question,  and  deciding  whether  these  articles  came  within  the  excep- 
tions or  not,  was  that  if  the  goods  were  twilled,  or  if  they  were  made 
in  part  of  threads,  dyed  in  the  thread,  colored  before  weaving,  that 
brought  them  within  the  exception.  That  was  pretty  intelligible.  They 
could  find  out,  probably,  whether  the  goods  were  twilled  or  whether  the 
thread  was  colored  before  weaving.  But,  unfortunately,  about  the  time 
we  received  these  books  and  adopted  their  advice  and  published  it, 
a case  was  tried  in  New  York  before  Judge  Shipman,  and  he  instructed 
the  jury  that  the  question  was  not  whether  the  goods  were  twilled  or 
whether  they  were  manufactured  with  thread  colored  before  weaving, 
but  whether  one  class  of  goods  was  for  similar  use,  that  is  to  say, 
whether  one  could  be  substituted  for  the  other,  irrespective  of  the  mode 
of  weaving,  whether  plain  or  twilled,  or  whether  the  thread  was  colored 
before  weaving.  That  entirely  upset  the  decision  of  the  department, 
and  those  books  will  have  to  be  made  again  entirely  upon  a new  basis. 
When  we  have  done  that  we  shall  go  to  the  court  and  jury  again  upon 
any  importation  where  the  importer  is  not  satisfied  with  the  classifica- 
tion, to  satisfy  the  jury  whether  the  goods  come  within  the  exception, 
whether  they  are  for  similar  use,  or  are  denims,  tickings,  jeans,  or 
whatever  they  may  be. 

So  that  you  see  wherever  , you  strike  the  tariff  you  find  from  these 
refinements,  which  are  wise  if  they  could  be  understood,  that  difficulties 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


165 


arise  with  which  the  custom-house  officers  and  the  Treasury  Department 
cannot  successfully  struggle.  We  cannot  tell  what  the  facts  are.  We 
cannot  execute  the  law  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  importer  or  the  manu- 
facturers, who,  of  course,  are  always  on  the  side  of  protection,  and  want 
a higher  duty,  while  the  importers  want  the  lower  duty,  and  the  depart- 
ment does  not  care  which  prevails  if  it  can  find  out  what  the  duty  ought 
to  be.  We  shall  always  have  controversies  so  long  as  ambiguities  of 
this  kind  exist  in  the  tariff. 

You  must  not  think  I have  exhausted  the  subject  of  the  difficulties 
under  all  these  sections  that  intervene,  but/ 1 will  now  read  one  portion 
of  section  229.  I do  not  know  how  long  you  will  care  to  listen  to  this 
kind  of  talk.  I have  already  occupied  ■ good  deal  of  time,  and  have 
not  yet  got  through  wTith  one  page  of  my  notes.  But  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  is  profitable  to  spend  some  time  in  considering  these  points  in 
advance  of  any  attempt  to  formulate  the  tariff. 

Take  section  229,  on  the  wool  tariff,  which  says,  u all  wools,  hair  of 
the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  like  animals,”  &c.  Your  president  can  tell 
you  in  a moment  what  sort  of  an  animal  is  like  a goat ; but  many  people 
cannot.  *He  has  written  a learned  address  on  subjects  kindred  to  that, 
and  knows  all  about  it,  and  if  we  had  his  assistance  we  should  have  no 
difficulty  in  this  classification. 

The  President.  It  would  require  the  writing  of  a whole  book  to 
tell  it. 

The  Witness.  Well,  I have  never  read  any  book  through  that  would 
tell  me  what  a like  animal  to  an  alpaca  or  a goat  is.  But  a curious  ques- 
tion came  up  recently,  within  a week  or  two,  on  this  point.  Let  me  call 
your  attention  to  the  proviso  in  paragraph  192,  which  we  have  been  look- 
ing at.  It  says : u Provided,  That  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  goods, 
wares,  or  merchandise  which  have  as  a component  material  thereof  25 
per  centum  or  over  in  value  of  cotton,  flax,  wool,  or  worsted.” 

Now,  here  we  had  a fabric  that  had  not  any  wool  in  it,  but  it  had  the 
hair  of  the  goat  in  it,  and  the  question  was  whether,  if  the  fabric  be 
composed  of  the  hair  of  the  alpaca  or  the  goat,  it  comes  within  the  pro- 
viso, or,  m other  words,  whether  we  are  to  construe  this  hair  as  wool  as 
classified  under  section  229.  If  the  fabric  was  all  made  from  the  goat, 
or  of  wool,  it  would  be  easily  classified,  and  probably  if  it  had  been 
thought  of,  in  writing  that  proviso  in  section  192,  hair  would  have  been 
included  in  the  proviso.  But  this  was  not  done,  and  the  question  has 
been  presented  at  one  of  the  custom-houses  how  that  class  of  goods 
should  be  classified. 

The  President.  The  old  Peruvians  called  the  alpaca  Peruvian  sheep, 
and  in  that  view  their  product  would  be  wool. 

The  Witness.  But  it  is  not  called  so  in  the  tariff;  it  is  called  hair  of 
the  alpaca,  and  unless  we  can  call  it  wool,  it  cannot  come  under  that 
provision.  I do  not  think  any  man  would  be  prepared  to  vote  hastily 
on  a question  like  that,  and  it  is  merely  an  illustration  that  I happened 
to  think  of. 

I have  already  intimated  that  there  are  experts  at  the  principal  cus- 
tom-houses who  are  capable  of  going  as  much  into  detail  as  these  sched- 
ules go  as  to  cotton  or  wool.  At  New  York,  where  we  collect  two-thirds 
of  all  the  duties  that  are  collected  in  the  United  States,  we  have  a large 
number  of  officers — about  1,200  officers — who  are  thoroughly  organized. 
In  the  appraiser’s  office  there  are  divisions,  so  that  one  department  has 
charge  of  the  woolen  goods,  another  of  silk  goods,  another  of  cutlery, 
and  so  on,  and  we  have  experts  who  can  determine  as  well  as  anybody 
in  the  country  as  to  these  matters.  This  is  also  the  case  in  Boston, 


166 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  f.  french. 


though  there  is  not  so  much  business,  of  course,  for  them  as  in  New 
York.  In  Philadelphia  also,  and  Baltimore,  and  some  of  the  larger 
ports  we  are  able  to  have  expert  officers.  An  importation  may  be  made 
into  a port  where  the  collector  has  no  such  assistants;  where  he  has  to 
act  as  collector,  appraiser,  surveyor,  and  everything  else;  and  under 
what  we  call  the  immediate  importation  act,  goods  that  come  in,  say  to 
New  York,  are  forwarded  without  appraisal  to  the  interior  ports  in  the 
West,  because  everybody  naturally  wants  his  particular  city  made  a 
port  of  entry.  So  that  there  is  occasion  for  all  this  classification  and 
knowledge  of  value  at  these  ports.  But  at  these  ports  we  cannot  have 
any  such  experts,  for  there  is  not  business  enough  to  justify  it.  Yet  all 
these  questions  are  as  likely  to  come  up  there  as  at  the  city  of  New 
York,  though  not  in  as  large  numbers,  but  we  are  liable  to  have  just 
such  cases  for  construction,  and,  of  course,  are  liable  to  errors  con- 
stantly, for  the  less  skill  there  is  the  more  errors  will  be  likely  to  occur. 

I have  already  explained  to  you  how  these  errors  are  corrected,  or 
how  it  is  attempted  to  correct  them,  and  if  it  is  within  your  jurisdiction, 
when  you  report  to  Congress  I hope  you  will  consider  whether  some- 
thing better  cannot  be  done  with  appeals  from  the  collectors  of  the 
ports  than  to  send  them  to  the  Treasury  Department  for  adjudication. 
We  have  no  court  there;  we  have  no  means  of  examining  witnesses, 
unless  they  choose  to  come,  and  we  never  swear  witnesses.  We  get 
ex  parte  affidavits  of  all  kinds,  and  everybody  knows  you  can  prove 
anything  by  ex  parte  affidavits,  and  really  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
is  in  no  position  to  determine  these  questions  correctly.  A great  many 
of  these  questions  come  to  me,  and  I have  no  special  knowledge  of 
the  character  of  the  goods  unless  occasionally,  as  was  the  case  with 
hoop-iron  and  cotton-ties,  when  I have  had  my  room  filled  with  par- 
ties interested  in  having  a hearing;  and  where  there  has  been  so 
much  discussion  I manage  to  get  a pretty  general  knowledge  of  the 
subject.  But  in  general  I can  have  no  special  knowledge  of  steel  or 
cotton  goods,  and  nobody  in  the  department  can.  It  is  much  better  to 
have  some  tribunal  established  where  these  appeals  can  go  than  to.have 
them  all  sent  to  the  Treasury  Department. 

The  President.  I believe  you  submitted  a series  of  interrogatories 
to  experts  in  different  parts  of  the  country  asking  their  opinion  as  to 
what  sort  of  a tribunal  should  be  established  for  the  determination  of 
questions  of  this  kind.  Have  you  received  any  replies  to  those  inquiries  ? 

The  Witness.  I should  be  glad  to  state  how  that  matter  arose.  Dur- 
ing Mr.  Sherman’s  administration,  continuing  four  years.  I was  in  the 
department  all  the  time,  having  come  into  it  under  Mr.  Morrill’s  Secre- 
taryship. I was  impressed  with  the  vast  importance  of  putting  an  end 
to  these  controversies.  I think,  during  the  four  years  in  which  Mr. 
Sherman  was  Secretary,  eighteen  thousand  appeals  from  the  customs 
officers  to  determine  eighteen  thousand  cases  in  which  the  importers 
were  dissatisfied  with  the  classification  came  up  to  the  customs  di- 
vision for  ns  to  determine  in  one  way  or  another.  You  can,  by  com- 
puting, ascertain  how  many  cases  that  would  be  every  month,  every 
week,  and  every  day;  and  it  was  utterly  impossible  for  us  to  determine 
them  all  satisfactorily.  The  customs  division  is  under  the  charge  of  Mr. 
James,  who  is  a very  competent  officer,  and  who  has  a good  corps  of 
clerks  and  assistants,  He  and  I constitute  a board  for  hearing 
these  questions,  and  his  office  is  divided  in  such  a way  that  he  has 
some  experts  iii  regard  to  some  of  these  articles.  But,  substan- 
tially, all  these  controversies  come  to  my  table,  and  I feel  the  utter 
impossibility  of  determining  satisfactorily  to  myself  such  a vast  amount 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


167 


of  questions.  Of  course  the  determination  of  some  of  them  in  one  case 
covers  a large  number  of  cases  of  a like  character.  Sometimes  a de- 
cision on  a cotton-goods  case  will  determine  the  question  in  fifty  appeals, 
and  so  on.  But  still  there  are  an  immense  number  of  different  questions 
coming  up  there  constantly  of  a very  technical  character. 

The  Commission  understand  already  that  the  Secretary  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  appraisal  of  goods,  that  is,  with  the  valuation  of  goods 
after  it  is  determined  under  what  provision  they  are  to  be  classified.  I 
have  already  said  that  errors  of  classification  come  up  on  appeal  to  the 
Secretary,  and  then  suit  is  brought,  if  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  is 
unsatisfactory  to  the  importer.  But  the  value  of  the  goods,  as  to  what 
they  are  worth,  &c.,  is  a matter  determined  by  the  appraiser’s  office. 
He  fixes  their  value.  If  that  is  satisfactory  to  the  collector  and  the 
importer,  that  is  the  end  of  it;  if  it  is  not,  the  collector  may  order  a 
reappraisal  if  he  thinks  proper,  or  the  importer,  if  he  is  dissatisfied, 
may  claim  a reappraisal,  and  he  appeals  to  what  are  called  merchant 
appraisers.  A merchant  appraiser  is  a man  supposed  to  be  skilled  in 
the  particular  article  in  question.  He  is  appointed  by  the  collector, 
and  one  of  the  four  general  appraisers  sits  with  him  in  the  principal 
ports  and  decides  the  value  of  goods  on  appeal,  and  their  decision  is 
conclusive.  If  these  two  men  agree,  their  decision  is  final  and  the  ques- 
tion cannot  be  carried  any  further.  There  is  no  appeal  to  the  Secretary 
or  to  the  courts;  that  is  the  end  of  it.  If  these  two  appraisers  disa- 
gree, they  report  their  disagreement  to  the  collector,  and  be  decides 
between  them,  and  his  decision  is  final. 


Long  Branch,  N.  J., 
Thursday , July  27,  1882. 

My  remarks  yesterday  were  addressed  to  the  importance  of  simplicity 
and  the  avoiding  of  complexity  in  the  arrangement  of  the  tariff.  With 
your  permission  I will  pursue  the  subject  a little  further.  I will  state, 
in  the  first  place,  that  everybody  suffers  from  these  controversies  which 
arise  as  to  customs  duties.  The  importer  suffers  by  being  delayed  in 
getting  what  we  call  justice;  sometimes  for  three  or  four  years  after  it 
can  be  of  any  benefit  to  him.  He  ‘suffers  by  being  obliged  to  sell  his 
goods  before  he  knows  how  much  duty  he  has  to  pay  on  them.  The 
consumer  suffers  because  he  has  to  pay  on  the  assumption  that  the 
goods  pay  the  largest  duty  in  question,  and  the  manufacturer  suffers  in 
various  wavs;  so  that  it  is  desirable  that  there  should  be  an  end  of 
controversy  if  it  is  possible. 

Your  president  asked  me  yesterday  what  sort  of  a tribunal  I would 
propose  to  adjust  these  controversies  and  bring  them  to  a speedy  ter- 
mination. I would  like  to  postpone  answering  that  question  until  I 
have  time  to  consider  it  a little  further.  I have  not  yet  considered  the 
matter  as  much  as  seems  to  me  necessary,  and  the  papers  which  have 
been  received  relating  to  the  subject  are  numerous  and  extensive,  and 
are  filed  away  in  Washington.  But  the  Commission  will  see,  witn- 
out  further  statements  from  me,  that  this  subject  is  a very  important 
one,  and  that  these  controversies  should  be  settled  by  some  tribunal, 
so  that  a final  decision  can  be  speedily  reached.  This  is  a matter  which 
I hope  the  Commission  will  carefully  consider  and  report  upon;  but 
as  I have  said,  I would  like  to  pass  over  that  subject  for  the  present 
and  proceed  to  suggest  in  what  manner  you  may  avoid  complexity  and 


168 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


controversy  when  you  come  to  formulate  a tariff.  I would  suggest,  in 
the  first  place,  as  a general  proposition,  the  avoidance  of  compound* 
duties.  I know  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  that  in  all  cases.  The  wool 
tariff  is  formed  throughout  with  as  much  care  and  fairness  as  possible; 
but  still  it  would  be  better  in  every  case  where  practicable  to  avoid 
compound  duties.  Either  make  them  all  ad  valorem  or  all  specific,  be- 
cause there  is  difficulty  on  both  points  and  you  double  the  difficulty  by 
having  a double  standard. 

Take  Schedule  E.  I refer  to  that  rather  at  random  than  otherwise. 
I will  call  your  attention  particularly  to  section  73,  in  regard  to  wire, 
which  reads  as  follows : u Iron  wire,  bright,  coppered,  or  tinned,  drawn 
and  finished,  not  more  than  one  fourth  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  not  less 
than  number  sixteen  wire  gauge,  $2  per  one  hundred  pounds,  and  in  ad- 
dition thereto  15  ppr  centum  ad  valorem  ; over  number  sixteen  and  not 
over  number  twenty-five  wire  gauge,  $3.50  per  one  hundred  pounds,  and 
in  addition  thereto  15  per  centum  ad  valorem  ; over  number  16-  and  not 
over  number  twenty-five  wire  gauge,  $3.50  per  one  hundred  pounds, 
and  in  addition  thereto  15  per  centum  ad  valorem;  over  or  finer  than 
number  twenty-five  wire  gauge,  $4  per  one  hundred  pounds,  and  in  ad- 
dition thereto  15  per  centum  ad  valorem.” 

It  seems  to  me  possible,  with  regard  to  an  article  like  that,  the  manu- 
facture of  it  having  existed  long  enough,  that  there  might  be  such  a set- 
tled value  that  the  duty  would  be  wholly  specific  or  ad  valorem. 
Which  rate  of  duty  would  be  best  you  will  have  to  consider.  But  it 
seems  to  me  that  in  the  majority  of  instances  you  could  decide  upon  and 
fix  a rate  of  duty  either  specific  or  ad  valorem  w hich  would  answer  the 
same  puipose  and  avoid  the  chances  of  error.  Under  this  particular 
section  we  have  first  the  question  whether  it  is  iron  wire  or  steel  wire. 
In  the  second  place,  is  it  less  than  sixteen  wire  gauge  ? That  is  another 
complexity.  I suppose  there  ik  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  that  by  a 
gauge.  In  the  next  place,  what  is  its  value?  There  comes  in  the  ad 
valorem  question,  and  it  seems  to  me  you  might  avoid  some  of  these 
complexities  by  a little  care  and  by  careful  consultation  in  all  cases 
with  the  manufacturers  and  dealers  in  these  articles.  It  is  not  expected 
that  a person  in  my  position  or  in  your  position  would  be  able  to  take 
up  any  one  of  these  schedules  and  arrange  them  without  careful  consul- 
tation with  experts. 

The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  the  ariicleof  cotton,  paragraphs  one 
to  six,  which  I went  over  yesterday.  These  are  some  of  the  questions 
which  arise  under  those  paragraphs.  In  the  first  place,  is  it  cotton  ? 
There  we  have  a chance  for  controversy  not  very  wide.  Again,  is  it 
bleached?  We  have  had  a controversy  about  that  matter,  Avliether 
or  not  it  wras  bleached ; if  not  bleached  after  the  cloth  was  woven, 
Avas  it  made  of  bleached  thread?  Then  again,  is  it  colored  or  stained? 
That  is  another  element  in  the  distinctions  of  the  cotton  tariff.  Then, 
what  is  its  value  in  the  foreign  market  from  whence  it  Ava$  imported 
and  where  it  was  produced?  I Avill  at  another  tijne  consider  whether 
there  is  any  need  of  going  across  the  ocean  to  ascertain  what  is  the 
A^alue  of  the  article.  We  ought  to  be  able  to  ascertain  what  it  is  valued 
at  here.  I will,  perhaps,  refer  to  these  schedules  again  with  a AieAv  of 
ascertaining  how  they  might  be  amended  in  order  to  simplify  them. 

My  second  suggestion  is,  that  all  ambiguities  in  language  should  be 
avoided,  and  all  loose  terms  in  definition.  We  had  yesterday  a refer- 
ence to  some  of  these  terms,  such  as  u goods  of  like  description,”  or 
u goods  for  similar  use.”  Those  are  perfect  traps  in  Avhich  to  catch  law- 
suits. Every  time  there  will  be  a dispute  as  to  Avhat  goods  are  goods 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF 


169 


of  like  description.  What  does  it  mean,  similarity  of  use  similarity  of 
structure  in  the  weaving,  similarity  of  materials,  or  what  does  it  mean? 
That  ambiguity  runs  through  the  whole  of  the  cotton  tariff.  I do  not 
take  Schedule  A for  an  illustration,  because  it  is  more  ambiguous  than 
any  of  the  other  schedules.  I told  you  yesterday  how  the  general  ap- 
praisers and  the  courts  had  differed  as  to  the  definition  of  the  terms 
“goods  of  like  description,”  or  u goods  for  similar  use.” 

Ambiguity  often  arises  by  including  an  article  under  two  different 
classes,  of  course  unintentionally,  but  by  making  them  answer  both 
descriptions.  I will  give  you  an  illustration  of  that.  Take  section  68, 
of  the  metal  tariff*,  which  says,  “bar  iron,  rolled  or  hammered,”  and 
going  on  to  describe  forty  different  kinds  of  iron.  Most  of  the  ordi- 
nary bar  iron  comes  under  this  section  68,  but  when  you  turn  to  section 
70,  right  beyond,  yon  find  a provision  made  for  “iron  bars  for  railroads 
or  inclined  planes,  70  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds.”  That  is  a less 
rate  of  duty  than  any  on  the  bar  iron.  We  have  had  just  such  a case 
as  this.  Bars  of  iron  are  imported  to  be  used  as  a tramway  on  an 
inclined  plane  into  some  narrow  mine,  and  the  importers  claim,  and 
we  think  rightly,  that  although  these  bars  are  exactly  like  bar  iron, 
and  had  they  been  for  another  use  would  have  been  assessed  as  bar 
iron,  they  were  bought,  and  intended  for  bona  fide  use  on  an  inclined 
plane  for  a railroad,  or  tramway,  and  should  pay  duty  as  iron  bars 
for  railroads.  Now  such  ambiguities  as  that  should  not  exist.  It 
should  not  depend  on  the  evidence  brought  to  the  customs  officers 
or  the  Treasury  Department  as  to  the  use  actually  intended  to 
be  made  of  an  article.  That  is  not  the  criterion  by  which  we  assess 
duties.  Duties  are  assessed  upon  the  article  as  it  is  when  it  comes  into 
port.  The  duty  is  chargeable  upon  the  article  when  it  is  imported,  and 
it  cannot  be  affected  by  the  use  that  is  made  of  it  afterwards.  A man 
may  import  iron  for  a railway  in  good  faith,  and  if  afterwards  by  some 
accident  he  has  not  occasion  to  use  it  for  the  use  he  originally  intended, 
he  may  make  use  of  it  as  he  would  of  ordinary  bar  iron — iron  in  bars — 
and  he  is  not  liable  to  be  reassessed.  The  fact  that  a man  imports 
an  article,  professing  it  is  to  be  used  for  one  thing  and  then  uses  it 
for  another  purpose,  might  be  evidence  of  fraudulent  intent  to  evade 
the  duty.  But  if  he  actually  brings  the  article  in  in  good  faith,  the 
question  of  how  he  uses  it  afterwards  does  not  enter  into  the  matter 
except  as  tending  to  show  fraud.  So  that  there  should  be  no  such  dis- 
tinction. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  do  not 
want  it  left  the  to  customs  officers  to  determine  the  question  of  what  ulti- 
mate use  is  to  be  made  of  the  article  imported.  But  the  law  itself  recog- 
nizes the  question  of  ultimate  use.  For  instance,  take  the  article  of  pocket 
cutlery.  It  is  intended  that  cutlery  of  that  kind  is  for  pocket  use.  The 
same  with  regard  to  ladies’  and  children’s  dress  goods.  These  are  well- 
known  commercial  terms,  adopted  on  account  of  the  use  the  articles  are  in- 
tended for.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  to  the  Commission  that  they  shall 
not  use  commercial  or  well-known  terms  simply  because  the  use  deter- 
mines what  the  article  really  is,  do  you? 

The  Witness.  No,  I do  not.  But  the  illustration  I gave  you  makes 
my  meaning  clear,  I think.  Here  is  an  article  which  is  not  limited  in 
its  use  by  the  terms  of  the  tariff.  Perhaps  it  is  iron  bars  for  railroads 
or  inclined  planes.  I should  interpret  that,  as  iron  bars  suitable 
for  that  purpose.  I should  not  say  that  if  they  were  exactly  alike 


170 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


the  decision  ought  to  depend  upon  evidence  as  to  how  they  are  to 
be  used,  because  I say  that  if  an  article  is  imported  in  good  faith  for 
that  use,  and  is  best  calculated  for  that  use,  it  will  be  more  profit- 
able for  that  use  than  any  other.  If  a man  should  by  any  accident 
or  change  in  his  business  have  occasion  to  use  these  things  for  another 
purpose,  I do  not  think  the  department  could  follow  them  and  reassess 
them  on  account  of  that  use.  Yet,  as  a matter  of  description,  as  you 
say,  an  article  intended  for  children’s  wear  is  supposed  to  be  put  to  that 
ultimate  use.  It  is  not  a question  of  the  intention  of  the  man  who  im- 
ports it,  only  the  manifest  intention  of  the  manufacturer.  The  ques- 
tion is,  is  it  an  article  manufactured  for  that  purpose?  That  gives  it 
its  character.  It  is  not  a question  of  whether  the  particular  man  who 
imports  it  imports  it  for  one  use  or  another.  He  may  throw  it  into  the 
fire  Avhen  he  gets  it,  or  he  may  make  a better  use  of  it  than  perhaps 
was  intended.  Yet  the  description  applies  in  all  these  cases. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Then,  in  that  case,  suppose  a car-builder  should  import  bars  of  iron 
which  they  use  for  the  side  bars  of  a car,  say  20  in  every  car;  they 
could  be  declared  suitable  for  inclined  planes  on  railroads.  If  they 
came  in  as  car  bars,  they  would  come  in  at  a duty  of  one  and  a quarter 
cents  a pound,  but  under  the  construction  you  put  upon  it,  if  the  man 
intended  to  bring  them  in  for  railroad  bars  and  then  used  them  for 
car  bars,  he  would  be  having  the  advantage  of  his  more  honest  competi- 
tor to  the  extent  of  half  a cent  a pound. — A.  You  are  implying  by  your 
question  that  the  man  is  committing  fraud  in  doing  it;  that  he  has 
a fraudulent  intention.  I said,  as  a condition  of  my  first  statement,  that 
the  subsequent  use  for  a different  purpose  from  that  professed  for  the 
importation,  would  be  evidence  tending  to  show  that  he  had  a fraudu- 
lent intention  in  his  mind  at  the  outset.  How  far  that  would  affect  the 
question  since  the  decision  of  the  court  in  the  sugar  cases,  is  something 
I canuot  tell. 

Q.  But  I understand  you  to  say  if  they  could  find  a better  use  for  it 
subsequently,  they  would  have  a right  to  so  use  it,  and  the  government 
could  not  follow  them? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I think  that  is  wrong. 

The  Witness.  It  may  be  wrong,  but  it  serves  to  illustrate  the  subject 
on  which  I am  speaking,  viz,  that  such  ambiguities  in  the  law  should 
be  avoided. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  From  1860  to  1870,  iron  rails  were  used  for 
railroad  purposes.  Then  they  commenced  to  use  steel  rails  iu  England 
and  threw  out  iron  rails,  and  these  iron  rails  were*  shipped  over  here 
and  brought  in  at  $8  a ton.  That  is,  they  got  them  in  as  old  iron  at  $8, 
although  the  rate  of  duty  is  $16  on  rails. 

The  Witness.  The  department  has  had  all  these  questions  before  it, 
and  I only  refer  to  them  to  illustrate  the  difficulties  which  arise  in  set- 
tling questions  of  this  kind  satisfactorily  either  to  ourselves  or  to  any- 
body else.  In  regard  to  this  article  of  scrap-iron,  section  114  says : 
“Wrought  scrap  iron  of  every  description,  $8  per  ton;  but  nothing  else 
shall  be  deemed  scrap-iron  except  waste  or  refuse  iron  that  has  been  in 
actual  use  and  is  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured.” 

Under  that  provision,  the  department  has  held,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
almost  everybody,  that  old  rails  taken  out  abroad  and  brought  here, which 
are  not  fit  to  be  laid  and  used  in  our  railways  (some  of  them  double-headed 
rails  which  could  not  be  used  on  any  American  railroad),  although  they 
were  not  wholly  worn  out,  could  be  brought  in  as  scrap-iron  intended  to 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


171 


be  remelted,  and  might  come  in  at  the  rate  of  duty  on  scrap-iron,  although 
they  were  good  enough  to  have  been  used  for  a long  time  in  England ; but 
we  have  held  that  in  a cargo,  a large  invoice  of  these  old  rails,  even  if 
there  were  among  them  koine  rails  that  could  be  selected  and  put  into 
use  on  a short  railroad,  or  used  in  repairs,  the  general  invoice  should 
be  regarded  as  scrap  iron  intended  to  be  remelted,  and  the  fact  that  a 
tew  of  the  rails  were  in  a good  condition  did  not  change  the  general 
character  of  the  invoice.  This  is  as  far  as  we  have  gone  in  that  direc- 
tion. But  that  clause  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  execute.  We  had  just 
the  case  that  has  been  propounded  to  me,  where  there  was  an  importa- 
tion of  a larg6  quantity  of  old  rails  from  Canada.  They  were  taken 
up,  and  intended  to  be  used  as  scrap  iron,  but  they  were  brought  into 
this  country,  and  one  invoice  of  them  was  sent  down  to  be  laid  for  a 
short  railway,  and  a special  agent  found  it  out  and  reported  the  fact. 
My  recollection  is  that  the  rails  came  in  at  different  times,  and  one  lot 
of  them  was  actually  laid  down  or  strewed  along  the  road  for  the  pur- 
pose of  building  a railroad,  and  it  was  said  that  that  wras  a fraud,  and 
they  were  seized,  and  the  question  came  up  before  the  department,  and 
we  did  the  best  we  could  in  regard  to  the  matter.  We  looked  into  the 
subject,  and  we  found  that  they  were  old  rails,  and  none  of  them  fit  to 
be  put  on  what  would  be  called  a first-class  railway,  but  some  were  fit  to 
be  used  for  a temporary  purpose,  for  a short  line  of  railway,*  and  we 
compromised  the  matter  by  allowing  them  to  pay  on  one  invoice  (I  think 
there  were  three  invoices  altogether)  the  duty  on  rails,  and  on  the  other 
two  invoices  we  allowed  them  to  pay  the  duty  on  scrap-iron.  We  did  this 
because  we  thought  it  was  the  best  way  we  could  get  out  of  the  diffi- 
culty. Nobody  pretended  that  there  was  any  fraud  intended  by  it,  or 
that  there  was  any  intention  of  using  the  rails  as  rails  when  they  were 
brought  in  at  the  price  of  scrap-iron.  But  when  they  came  to  get  them 
in,  they  found  them  better  than  they  expected,  and  they  used  a portion 
of  them  in  the  way  I have  indicated,  and  to  avoid  any  controversy  we 
made  the  compromise  as  stated.  That  only  illustrates  the  difficulty  of 
executing  laws  which  have  in  them  that  sort  of  ambiguity. 

I would  call  your  attention,  as  a third  suggestion,  to  the  importance 
of  avoiding  impracticable  distinctions.  Take  the  article  of  nickel  re- 
ferred to  in  paragraph  138,  and  which  is  assessable  at  30  cents  a pound. 
By  paragraph  130,  nickel  alloyed  with  copper  is  assessed  at  20  cents  a 
pound.  The  Commission  has  already  heard  Mr.  Wharton  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  he  is  engaged  in  that  manufacture  and  understands  more  about 
it  than  anybody  else  in  this  country,  and  I have  conversed  with  him 
fully  on  all  these  topics.  The  importation  of  nickel  alloy  began  with 
about  one-half  copper  and  one-half  nickel,  though  1 do  not  understand 
that  nickel  is  found  combined  originally  with  copper.  But  at  any  rate 
there  seemed  to  have  been  some  article  called  an  alloy  of  copper  with 
nickel,  and  it  was  a recognized  article.  Afterwards  we  had  an  impor- 
tation of  an  article  containing  95  per  cent,  of  nickel  and  5 per  cent,  of 
copper.  That  seemed  to  be  a pretty  severe  test  of  the  law,  and  we  had 
it  analyzed,  and  there  was  no  doubt  of  the  proportions  of  the  alloy. 
There  was  no  doubt,  either,  that  that  was  an  intentional  combination, 
made  with  reference  to  the  tariff.  That  question  came  up  about  the 
time  that  Secretary  Windom  came  into  office,  although  I think  it  had 
been  discussed  before  Mr.  Sherman.  I went  through  the  wjiole  matter 
as  carefully  as  1 could,  but  preferred  to  take  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary 
on  it,  and  laid  the  papers  all  before  him.  The  Secretary  did  not  decide 
the  matter  during  his  term  of  office,  and  when  Mr.  Folger  came  in  as 
Secretary  the  question  still  remained  there.  I made  a short  brief,  after 


172 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


we  bad  obtained  the  decision  on  the  sugar  question,  which  seemed  to 
me  to  have  some  bearing  upon  it.  Before  that,  I had  the  impression 
that  it  was  a fraudulent  evasion  of  the  law,  and  that  the  article  ought 
to  be  assessed  as  pure  nickel  at  30  cents  a pound.  When  men  deliber- 
ately took  nickel  that  was  pure  and  put  5 per  cent,  of  copper  with  it, 
to  make  an  alloy  of  nickel  lor  the  purpose  of  getting  it  in  here  at  the 
lower  rate  of  duty  which  our  laws  authorized,  I thought  that  was  a 
fraud  and  we  should  assess  it  as  pure  nickel.  But  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  decided  in  the  sugar  cases  that  a man  might  color 
pure  sugar  with  black  molasses  in  a vacuum  pan  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
ducing the  color  below  its  normal  color,  and  that  such  sugar  might  be 
imported  in  the  United  States  at  a lower  rate  of  duty.  Those  facts  were 
admitted;  that  the  sugar  was  of  the  highest  grade  and  had  been  colored 
in  that  way  down  to  the  lowest  grade,  so  as  to  entitle  it  to  be  admitted 
at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty.  But  that  was  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  I made  a suggestion  to  the  Secretary  on 
this  nickel  question,  that  if  that  was  the  law  then  the  nickel  men  un- 
doubtedly had  the  right  to  take  the  nickel,  melt  it  up,  and  put  5 per 
cent  of  copper  with  it,  and  bring  it  in  here  and  pay  duty  on  it  as  an 
alloy  of  nickel  with  copper.  And  I do  not  know  how  we  can  escape 
that  conclusion.  I do  not  know  how  we  can  escape  the  application  of 
that  decision  to  a great  many  cases  where  we  were  inclined  to  say  that 
the  thing  was  a palpable  fraud  on  the  revenue,  and  should  not  be  coun- 
tenanced by  the  courts  or  anybody  else. 

You  probably  have  heard  of  the  case  that  arose,  I think,  iii  Boston, 
where  a party  imported  a large  invoice  of  lead,  but  brought  it  in  under 
the  form  of  statuary — it  bearing  a less  rate  of  duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  occurred  in  New  York,  I believe. 

The  Witness.  Perhaps  so.  At  any  rate  a ship  load  of  pig-lead  was  , 
imported  in  the  shape  of  statues  of  General  Washington,  Dr.  Franklin, 
and  other  honest  and  worthy  individuals,  and  it  was  entered  as  statuary. 
Well,  everybody  who  heard  that  I think  was  amazed  that  such  a fraud, 
or  what  seemed  to  be  such  a fraud,  could  be  recognized  as  an  honest 
transaction.  I never  have  met  anybody  who  did  not  at  once  say  that 
it  was  such  a palpable  fraud  that  any  court,  or  any  officer  of  customs 
must  recognize  it  as  such.  Yet,  I do  not  see  why,  under  the  decision 
that  has  been  made  with  regard  to  sugar,  it  was  not  a perfectly  legitimate 
thing  for  the  parties  importing  it  to  do ; and  if  they  had  the  right  to  color 
sugar,  to  bring  it  in  at  a lower  rate  of  duty,  where  does  it  differ  from 
the  case  cited  f As  the  counsel  said  in  the  course  of  his  argument  in 
the  sugar  cases,  u Have  not  the  importers  the  right  to  adapt  their  man- 
ufacture to  the  American  tariff  ?”  The  statute  says  that  sugar  of  a cer- 
tain color  shall  come  in  at  a specified  duty;  and  they  claim  they  had  a 
right  to  color  it,  and  bring  in  a high  grade  of  sugar  at  the  rate  imposed 
upon  the  lower  grade  of  sugar  through  the  process  ot  coloring. 

As  I remarked,  in  regard  to  the  article  of  nickel,  the  tariff'  should  not 
be  left  in  the  condition  of  uncertainty  that  now  exists  in  regard  to  this 
article.  The  Commission  might  prepare  a tariff  placing  nickel  and  nickel* 
alloy  at  the  rate  of  25  or  30  cents  a pound,  and  thus  avoid  any  contro- 
versy of  that  kind. 

It  was  suggested  to  me,  and  1 suggested  it  to  the  Commission  yester- 
day, that  there  was  some  revision  necessary  of  paragraphs  Nos.  08,  70, 
and  80,  relating  to  the  duty  on  iron,  which  put  band,  hoop,  and  scroll 
iron  at  a different  tfkte  of  duty  from  bar  iron,  so  that  we  have  cases 
where  it  is  very  difficult  to  determine  whether  an  article  was  band  iron, 
or  should  come  in  under  the  other  designations.  We  have  had  great 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


173 


difficulty  in  determining  whether  an  article  of  a certain  description  came 
in  under  paragraph  68  as  bar  iron,  or  whether  it  was  band  iron,  as  re 
ferred  to  in  paragraph  80,  or  whether  it  was  rolled  or  hammered  iron. 
One  way  to  avoid  any  difficulty  of  that  sort,  is  to  put  the  same  rate  of 
duty  on  the  whole  class  of  articles,  and  fix  it  at  1J,  If , or  1J  cents  a 
pound.  1 do  not  hnow  but  that  the  rolling  of  iron  thinner  makes  it  cost 
more ; but  iron-men  will  know  all  about  that. 

You  will  find  a similar  ambiguity  in  paragraph  43,  which  reads: 

On  all  burlaps  and  like  manufactures  of  flax,  jute,  or  hemp,  or  of  which  flax,  jute, 
or  hemp  shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  excepting  such  as  may  be 
suitable  for  bagging  for  cotton,  30 per  centum  ad  valorem. 

That  sentence  is  full  of  all  sorts  of  ambiguities.  Then  in  paragraph 
44  we  have  a similar  article  of  goods : 

Oil-cloth  foundations,  or  floor-cloth,  canvas,  made  of  flax,  jute,  or  hemp,  or  of  which 
flax,  jute,  or  hemp  shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  40  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

A different  rate  from  the  other,  which  is  30  per  cent. ; and  I under- 
stand that  there  is  great  difficulty  in  some  classes  of  articles  in  deter- 
mining under  >yhich  of  these  descriptions  the  article  shall  be  classed. 
The  same%difficulty  arises,  also,  in  the  case  of  carpets.  Hemp  yarn  is 
taxed  at  5 cents  a pound.  We  have  had  cases  where  we  cannot  tell 
whether  the  article  is  hemp  yarn  or  carpet  yarn,  at  these  different  rates. 

The  drift  of  all  these  suggestions  is,  that  before  you  undertake  to 
formulate  the  tariff  you  should  raise  as  many  of  these  questions,  or 
get  experts  to  raise  them,  and  get  a list  of  them,  as  possible  ; eliminate 
just  as  many  as  you  can  from  the  tariff  which  you  may  finally  propose. 

Again,  as  to  specific  and  ad  valorem  rates.  I think  the  only  rule  that 
can  be  given  about  that  is,  that  in  your  good  judgment  you  do  as  you 
think  best  as  to  the  particular  article  under  consideration.  I do  not  think 
that  you  can  say  that  a specific  duty,  as  a general  thing,  is  better  than 
an  ad  valorem  duty,  or  the  reverse.  I do  not  think  you  can  apply  any 
general  rule  by  which  you  can  avoid  any  ad  valorem  duty.  The  general 
impression  is,  that  a specific  duty  is  much  better  than  an  ad  valorem 
duty ; that  it  is  much  more  simple,  more  easily  adjusted,  and  less  liable 
to  fraud.  But  I think  that  quite  doubtful.  In  the  first  place  the  ad  va- 
lorem duty  is  more  equal.  Certainly,  as  to  importations,  we  have  in 
view  chiefly  their  value.  We  intend  to  recognize  a sort  of  justice,  inde- 
pendent of  the  matter  of  protection,  by  putting  a like  and  proportion- 
ate duty  on  a whole  class  of  similar  articles;  and,  unless  there  is  rea- 
son for  discrimination,  we  do  that.  All  taxation  is  really  based  on 
value.  It  would  be  absurd,  for  instance,  in  our  State  to  tax  every  farm 
at  one  rate  as  a specific  duty.  It  would  be  easier  to  say  that  a farm,  or  a 
house,  or  a horse,  should  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty.  The  day  before  I 
came  from  Washington  there  came  to  me  a letter  from  a special  agent,  who 
had  been  in  Canada,  proposing  that  every  horse  should  pay  a specific 
rate  of  duty  of,  say,  $20.  That  is  a very  easy  way  of  assessing  the 
duty;  but  is  there  any  sort  of  justice  in  it?  Animals  imported  for 
breeding  purposes  come  in  free,  but  valuable  geldings  are  imported  often 
worth  a thousand  dollars  each,  and  it  would  not  be  right  that  a horse  of 
that  description  should  be  admitted  on  the  same  specific  duty  as  a 
horse  worth  only  one  hundred  dollars.  I think  the  special  agent  who 
made  that  recommendation  made  it  in  good  faith,  because  he  had  been 
troubled  to  find  out  how  much  a horse  was  actually  worth.  We  have 
had  many  controversies  upon  that  question. 

You  would  have  the  same  difficulty  also  with  woven  goods ; so  much 


174 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


a yard  on  every  yard  of  silk,  so  much  on  every  yard  of  broadcloth,  and 
every  fabric  of  that  description.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  not  help 
the  matter  much  to  put  the  duty  at  so  much  per  yard  on  cloth  worth  so 
much  a yard,  because  there  is  the  same  difficulty  of  the  ad  valorem ; you 
have  your  price  to  ascertain  before  you  can  fix  your  specific  duty.  It 
has  the  complexity  of  the  compound  duty. 

FOREIGN  OR  HOME  VALUATION. 

Passing  over  some  notes  which  I have  made  in  this  same  direc- 
tion, I come  to  the  question  of  foreign  values.  I think  the  question 
whether  your  Commission  should  not  recommend  a home  valuation  in- 
stead of  a foreign  valuation  is  one  of  the  most  important  you  should 
consider.  By  section  2902  of  the  Bevised  Statutes  it  is  provided 
that — 

It  shall  he  the  duty  of  the  appraisers  of  the  United  States,  and  every  of  them,  and 
every  person  who  shall  act  as  such  appraiser,  or  of  the  collector  and  naval  officer,  as 
the  case  may  be,  by  all  reasonable  ways  and  means  in  his  and  their  power,  to  ascer- 
tain, estimate,  and  appraise  the  true  and  actual  market  value  and  wholesale  price, 
any  invoice  or  affidavit  thereto  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  of  the  merchandise  at 
the  time  of  exportation,  and  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country  whence  the  same 
has  been  imported  into  the  United  States. 

Why  should  we  go  to  India,  or  to  England,  or  anywhere  else,  to  ascer- 
tain what  the  value  is  or  was  there,  rather  than  to  take  the  value  in  the 
the  port  of  importation,  or  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  United  States, 
which  would  be  the  better  term  or  better  method?  It  seems  to  me  that 
it  is  one  of  the  curiosities  in  the  law  that  such  a provision  should  have 
existed  from  1799  down  to  the  present  time ; and  I think  it  only  exists 
now  because  nobody  has  really  thought  it  possible  to  change  a thing 
that  has  existed  so  long.  People  have  supposed  that  there  must  be 
some  reason  that  they  did  not  understand,  why  the  foreign  value  should 
be  found,  rather  than  the  home  value.  That  is  not  the  worst,  or  nearly 
the  worst,  of  these  provisions.  Under  section  2907  you  will  find  this : 

In  determining  the  dutiable  value  of  merchandise  there  shall  be  added  to  the  cost 
or  to  the  actual  wholesale  price,  or  general  market  value  at  the  time  of  exportation 
in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country  from  whence  the  same  has  been  imported 
into  the  United  States,  the  cost  of  transportation,  shipment,  and  transshipment,  with 
ail  the  expenses  included,  from  the  place  of  growth,  production,  or  manufacture, 
whether  by  land  or  water,  to  the  vessel  in  which  shipment  is  made  to  the  United 
States ; the  value  of  the  sacks,  box,  or  covering  of  any  kind  in  which  such  merchan- 
dise is  contained  ; commission  at  the  usual  rates,  but  in  no  case  less  than  two  and  a 
half  percentuiA  ; and  brokerage,  export  duty,  and  all  other  actual  or  usual  charges, 
for  putting  up,  preparing,  and  packing  for  transportation  or  shipment. 

All  that  is  added  to  the  price  of  the  goods  to  make  the  value.  There 
never  was  a better  illustration,  perhaps,  of  the  folly,  if  I may  say  so,  of 
maintaining  such  provisions  as  these,  than  is  found  in  what  are  called 
the  charges  and  commissions  cases,  of  which  you  have  all  read  or 
heard.  About  twenty -five  years  ago  an  unfortunate  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  ruled  that  two  and  a half  per  cent.  (I  think  that  was  the  sum) 
might  be  added  in  all  cases  for  commissions,  whereas  the  statute  pro- 
vided that  the  usual  commission  should  be  added,  and  the  courts  rightly 
held  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  could  not  say  arbitrarily  that 
two  and  a half  per  cent,  was  the  usual  commission,  when,  in  fact,  2 
per  cent,  was  a more  usual  commission,  and  sometimes  even  a less  sum 
than  that.  That  is  only  one  of  the  questions,  but  it  was  the  main  ques- 
tion. Out  of  that  controversy  1,406  suits  were  brought  about  the  year 
1856  ; 776  of  these  suits  were  pending  in  1877,  twenty-one  years  after 
the  suits  were  commenced.  I had  occasion  to  investigate  the  subject 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


175 


the  first  year  I was  in  the  department,  in  1877,  and  I made  a report 
which  was  printed.  Two  million  dollars  had  been  paid  out  before  De- 
cember 14, 1877,  in  the  charges  and  commissions  cases,  and  the  remain- 
ing suits  involved  fully  that  amount ; that  is  to  say,  more  than  that 
amount  was  claimed  and  more  was  in  controversy.  And  to  show  you 
how  necessary  some  dispatch  is  in  any  case,  and  how  impossible  it  is 
ever  to  get  an  end  to  an  old  controversy,  it  is  a fact  that  since  those 
suits  were  commenced  there  have  been  15  different  Secretaries  of  the 
Treasury,  the  duty  of  each  one  of  whom  it  was  to  investigate  the  charges 
and  commissions  cases  and  know  all  about  them  so  far  as  to  be  familiar 
with  them,  make  recommendations  to  Congress,  and  give  instructions 
to  the  law  officers  (the  prosecuting  officers)  how  to  manage  them.  There 
have  been  15  Attorneys -General  whose  duty  it  was  to  attend  to  these 
suits  and,  of  course,  to  know  the  details  and  complexities  of  all  the 
questions  contained  in  them.  There  have  been  ten  United  States  attor- 
neys in  the  southern  district  of  New  York,  where  nearly  all  of  these 
suits  were  pending,  all  since  October  4, 1856. 

Now,  all  that  controversy  arose,  and  still  exists,  upon  the  difficulty 
of  executing  (upon  a little  mistake  made)  the  requirements  of  what  are 
now  found  in  section  2907,  and  it  seems  very  desirable  to  avoid  any  such 
controversies  in  the  future.  That  was  an  excusable  error  that  might 
readily  be  made  by  any  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  construing  the 
statute.  Under  Secretary  Sherman  the  subject  was  taken  up,  and  he 
indignantly  frowned  on  the  whole  class  of  cases,  and  said  he  would  not 
pay  them,  even  if  they  got  judgment,  and  he  laid  the  matter  before  Con- 
gress, and  you  will  find  in  the  appropriation  for  the  years  188U  and  1881 
that  Congress  declared  that  an  appropriation  to  refund  customs  duties 
should  not  be  applied  to  any  of  the  cases  known  as  the  charges  and 
commissions  cases,  without  the  special  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  vested  him  with  discretion  to  compromise  these  suits  in 
any  way  that  he  thought  proper,  either  in  court  or  out  of  court. 

Under  that  arrangement  General  Curtis  (who  has  become  almost  as 
famous  of  late  as  a defendant  in  a suit  brought  against  him  for  collect- 
ing assessments  for  political  purposes  as  he  was  in  leading  one  of  our 
columns  in  the  assault  on  Fort  Fisher)  was  appointed  agent  by  Mr. 
Sherman  to  take  charge  of  these  suits,  and  to  make  such  arrangements 
as  lie  might  be  able  in  order  to  bring  them  to  a compromise.  Under  his 
administration  the  greater  part  of  the  suits  were  settled. 

I am  sorry  that  I have  not  had  time  to  examine  and  ascertain  how 
many  suits  are  now  pending.  There  were  776  suits  remaining  in  1877, 
and  not  many  of  them  were  settled  until  General  Curtis  undertook  this 
duty.  I think  perhaps  150  or  200  of  them  still  remain.  The  greater 
part  of  the  suits  were  settled  as  I have  indicated.  They  found  in  a 
great  many  cases  false  protests  had  been  filed.  A suit  cannot  be  brought 
unless  the  impor  ter,  who  thinks  he  is  aggrieved  by  an  assessment  of  duty, 
files  a protest.  It  was  found  on  examination  that,  I think,  in  the  majority 
the  1,400  cases  there  were  either  no  protests,  or  protests  that  were 
falsely  put  upon  the  record,  and  which  were  detected  by  the  form  used, 
which  was  a printed  form.  It  was  ascertained  by  careful  inquiry  that 
the  form  used  was  not  printed  until  long  after  these  protests  purported 
to  have  been  made.  And  the  point  was  made  so  clear  that  the  coun- 
sel who  had  charge  of  these  cases  were  obliged  to  concede  they  could 
not  prove  their  cases  in  court,  and  abandoned  them.  In  some  cases, 
where  there  appeared  to  be  a just  or  legal  claim,  it  was  found  that  two 
suits  had  been  brought  on  the  same  cause  of  action  by  different  attor- 
neys. Most  of  the  cases  were  speculative  in  their  character,  and  the 


176 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


importers  had  but  little  interest  in  them,  and  in  some  cases  declared 
that  they  did  not  know  they  had  any  such  suit  pending.  All  these  ir- 
regularities were  discovered  upon  an  investigation  by  General  Curtis, 
and  a large  proportion  of  the  suits  wei  e terminated  in  that  way. 

Now,  is  there  any  reason  for  ascertaining  what  the  goods  cost,  and 
adding  these  complicated  charges  and  commissions  to  the  cost?  Is  there 
any  reason  in  the  world  why  the  home  valuation  should  not  be  the  val- 
uation placed  upcn  them? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Suppose  it  is  an  article  entirely  imported, 
and  assume  that  the  rate  paid  is  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  That,  of 
course,  would  enter  into  the  price  on  this  side  of  the  water,  and  your 
home  price  would  be  with  the  tariff  added.  That  would  be  adding  a 
tariff  on  the  tariff,  as  it  seems  to  me;  that  is,  on  the  rate  paid? 

The  Witness.  Well,  that  matter  would  have  to  be  arranged,  of  course. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I believe  there  is  another  objection  urged, 
that  it  frequently  happens  that  goods  are  imported  that  have  no  market 
value  here ; something  new  is  manufactured  and  sent  here.  What  should 
you  do  in  such  a case  as  that?  It  is  only  about  twelve  or  fifteen  years 
since  the  first  Japanese  goods  were  to  be  found  in  New  York  City. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  could  be  obviated  by  a special  provision 
to  meet  those  goods. 

The  Witness.  There  is  another  practical  difficulty.  I suppose  the 
members  of  the  Commission  are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  large  invoices 
come  into  New  York,  notably  of  silk  goods,  which  are  not  sold  in  any 
other  market,  except  the  American  market.  The  factory  where  they 
are  manufactured  is  devoted  to  a certain  line  of  goods,  especially  made 
for  the  American  market,  and  they  are  not  sold  abroad,  but  are  con- 
signed to  an  agent  here,  and  the  price  is  fixed  in  the  invoice  as  the  con- 
signor or  the  consignee  wants  it,  and  when  they  come  here  there  is  no  for- 
eign market  value.  In  such  cases  we  have  been  through  the  absurdity 
of  trying  to  ascertain  what  the  goods  are  worth  in  a foreign  market  by 
finding  what  they  are  worth  in  this  market,  and  adding  to  that  the  costs 
and  charges,  and  so  working  back  from  the  original  value  here  to  ascer- 
tain the  foreign  value  iu  order  that  we  might  assess  the  duties  in  this 
country.  We  have  been  obliged  to  do  that  because  there  was  no  foreign 
value  upon  those  articles.  Of  course,  in  all  of  them,  even  in  Japanese 
goods,  they  soon  have  a market  value  here,  and  the  value  in  Japan  is 
not  of  any  particular  consequence  that  I know  of.  But  in  every  case, 
if  you  desire  to  fix  the  home  value,  you  have  the  foreign  invoice.  It  is 
now  nothing  but  prima  facie  evidence.  The  law  says  that  the  real  value 
shall  be  ascertained;  so  that  whatever  the  invoice  says,  you  can  fix  the 
home  value  by  any  other  means  at  yore  command. 


Long  Branch,  N.  J., 
Friday , July  28,  1882. 

When  I closed  my  remarks  yesterday,  I was  on  the  subject  of  home 
and  foreign  valuation.  I think  any  person  who  should  be  told  for  the 
first  time  that  we  look  abroad  in  order  to  find  out  what  duty  we 
should  assess  upon  an  imported  article,  would  be  very  much  puzzled 
to  know  what  reason  there  could  possibly  be  for  so  doing,  or  how  we 
were  any  better  able  to  find  out  in  that  way  than  we  should  by  sub- 
mitting to  our  appraisers  the  question,  what  is  the  article  worth  on  a 
valuation  to  be  fixed  here  ? But  the  answer  is  very  apparent  if  you 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH'.  J 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


177 


look  at  the  condition  of  things  in  1799,  when  the  first  enactment  of  this 
kind  was  made.  At  that  time  the  country  was  young,  and  the  value 
of  manufactured  articles  was  not  known.  Imported  articles  had  no 
fixed  value,  as  they  now  have,  and  therefore  there  was  occasion  to 
go  abroad  to  see  what  the  article  cost.  There  was  not  then,  as  there 
is  now,  communication  between  the  different  ports,  and  there  were 
no  opportunities  for  consultation  between  officers  of  the  different  ports. 
It  was,  therefore,  necessary  to  find  out  what  the  articles  cost.  If 
you  look  at  the  old  statute  you  will  see  that  the  leading  idea  was 
to  find  what  was  actually  paid  for  the  article,  when  and  where  it 
was  purchased,  and  that  was  a very  fair  criterion.  A thing  sold  in  a 
fair  market  is  ordinarily  bought  and  sold  at  its  fair  value.  And  so  it  was 
provided  that  the  value  should  be  fixed  by  the  u original  invoice,”  and 
the  u bill  of  loading,”  as  it  was  called  in  the  old  statutes,  that  is  to  say, 
the  bill  of  sale,  as  I suppose  it  was — the  actual  bill  of  sale  that  passed 
from  the  seller  to  the  buyer.  The  oath  was  that  this  was  the  original 
bill  of  sale  or  original  invoice,  and  these  were  the  original  u bills  of  load- 
ing.” It  was  assumed  that  the  honest  transaction  would  be  disclosed, 
and  then  it  might  fairly  be  taken  with  such  additions  as  were  afterwards 
made.  I think  there  were  no  charges  or  commissions  so  long  ago  as  that. 
It  was  the  simple  question  as  to  how  much  the  article  cost. 

After  a while  it  was  found  that  the  original  invoice,  as  it  is  still 
called,  was  no  criterion  of  value,  because  it  was  found  that  one  price 
could  be  paid  and  a different  price  put  in  the  bill  of  sale  or  invoice. 
And  so,  many  years  afterwards,  I think  not  until  1842,  authority  was 
given  to  the  appraiser  to  disregard  the  invoice  and  ascertain  by  every 
means  in  his  power  the  true  value  of  the  article.  He  was  not  limited 
to  the  invoice  price  but  was  allowed  to  go  about  among  his  neigh- 
bors and  ascertain  by  any  means  in  his  power  what  the  fair  value 
was  in  the  market  of  the  country  from  which  the  article  was  brought. 
Thus  the  original  idea  of  assuming  that  the  bill  of  sale  and  bill  of 
loading  disclosed  the  true  value,  and  relying  upon  that,  is  entirely 
waived,  and  no  appraiser  feels  safe  for  a moment  to  regard  the  invoice 
produced,  although  sworn  to  forty  times,  as  showing  the  true  price  at 
which  the  article  was  bought  and- sold.  Undervaluation  and  fraudu- 
lent invoices  of  all  kinds  occur,  so  that  the  reason  why  the  foreign 
value  was  taken  instead  of  the  home  value  has  entirely  disappeared. 
There  is  no  reason  that  I can  see  why  the  value  in  the  ports  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  upon  every  article  cannot  as  well  be  ascertaimed  as  the  for- 
eign value,  and,  indeed,  much  better.  What  article  can  be  named 
which  the  appraisers  in  one  of  our  ports  cannot  ascertain  the  value  of, 
being  at  liberty  to  look  at  the  invoice,  to  examine  on  oath  the  importer, 
to  inquiry  in  every  direction  what  such  articles  are  bought  and  sold  for 
in  this  country  and  other  countries.  Why  can  they  not  ascertain  the 
home  value,  and  why  is  not  that  the  simplest  way  Then,  as  I said 
yesterday,  you  get  rid  of  this  whole  class  of  charges  and  commissions, 
which  is  an  outrage  in  itself,  I was  going  to  say.  It  is  a provision  of 
law  that  cannot  be  fairly  executed.  Invoices  come  into  New  York  in 
English,  in  German,  in  Spanish,  French,  and  Italian,  and  all  other  known 
languages.  The  charges  and  commissions  are  entered  in  those  various 
languages,  and  in  the  currencies  of  those  countries.  You  not  only  have  to 
know  foreign  languages,  but  to  know  foreign  moneys — pounds,  shillings, 
pence,  francs,  ducats,  thalers — everything  else  you  can  conceive  of. 
Those  must  all  be  reduced  to  American  currency  in  order  to  be  un- 
derstood. Some  of  it  is  depreciated  currency,  but  it  all  lias  to  be  re- 
duced to  a gold  standard  before  it  can  be  dealt  with  in  the  invoices. 

H.  Mis.  0 12 


178 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


Then,  as  I read  from  section  2502  of  the  Kevised  Statutes,  if  there  are 
general  charges  upon  an  invoice  containing  several  descriptions  or  ar- 
ticles, the  custom-house  officers  are  required  to  distribute  fairly  among 
the  different  classes  of  articles  this  amount  of  general  charges  and  com- 
missions, and  that,  I think  I may  say,  is  an  impossible  thing  to  do 
fairly.  I do  not  think  any  custom-house  officer  will  say  that  in  a com- 
plicated invoice  of  that  kind  he  can  succeed  in  administering  the  law  to 
his  own  satisfaction. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  As  you  say,  the  law  provides  that  the  charges  shall  be  distributed 
pro  rata  on  the  different  classes  of  articles,  and  it  sometimes  happens 
that  a change  of  the  one-tenth  part  of  a mill , where  there  are  large 
quantities  of  goods  thrown  from  one  rate  of  duty  to  another,  will  make 
a very  large  total  difference  in  the  charges  upon  the  different  articles'? — 
A.  That  is  very  true,  and  I think  you  can  get  rid  of  that  whole  compli- 
cated matter  of  charges  and  commissions,  and  that  it  is  very  desirable 
that  you  should  do  so.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  a very  great  object  to  be 
attained,  and  I think  the  matter  should  be  made  a prominent  one  in 
your  deliberations  in  order  to  elicit  any  objections  that  may  be  made  to 
the  change.  Let  it  be  understood  that  the  proposition  is  before  the 
commission  to  change  that  important  practice.  It  takes  a long  time  to 
make  any  changes,  and  perhaps  Congress  is  not  prepared  to  adopt  any 
such  change. 

Another  matter  to  which  I alluded  yesterday  was  the  fact  that  for- 
merly most  of  the  goods  that  were  imported  were  actually  bought  and 
sold.  They  were  imported  by  the  buyer,  and  purchased  in  the  market 
at  a fair  and  regular  price.  Now,  a great  proportion  of  the  goods  that 
come  into  the  market  (dress  goods,  and  silk  particularly)  are  consigned. 
They  are  not  sold  before  they  come  to  this  country,  and,  as  I said  yes- 
terday, in  the  silks  particularly,  there  are  large  establishments  which 
manufacture  for  the  American  market  and  sell  to  one  particular  Amer- 
ican dealer.  A house  in  New  York  will  have  a line  of  goods  manufact- 
ured especially  for  them  in  France,  perhaps  in  Lyons,  and  will  import 
all  the  goods  that  are  manufactured  by  that  house,  themselves.  They 
will  have  no  competition  in  the  market.  These  goods  are  not  sold  in  the 
foreign  market  at  all.  They  have  no  established  price  abroad,  and  the 
^question  is,  How  shall  they  be  valued  here  ? We  have  to  find  out  how 
much  the  goods  sell  for  here,  and  how  much  they  must  cost.  The  raw 
material  costs  so  much,  the  labor  so  much,  and  other  goods  somewhat 
like  them  sell  for  so  much.  We  thus  work  out  the  problem,  and  we 
assume  a foreign  price  which  never  did  exist,  because  (as  I have  said) 
there  is  no  sale  abroad  for  these  goods.  By  that  sort  of  computation 
we  get  at  the  foreign  price.  It  cannot  be  done  in  any  other  way. 

As  to  consigned  goods,  they  are  in  the  same  position.  xV  silk  manu- 
facturer in  France  who  makes  a particular  kind  of  goods  for  this  market 
has  an  agent  in  New  York  to  whom  all  these  goods  are  consigned. 
They  do  not  sell  a yard  of  them  in  the  open  market  but  send  them  here 
on  consignment.  There  is  no  French  value  for  them  by  which  our  statute 
can  be  complied  with,  but  it  has  to  be  ascertained.  The  invoice  is  made 
up  as  the  law  contemplates,  but  it  is  made  up  at  the  lowest  value  which 
the  consignors  dare  to  fix  for  the  goods,  because  if  the  value  were  fixed 
too  low  they  know  that  it  would  be  raised  here.  There  is,  therefore,  no 
sense  in  retaining  this  provision  for  foreign  valuation.  It  is  the  home 
valuation,  in  fact,  which  should  control  the  duty. 

Besides  the  article  of  silks,  gloves  are  also  consigned  (a  very  large 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


179 


proportion  of  them),  and  so  are  all  fancy  articles  of  women’s  dress.  We 
frequently  have  communications  from  our  special  agents  on  the  subject, 
stating  that  these  goods  are  undervalued.  Investigations  are  made 
abroad,  and  we  have  hearings  here,  and  have  constant  controversies  on 
these  points.  About  three  years  ago  our  special  agents,  whose  business 
it  is  to  hunt  up  frauds  of  this  kind,  reported  that  there  must  be  a great 
undervaluation  in  silks,  because  the  silks  were  selling  in  New  York  at  a 
less  price  than  they  were  selling  for  in  the  places  where  they  were  man- 
ufactured. That  they  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. At  first  we  could  get  no  solution  of  the  mystery;  but,  finally,  it 
was  ascertained  that  in  fact  the  goods  were  sent  here  (sold  or  consigned) 
and  were  put  on  the  market  at  a less  price  than  they  could  be  manufac- 
tured for.  The  explanation  was  that  there  had  been  a surplus  of  that 
kind  of  goods  in  the  market  (they  having  been  overproduced),  and  the 
manufacturers  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  must  clear  out  their 
warehouses ; and  so  they  had  sent  their  goods  to  the  New  York  market 
to  sell  for  just  what  they  would  bring. 

Now  in  such  cases  there  is  no  propriety  in  going  back  for  three  or  four 
years  and  finding  out  what  goods  were  sold  for  abroad  at  that  time. 
There  is  no  propriety  in  making  these  goods  pay  duty  on  more  than 
their  value  in  this  market  when  imported. 

I do  not  know  that,  in  the  course  of  my  remarks  as  to  simplifying  the 
tariff,  I have  alluded  to  the  number  of  articles  covered  by  our  tariff,  and 
which  our  customs  officers  are  obliged  to  understand.  It  is  pretty  hard 
to  make  a count,  because  some  classes  of  articles  are  divided  more  than 
others;  and  two  persons  making  a count  of  these  articles  would  not 
perhaps  agree  as  to  the  number.  But  we  understand  that  something 
more  than  2,300  articles  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  enumerated  in  our 
tariff",  while  in  the  English  tariff  there  are  but  fifty -five.  In  addition  to 
these  there  are  “goods  of  like  description”  and  “goods  for  similar  use”; 
and,  in  my  remarks  about  the  cotton  schedule,  you  will  see  how  nice  and 
specific  and  particular  the  knowledge  on  the  part  of  custom-house  offi- 
cers must  be  to  enable  them  to  execute  the  law  at  all.  Of  course,  the 
general  tenor  of  my  discussion  has  been  that  you  ought  to  reduce  the 
number  of  articles  by  a more  general  classification,  by  omitting  all  the 
fine-spun  distinctions  that  have  meaning  to  the  manufacturers  but  that 
cannot  be  understood  by  the  customs  officers  in  all  the  ports  of  the 
country.  It  is  idle  to  make  such  distinctions  when  they  cannot  be  carried 
out. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  These  distinctions  are  not  understood  by 
the  manufacturers  any  more  than  they  are  by  the  importers  or  the 
custom  house  officers.  No  two  experts  will  agree  as  to  whether  an 
article  is  “similar  ” to  another  article  or  not.  The  experts  differ  among 
themselves  all  the  time. 

The  Witness.  With  these  general  remarks  I will  turn  to  my  old  friend, 
the  cotton  schedule,  which  1 took  because  it  was  A,  and  not  because  I 
had  any  particular  spite  against  that  schedule  more  than  against  any 
other ; but  it  is  a good  one  for  illustration.  Of  course  the  cotton  people 
will  not  be  satisfied  with  the  suggestion  that  I make;  they  probably 
will  not  be  satisfied  without  distinctions  for  goods  that  count  200,  300, 
or  400  threads  to  the  square  inch.  They  will  say  (and  theoretically  they 
will  be  right)  that  one  of  these  articles  needs  more  protection  than 
another.  But  1 still  think  that,  in  revising  this  cotton  schedule,  the 
greater  part  of  these  little  distinctions  ought  to  be  struck  out.  I have 
shown  you  already  that,  because  of  these  terms  “of  like  description” 


180 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


and  “for  similar  use,”  the  general  appraisers  and  the  courts  cannot 
agree  at  all.  The  tariff  has  been  in  operation  for  many  years,  and  yet 
these  questions  have  not  been  settled.  It  is  idle,  therefore,  to  keep 
distinctions  on  the  statute-book  which  cannot  be  practically  executed 
and  so  cannot  be  of  any  value. 

I should  like  to  make  some  suggestion  now  as  to  how  I think  the  cot- 
ton schedule  ought  to  be  altered.  The  first  six  paragraphs  provide  for 
the  duties  on  fabrics  woven  from  cotton.  I have  gone  over  this  schedule 
A with  the  help  of  Mr.  Meredith,  one  of  the  general  appraisers.  I will 
try  to  show  how  these  paragraphs  can  be  consolidated  and  condensed 
into  a very  small  compass.  Of  course  I will  not  undertake  to  suggest 
how  many  cents  per  yard  you  will  put  on,  or  what  rate  ad  valorem,  but 
I will  merely  suggest  a system  of  classification  which  seems  to  me 
minute  enough  for  such  a schedule.  The  six  paragraphs  cover  about 
one  printed  page.  The  first  modification  that  I will  suggest  is  in  refer- 
ence to  the  number  of  threads  to  the  square  inch,  what  is  called  “count- 
able cottons.”  Cottons  are  ordered  containing  so  many  threads  to  the 
square  inch.  That  is  a mode  in  use  between  buyers  and  sellers.  It  is 
one  of  the  elements  in  bills  of  sale  and  in  orders  for  goods.  If  you 
discard  that  distinction,  I think  that  these  six  paragraphs  may  be  put 
into  12  lines.  I would  strike  out  the  exception  about  jeans,  denims, 
drillings,  &c.,  and  would  make  it  read: 

On  all  manufactures  of  cotton  not  bleached,  colored,  stained,  painted, 
or  printed,  and  exceeding  in  weight  5 ounces  to  the  square  yard,  so 
much  per  square  yard.  If  bleached  (and  if  bleaching  is  an  element  of  value 
that  is  to  be  taxed),  so  much  per  square  yard.  If  colored,  stained,  or 
printed,  so  much  per  square  yard  (leaving  out  the  10  per  cent,  ad  val- 
orem) ; that  is,  I would  make  three  grades  of  cotton  cloths — those  that 
are  unbleached,  those  that  are  bleached,  and  those  that  are  colored, 
and  I would  put  upon  them  the  proper  rate  of  duty,  either  specific  or 
ad  valorem.  I would  not  put  on  both  specific  and  ad  valorem  if  I could 
possibly  avoid  it;  still,  there  may  be  cases  where  it  is  unavoidable. 
The  wool  schedule  has  compound  duties  based  on  the  philosophic  prin- 
ciple that  there  was  a double  aspect  to  the  case — the  desire  to  protect, 
fairly,  the  wool  grower  and  the  wool  manufacturer.  I do  not  see  any 
particular  object  in  retaining  the  compound  duties  in  the  cotton  sched- 
ule. 

The  President.  There  is  not  the  same  necessity  for  the  compound 
duties  in  the  cotton  schedule  that  there  is  in  the  wool  schedule,  because 
there  is  no  duty  on  the  raw  cotton. 

The  Witness.  Exactly.  Then  I want  to  say — 

On  finer  or  lighter  goods  of  like  description,  unbleached,  so  many  cents  per  square 
yard.  If  colored,  stained,  or  printed,  so  many  cents  per  square  yard. 

Paragraph  3 contains  one  of  the  curiosities  of  the  literature  of  the 
tariff.  It  is  exactly  the  same  as  paragraph  2.  It  undertakes  to  dis- 
criminate between  goods  exceeding,  and  goods  not  exceeding,  200 
threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  it  actually  makes  no  discrimination.  It 
taxes  them  both  equally — 5J  cents  per  square  yard  and  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  And  yet  even  so  sharp  a man  as  Appraiser  Meredith  never 
noticed  that  until  I pointed  it  out  to  him.  It  is  a singular  fact  that  that 
peculiarity  should  have  so  long  remained  undiscovered.  Then  I would 
cancel  paragraphs  3,  4,  5,  and  0,  and  instead  of  them  I would  add  these 
words : 

Provided  that  no  cotton  goods  shall  he  admitted  at  a less  rate  of  duty  than  so 
much  per  cent,  (say  25)  ad  valorem. 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.  ] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


181 


That  will  take  up  all  the  descriptions  of  cotton  fabrics  not  specified  in 
the  first  two  paragraphs,  and  will  keep  the  duty  up  to  whatever  you  con- 
clude should  be  the  minimum  ad  valorem  rate.  The  last  proviso  in  the 
6th  paragraph,  “provided  further,  that  no  cotton  goods  having  more 
than  200  threads  to  the  square  inch,  counting  the  warp  and  filling,  shall 
be  admitted  to  a less  rate  of  duty  than  is  provided  for  goods  which  are 
of  that  number  of  threads,”  has  no  meaning. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  is  construed  at  the  custom-house  to 
mean  that  whichever  rate  of  duty  is  the  greater  shall  be  paid. 

The  Witness.  I know  that  the  general  appraisers  have  recommended 
that  as  the  construction. 

The  President.  r\  hat  is  Treasury  law. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  that  is  Treasury  law.  Talking  with  Mr.  Mere- 
dith the  other  day  I could  not  make  him  understand  (what  I think  you 
will  see  at  once)  that  the  phrase,  as  it  stands,  does  not  mean  anything. 
He  said  he  thought  it  had  a meaning.  But  still  he  wrote  the  proviso 
which  I have  now  suggested.  If  you  adopt  that,  even  leaving  in  all 
this  counting  of  threads  to  the  square  inch  (which,  perhaps,  is  well 
enough),  you  can  put  all  these  six  paragraphs  into  twelve  lines.  Or  if 
you  want  to  make  the  schedule  still  more  simple,  omit  the  whole  of  six 
paragraphs  and  insert  in  lieu  of  them — 

Oil  all  cotton  goods,  manufactured,  valued  above  25  cents  per  square  yard,  so  much 
per  cent. ; on  all  valued  above  16  cents  and  not  above  25,  so  much  per  cent. ; and 
on  all  valued  not  above  16  cents,  so  much  per  cent. 

That  would  cover  the  whole  cotton  schedule,  from  beginning  to  end. 
Assuming  that  the  rates  are  properly  adjusted,  I do  not  see  why  that 
could  not  be  substituted,  substantially,  for  the  existing  cotton  schedule. 
And  then,  if  an  additional  rate  is  to  be  put  on  for  coloring,  you  might 
say,  uon  all  colored  cotton  goods,  so  much  per  cent.”  I should  expect, 
if  the  commission  had  cotton  manufacturers  here,  that  they  would  at 
once  criticise  this  method  of  making  the  cotton  schedule;  but  that  is 
what  I want  them  to  do.  I want  to  propose  something  definite.  I am 
working  in  the  direction  of  simplifying  the  tariff  so  that  it  can  be  intel- 
ligently executed. 

The  President.  It  is  very  important  that  your  observations  should 
be  printed,  so  that  the  manufacturers  may  be  able  to  see  them. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Of  course  it  costs  more  to  make  an  article 
of  200  threads  to  the  square  inch  than  one  of  100  threads;  and  of  course 
bleached  goods  cost  more  than  unbleached  goods.  The  present  average 
rate  of  duty  on  cotton  goods  is  something  like  65  per  cent.  Assuming 
that  Congress  wishes  to  reduce  the  duty,  why  not  say  at  once,  in  one 
line,  “On  all  manufactures  of  cotton,  of  every  description,  50  per  cent, 
ad  valorem”? 

The  Witness.  I see  that  Arnold,  Constable  & Co.,  of  New  York,  pro- 
pose 20  per  cent.  I understand  38£  per  cent,  to  be  the  average  ad  valo- 
rem rate  of  duty.  That  is  all  that  1 have  to  say  on  the  general  subject 
of  simplifying  the  tariff.  I have  been  making  this  poor  schedule  A the 
victim  of  my  observations,  taking  it  as  a text  tor  my  remarks. 

I have  here  a few  more  instances  of  the  controversies  about  metals, 
but  I do  not  know  that  it  is  worth  while  to  go  into  that  matter,  or  that 
it  would  be  worth  your  while  to  listen  to  me.  I have  already  mentioned 
the  controversy  as  to  whether  an  article  should  come  in  under  para- 
graph 68  or  under  paragraphs  70,  80,  or  81,  all  referring  to  iron  of 
various  kinds ; and  whether  bars  intended  for  railway  or  tramway 
should  pay  70  per  cent,  ad  valorem  or  1£  cents  per  pound  as  bar  iron. 
There  is  another  question  on  which  we  have  had  a great  deal  of  trouble, 


182 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[URNBY  F.  FKKNCH. 


and  on  wliicli  the  iron  manufacturers  have  pretty  decided  views  ; that 
is,  when  plate  iron  becomes  a “manufacture  of  iron”  liable,  under  par- 
agraph 14G,  to  a duty  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  We  have  had  one 
suit  in  which  it  was  held  by  the  department  that  corrugated  iron,  used 
for  the  roofing  of  the  Grand  Central  Railroad  depot  in  New  York,  was 
plate  iron,  but  the  Treasury  Department  was  beaten  in  it,  and  it  was 
decided  by  a court  and  jury  that  it  should  come  in  as  a manufacture  of 
iron  paying  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  department  feels  bound  by 
that  decision.  We  have  had  importations  of  tank-plates — plates  of  iron 
for  those  immense  tanks  for  the  storage  of  petroleum  oil.  They  came 
in  in  plates  cut  to  dimensions  and  punched  for  riveting,  and  it  was 
claimed  that  they  should  pay  duty  as  manufactures  of  iron  and  not  as 
plate  iron.  The  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  first  in 
favor  of  their  being  taxed  as  manufactures  of  iron,  but,  after  a good 
deal  of  stress  on  the  part  of  iron  manufacturers,  that  decision  was  re- 
versed. We  understood  that  it  would  nearly  ruin  Pittsburgh  if  they 
were  admitted  at  35  per  cent.  We  had  a long  hearing  on  the  subject 
of  car-truck  channels — whether  they  should  come  in  as  manufactures  of 
iron  or  whether  they  should  come  in,  under  paragraph  82,  as  “ all  other 
descriptions  of  rolled  or  hammered  iron  not  otherwise  provided  for,  1^ 
cents  per  pound,”  which  would  be,  I suppose,  two  or  three  times  as  much 
as  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  We  have  had  another  long  heariug  as  to 
whether  “forged-steel  axles”  for  cars  should  be  considered  as  a manu- 
factured article  of  steel,  under  paragraph  91,  paying  45  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  or  whether  it  should  be  regarded  as  an  axle,  under  paragraph 
99,  paying  2|  cents  a pound. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  should  have  been  a plain  question. 

The  Witness.  It  was  so  plain  that  the  Treasury  Department  held  it 
under  advisement  for  three  months. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  If  an  axle  is  not  an  axle,  I cannot  imagine 
what  else  it  is. 

The  Witness.  But  this  was  the  forging  for  an  axle.  It  was  as  near 
an  axle  as  could  be  made  under  a trip  hammer. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  They  were  invoiced  as  actual  forgings,  and 
we  held  that  they  were  not  axles  until  they  were  complete. 

The  Witness.  In  order  to  make  it  a complete  axle  the  end,  of  course, 
must  be  cut  off.  They  had  afterwards  to  be  fitted  to  the  hub.  They 
did  not  require  any  great  alteration  in  shape.  The  two  things  are  very 
much  alike,  as  they  lie  side  by  side;  but  it  was  a very  nice  question 
whether  the  article  was  an  axle  forging  or  whether  it  was  an  axle. 

To  show  you  how  nice  a question  is  concealed  under  paragraph  91. 
It  reads : 

All  manufactures  of  steel,  or  of  which  steel  shall  he  a component  part,  not  otherwise 
provided  for,  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  But  all  articles  of  steel  partially  manufact- 
ured, or  of  which  steel  shall  he  a component  part,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  shall 
pay  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  if  wholly  manufactured. 

Now,  take  the  article  of  steel  tire,  forged  as  nearly  as  you  can  get  it, 
to  go  on  to  a locomotive.  It  is  bent  into  shape,  a complete  circle,  but 
it  is  not  finished  so  that  it  can  be  regarded  as  a locomotive  tire,  pro- 
vided for  in  paragraph  94,  and  paying  3 cents  per  pound. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Is  it  not  an  unfinished  locomotive  tire? 

The  Witness.  It  is  a partly  manufactured  locomotive  tire,  of  steel; 
and,  if  not  otherwise  provided  for,  it  would  be  so  rated.  But  a loco- 
motive tire  is  “ otherwise  provided  for.”  It  does  not  come  within  the 
language  of  this  description  : “All  articles  of  steel,  partially  manufact- 


henry  F.  french.]  AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF.  183 

u red,  not  otherwise  provided  for.”  It  is  a partially  manufactured  arti- 
cle that  is  provided  for. 

I propose  to  have  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  apply  his  legal  mind 
to  the  question,  and  to  apply  the  principle  of  the  axle  decision  to  this 
article  as  not  being  an  article  unenumerated,  partly  manufactured.  I 
am  sure  that  I am  adrift  on  the  question. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Why  is  it  not,  naturally  and  clearly,  covered 
on  the  words,  “ or  parts  thereof”  ? 

The  Witness.  Because  I do  not  think  that  Congress  had  in  mind  an 
unfinished  piece  of  steel  that  might  be  made  into  a finished  oue.  I 
suppose  it  had  the  same  idea  as  when  it  used  the  words,  “ axles  or  parts 
of  axles.” 

Commissioner  McMahon.  My  construction  of  it  is  as  if  it  read  thus : 

But  all  articles  of  steel  partially  manufactured,  or  of  which  steel  shall  be  a compo- 
nent part,  not  otherwise  provided  for — that  is,  partially  manufactured — shall  pay  the 
same  rate  of  duty  as  if  wholly  manufactured. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  is  my  construction  of  it;  and  it  seems 
a fair  construction,  too. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  These  words  might  be  inserted. 

The  Witness.  If  the  words  “not  otherwise  provided  for”  were  out, 
there  would  not  be  any  ambiguity  about  it. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  In  that  case  there  might  be  a double  duty, 
simply  because  partly  manufactured  articles  are  provided  for  in  other 
parts  of  the  schedule. 

The  Witness  : Steel  blooms  we  have  not  spoken  of;  that  is  one  of  the 
subjects  on  which  we  have  never  been  able  to  satisfy  ourselves.  The}7  are 
now  admitted  as  manufactured  articles,  45  per  cent , under  the  authority 
of  an  old  decision  made  in  1867  or  1868.  We  have  got  into  great  diffi- 
culties through  that  decision.  Undoubtedly  it  would  not  be  made  under 
the  present  or  recent  administrations.  But  we  have  adhered  to  it,  and 
the  longer  we  adhere  to  it  the  more  difficulty  we  get  into  on  account  of 
it.  If  it  had  not  been  that  there  have  been  at  least  twenty  sessions  of 
Congress  since  that  decision  was  made,  and  that  Congress  has  not  cor- 
rected it,  and  that  the  trade  has  conformed  to  it,  the  department  would 
have  reversed  it  two  or  three  years  ago.  We  have  had  the  same  trouble 
about  steel  billets.  Steel  blooms  and  steel  billets  are  not  named  in  the 
tariff;  and  the  question  is  whether  they  come  under  the  description  of 
manufactured  articles,  or  under  some  of  these  other  various  descriptions. 

Commissioner  Oliver:  Would  you  not  suggest,  as  a way  to  avoid 
troubles  in  the  future,  that  the  omnibus  clause  be  made  clear  by  pro- 
viding that  all  articles  not  otherwise  provided  for  shall  be  taxed  at  their 
value  according  to  the  average  rate  of  duty  in  the  preceding  section? 

The  Witness.  They  probably  were  up  to  the  average  rate  when  the 
tariff*  was  made. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  is  where  the  trouble  comes.  The  ad- 
valorem  rate  becomes  less  than  the  sjiecitic  duty.  You  cannot  get  along 
with  an  ad  valorem  duty  and  a specific  duty,  the  one  varying  and  the 
other  fixed. 

The  Witness.  That  is  the  great  difficulty. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Is  not  the  remedy,  evidently,  to  establish  a 
general  system  of  ad  valorem  duties? 

The  Witness.  I should  not  have  pursued  this  subject  so  minutely  as 
I have  done,  if  a suggestion,  which  came  to  me  from  one  of  the  Commis- 
sioners, had  not  occurred  to  myself,  that  is,  to  furnish  the  Commission 
with  a list  of  all  disputed  questions — every  one  in  each  schedule.  That, 
of  course,  we  can  do.  If  you  want  to  learn  of  the  controversies  that  have 


184 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


arisen  on  the  wool  schedule,  I can  refer  you  to  a communication  signed 
by  your  president,  and  which  is  in  print.  In  it  he  points  out  twelve 
instances  of  controversies  arising  on  the  wool  schedule.  I do  not  be- 
lieve there  would  be  any  difficulty  in  making  up  what  would  be  a very 
useful  and  very  curious  document.  It  can  be  done  at  the  Treasury  De- 
partment. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  is  the  best  suggestion  that  I have 
heard  yet. 

The  Witness.  If  the  idea  had  suggested  itself  to  me  before  I came 
here,  I might  not  have  tired  the  Commission  with  all  this  talk. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Your  talk  has  been  very  instructive  and  very 
interesting. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I am  in  the  unfortunate  position  of  having 
made  that  suggestion.  I had  written  it  roughly  in  the  form  of  a reso- 
lution, as  follows: 

Resolved , That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  he  requested  to  assign  an  expert  to 
prepare  a list  of  the  ambig'iious  aud  complex  terms  used  in  the  present  tariff  law,  to 
enable  the  Tariff  Commissioners  the  more  readily  to  correct  the  complications  and 
errors  resulting  from  those  ambiguities. 

On  motion  of  Commissioner  Oliver,  the  resolution  was  referred  to  a 
committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Kenner,  McMahon,  and  Ambler. 


A CUSTOMS  COUKT. 

Long  Branch,  K.  J., 
Monday , July  31,  1882. 

In  pursuance  of  the  request  of  the  Commission,  I shall  make  some  re- 
marks this  morning  bearing  upon  the  importance  of  organizing  some  sort 
of  a customs  court,  some  sort  of  a tribunal  for  the  speedy  and  conclusive 
decision  of  customs  cases  arising  from  classification.  In  the  course  of 
my  remarks  the  other  day , I mentioned  to  you  how  nice  the  questions 
arising  from  classifications  are;  how  very  difficult  of  solution;  how 
numerous  are  the  lawsuits  arising  from  disputes  of  that  character;  how, 
for  instance,  in  charges  and  commissions  cases,  there  were  fourteen  hun- 
dred suits  arising  upon  the  construction  of  a single  section  of  the  stat- 
ute, and  most  of  them  from  the  construction  of  a single  clause  of  the 
statute.  Kow,  if  for  cases  of  that  kind,  there  were  a tribunal  that  could 
decide  them,  whose  decision  should  be  final,  you  would  see  that  a great 
number  of  those  suits  would  be  prevented.  For  iustance,  take  that  class 
of  charges  and  commissions  cases  where  the  Secretary  had  ordered  that 
2J  per  cent,  be  added  for  commissions,  when  the  law  required  that  the 
usual  commissions  should  be  charged.  The  courts  held  after  two  or 
three  years  that  that  order  was  void,  and  that  the  Secretary  could  not 
order  more  commissions  charged  than  were  usual  in  any  case,  so  that 
the  assessment  of  2J  per  cent,  was  illegal.  Now,  if  there  had  been  a tri- 
bunal that  could  have  settled  within  a week  or  a month  the  first  case 
that  arose,  there  would  not  have  been  such  an  accumulation  of  cases; 
there  might  have  been  a dozen  or  twenty  in  the  mean  time,  but  there 
could  not  have  been  fourteen  hundred  cases  saddled  on  the  government. 

In  such  cases,  if  the  Secretary  affirms  the  decision  of  the  collector,  the 
remedy  of  the  importer  then  is  to  bring  a suit  at  law,  and  that  suit  must 
be  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  final  decision. 
So  that,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  unless  the  case  is  made  special 
and  brought  forward  on  the  Supreme  Court  docket,  there  would  proba- 
bly not  be  a final  decision  under  three  or  four  years. 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


185 


I do  uot  think  there  is  anybody  who  will  not  acknowledge  the  evil 
that  might  be  avoided  by  an  earlier  decision  of  such  cases,  which  should 
be  final.  Even  if  the  importer  gains  his  suit  and  has  the  duty  refunded 
to  him,  the  greater  part  of  it  must  necessarily  be  expended  in  the  way 
of  lawyers’  fees  and  for  the  payment  of  other  necessary  expenses. 

Very  many  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  have  seen  the  necessity  of  some 
more  speedy  decision  of  these  cases,  and  have  made  recommendations 
looking  to  that  end  in  their  annual  reports.  I believe  every  Secretary 
has  made  such  a recommendation  during  the  time  I have  been  in  the 
Treasury  Department  (six  years).  Congress  has  not  acted  upon  any  of 
those  recommendations. 

After  consultation  with  the  Secretary,  a circular  was  drawn  up  dated 
15th  of  June,  1881,  and  signed  by  Secretary  Windom.  That  circular  was 
written  by  myself,  submitted  to  him  for  such  amendment  as  he  thought 
proper,  and  was  sent  out  to  the  best  experts  in  the  country,  to  the  officers 
of  the  principal  custom-houses,  to  the  gentlemen  at  the  head  of  manu- 
facturing establishments,  and  to  the  representatives  of  different  indus- 
tries, asking  them  what  measures  they  would  suggest  to  remedy  the 
evil.  It  was  also  stated  in  the  circular  that  it  was  sent  only  to  experts, 
and  that  it  was  hoped  it  would  not  be  made  public  for  the  present,  but 
that  when  the  answers  thereto  should  have  been  received  from  the  ex- 
perts, the  Secretary,  after  considering  the  various  suggestions  made, 
would  send  out  another  circular,  addressed  to  importers,  chambers  of 
commerce,  boards  of  trade,  and  the  like,  throughout  the  country,  giving 
the  result  in  general  of  those  inquiries,  and  asking  them,  as  they  had  the 
greatest  interest  in  the  matter,  to  make  their  recommendations. 

As  I said,  this  circular  was  dated  the  15th  of  June,  and  sent  out. 
The  President  was  shot  on  the  2d  of  July.  We  received  something  like 
seventy-five  or  eighty  replies,  giving  very  valuable  information  and  sug- 
gestions upon  the  points.  I took  them  and  collated  them,  and  made  a care- 
ful report  to  Secretary  Windom . But  there  was  not  sufficient  time.  Mr. 
Windom  retired  from  the  office  betore  he  had  had  time  to  examine  iuto 
the  subject,  and  a new  Secretary  came  in  two  weeks  before  the  beginning 
of  the  session  of  Congress.  Of  course  hehad  no  time  to  attend  to  it.  The 
result  was  that  the  second  circular  was  never  sent ; but  a bill  embodying 
what  was  thought  to  be  the  best  views  contained  in  the  replies  to  the 
circular  was  presented  to  Congress  in  January.  I take  the  liberty  to 
ask  the  secretary  to  read  a portion  of  this  circular,  omitting  what  I 
have  marked. 

The  secretary  read  as  follows : 


Treasury  Department, 

Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Jane  15,  1881. 

To : 

Sir:  The  present  method  of  deciding  disputed  questions  as  to  the  classification  of 
imported  merchandise  is  very  cumbrous,  expensive,  and  unsatisfactory.  Classification 
is  made  by  the  collector,  and  if  the  importer  be  dissatisfied,  he  appeals  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  and  if  dissatisfied  with  his  decision,  may  have  a trial  by  court  and 
jury.  Nearly  eighteen  thousand  cases  of  this  hind  were  presented  to  this  Department 
during  Secretary  Sherman’s  term.  Neither  the  Secretary  nor  the  court  or  jury  pos- 
sesses any  such  expert  skill  as  to  render  their  decision  satisfactory.  * * * 

All  these,  and  a thousand  like  them,  are  questions  of  classification  which  may  goto 
the  courts  for  decision.  Of  what  possible  value  is  the  opinion  of  a jury  upon  questions 
of  this  kind? 

The  dockets  of  the  New  York  courts,  where  seven-tenths  of  the  tariff  cases  arise,  are 
so  crowded  that  trials  cannot  usually  bo  obtained  in  less  than  two  or  three  years,  and 
some  classes,  as  the  “ charges  and  commissions  cases,”  have  remained  undecided  nearly 
twenty  years.  Long  before  a suit  is  ended,  the  importer  has  closed  the  transaction, 


186 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


and  lie  gains  little  advantage  if  successful  in  his  suit.  He  fails  in  the  chief  object, 
which  is  to  speedily  establish  a principle  which  may  govern  future  imports  of  the 
same  article,  and  hundreds  of  appeals  accumulate,  only  for  the  benefit  of  attorneys  and 
speculators. 

To  remedy  this  expense  and  delay  and  to  give  a speedy,  final,  and  satisfactory  de- 
cision is  very  desirable.  Repeated  recommendations  to  Congress  have  been  made  by 
Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  that  a special  court  be  established  in  New  York  for  the 
trial  of  customs  cases.  Such  a tribunal  might  give  a more  speedy  trial  to  cases  in  that 
district,  but  cases  would  still  be  subject  to  the  delay  incident  to  all  courts  of  law,  and 
it  is  desirable  that  any  measure  adopted  should  be  applicable  not  only  to  New  York, 
but  to  the  whole  country. 

I respectfully  ask  your  advice  as  to  the  best  method  of  accomplishing  this,  and  sug- 
gest for  your  consideration  the  adoption  of  a system  similar  to  that  now  in  use  for  the 
appraisal  of  goods.  The  appraisal  of  goods  subject  to  ad  valorem  duty  has  for  more 
than  forty  years  been  made  by  the  appraising  officers  of  customs,  with  an  appeal, 
either  to  two  merchant  appraisers  or  one  merchant  appraiser  and  one  general  appraiser, 
whose  decision,  if  they  agree,  is  final,  with  the  provision  that  if  they  disagree  the 
collector  shall  decide  between  them.  The  decision  thus  made,  if  the  proceedings  be 
regular,  is  absolutely  conclusive,  there  beiDg  no  appeal  either  to  the  Secretary  or  to 
a court  and  jury.  The  question  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  this  course  need  not  be 
considered,  as  it  has  been  settled  affirmatively  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

Mr.  Justice  Clifford,  of  that  court,  has  recommended  to  members  of  the  bar  that  this 
method  should,  by  proper  legislation,  be  made  to  apply  as  well  to  classification  as  to 
appraisal.  Whether  this  precise  method  by  merchant  appraisers,  or  some  modification 
of  it,  as  by  an  established  board  of  arbitration,  shall  be  adopted  is  a question  to  be 
considered.  The  number  of  general  appraisers  might  be  increased  so  that  the  board 
might  consist  entirely  of  them;  or  a special  board,  composed  of  merchants,  might  be 
constituted  in  each  of  the  principal  cities;  or,  as  now,  a board  partly  of  merchants  and 
partly  of  government  officials,  may  be  deemed  best. 

Objection  may  be  made  that  government  officials  would  be  partial  to  the  government 
in  their  decisions.  But  statistics  given  by  General  Ketchum,  the  general  appraiser  at 
New  York,  who  has  held  the  largest  number  of  reappraisals,  show  that  in  nearly  all 
the  cases  before  him  and  the  merchant  appraisers  they  have  agreed  in  their  judgment. 
For  instance,  in  347  cases  of  advancement  ujion  reappraisals  of  silks,  silk  and  cotton 
goods,  velvets,  and  gloves,  held  iu  New  York  in  the  sixteen  months  preceding  Septem- 
ber 17,  1879,  the  general  appraiser  and  merchant  appraiser  entirely  agreed  in  331,  and 
differed  only  in  1(3  cases.  And  in  all  these  16  cases,  except  five,  the  merchant  appraiser 
agreed  that  some  advance  should  be  made,  and  differed  with  the  general  appraiser 
only  as  to  the  amount  of  advance. 

The  proposed  system  would  leave  for  appeal  to  the  Secretary  and  to  the  courts — 

First.  The  class  of  cases  in  which  there  is  alleged  to  be  some  illegality  iu  the  pro- 
ceedings, as  where  fraud,  error,  or  mistake  is  charged  in  the  execution  of  the  duties 
of  the  customs  officer.  Cases  of  this  kind  occur  where  some  statutory  requirement  has 
not  been  complied  with,  as  by  omission  of  the  proper  oath,  or  omission  to  examine 
goods,  or  an  appointment  of  an  improper  person  as  appraiser,  or  similar  unjust  and 
arbitrary  exercise  of  power  by  the  customs  officers. 

Secondly.  It  might  be  well  to  provide  some  mode  by  which  mere  questions  of  law, 
which  control  classification,  might  be  carried  to  the  courts  for  decision.  Whether  an 
old  statute  is  repealed  by  a new  one;  when  a new  statute  goes  into  effect;  whether  a 
provision  of  the  Revised  Statutes  repeals  a former  statute — these,  and  many  other  ques- 
tions arising  upon  the  construction  of  statutes,  might  be  in  some  way  referred  to  the 
courts.  Any  reference,  however,  to  the  courts  is  attended  with  a delay  which  must, 
iu  the  cases  referred  for  their  consideration,  defeat  the  main  object  of  the  proposed 
amendment  of  the  law,  which  is  to  procure  a speedy  and  conclusive  decision  of  disputed 
questions. 

Whether  it  may  not  be  best  to  refer  to  the  board  of  reference  the  whole  matter  of 
law  and  fact  as  to  the  particular  entry,  leaving  them  “by  all  reasonable  ways  and 
means  iu  their  power  to  ascertain,  estimate,  and  appraise,”  as  provided  in  section  2900, 
Revised  Statutes,  as  to  the  market  value,  mud  conclusively  fix  the  amount  of  duties 
to  be  paid,  is  worthy  of  consideration.  If  this  method  should  be  deemed  too  summary, 
an  appeal  from  the  board  to  the  Secretary  upon  questions  of  law  might  be  'allowed, 
making  the  Secretary’s  decision  thereon  final. 

Again,  if  in  some  classes  of  cases,  like  those  above  suggested,  the  opinion  of  a court 
be  deemed  desirable,  the  Secretary  might  be  authorized,  in  his  discretion,  to  refer  them 
to  the  Supreme  Court,  or  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  as  is  now  provided  in  certain  cases. 

Although  importers,  like  all  other  parties,  are  inclined  to  pursue  any  remedy  open 
to  them  in  the  courts  to  the  tribunal  of  last  resort,  yet  it  is  believed  that  the  measure 
proposed  will  meet  the  approval  of  importers  in  general.  It  is  for  their  interest,  more 
than  for  that  of  anybody  else,  that  they  should  know,  at  once  and  finally,  without 
expensive  litigation,  what  amount  of  duties  are  chargeable  upon  their  invoices. 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


187 


When  this  plan  has  been  considered  and  matured  it  will  he  submitted  to  the  cham- 
bers of  commerce  and  boards  of  trade,  and  to  importers,  and  others  interested,  for 
their  approval . 

Copies  of  this  letter  will  be  forwarded  to  a few  persons  connected  with  the  service, 
and  others  deemed  to  be  experts.  A free  expression  of  your  views  as  to  the  expediency 
of  adopting  the  general  idea,  and  as  to  any  details  that  may  occur  to  you,  as  soon  as 
convenient,  is  requested. 

Until  then  it  is  hoped  that  the  matter  will  be  kept  from  publication,  as  a prema- 
ture discussion  will  lead  to  no  good  result. 

WILLIAM  WINDOM, 

Secretary. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Will  you  allow  me  to  comment  upon  one 
part  of  that  circular,  as  to  the  number  of  cases — some  1 8,000?  I wish  to 
explain  that  many  of  those  cases  were  repetitions;  that  is,  they  were 
simply  repeated  entries  or  repeated  importations  of  the  same  goods. 
If  the  collector  is  in  doubt,  he  decides  originally  adversely  to  the  im- 
porter, who  submits  a protest  to  the  Secretary.  If  the  Secretary  sus- 
tains the  collector  and  decides  adversely  to  the  importer,  that  decision 
becomes  binding  upon  the  collector  for  all  subsequent  importations  of 
that  article  until  that  decision  is  reversed  by  the  courts,  as  was  the  case 
in  regard  to  the  sugar  question.  The  collector  did  not  in  that  case  favor 
the  construction  given  by  the  Secretary,  but  he  had  to  obey  the  decision. 
Consequently  there  were  hundreds  of  sugar  cases  on  the  docket,  which 
go  to  help  make  up  this  large  number.  That  is  what  I wanted  to 
have  understood. 

The  Witness.  That  is  one  of  the  very  points  in  the  statement  read. 
The  importers  are  obliged  to  bring  suit  after  suit  in  order  to  protect 
their  rights,  if  they  deem  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  wrong,  whereas 
if  a decision  could  be  made  conclusively  and  immediately,  there  would 
be  no  occasion  for  any  great  accumulation  of  cases. 

I know  that  this  circular  was  made  in  perfect  good  faith,  for  the  in- 
terest, principally,  of  the  importers.  They  are  the  parties  who  suffer; 
they  are  the  parties  with  whom  theUnited  States  has  the  controversy ; and 
I desired,  and  the  Secretary  desired,  that  some  tribunal  should  be  estab- 
lished which  would  relieve  the  department  of  the  decision  of  these 
questions,  which  we  were  in  no  condition  to  settle  properly ; and,  in  the 
next  place,  to  give  relief  to  the  importer. 

The  gentlemen  who  have  an  interest  in  controversies,  who  make  their 
living  by  attending  to  suits  at  law  and  by  endeavors  to  obtain  refunds; 
gentlemen  who  take  suits  upon  shares  (as  a great  many  of  them  do,  called 
in  Washington  contingent  fees,  and  considered  there  perfectly  proper,  as 
I presume  it  is  in  New  York) — those  gentlemen  immediately  arose  as 
one  man  and  said,  u Why,  this  is  a new  scheme  from  the  Treasury  De- 
partment to  wrong  the  importers.”  And  the  moment  the  bill  was  intro- 
duced by  Senator  Sherman  the  scheme  was  denounced  in  the  New  York 
papers  as  being  a u w scheme  of  the  Treasury,  gotten  up  for  the  purpose 
of  wronging  the  importers;  whereas,  in  fact,  it  was  more  for  their  benefit 
than  for  that  of  anybody  else;  and,  instead  of  being  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  more  power  into  the  Treasury  Department,  it  was  to  take  from 
them  all  the  power  they  had  on  the  subject.  They  were  desirous  of 
getting  rid  of  the  controversies,  of  getting  rid  of  the  labor  involved  in 
their  adjudication.  In  the  discussion  that  ensued  in  Congress  the 
whole  thing  was  attributed  to  some  desire  to  get  up  some  scheme,  like 
the  sugar  circulars,  to  wrong  the  importer  in  some  way,  and,  in  conse- 
quence, it  has  not  had  a fair  chance  in  the  discussion.  If  the  subject 
had  remained  as  it  was,  perfectly  within  our  control,  and  we  had  sent  out 
to  the  chambers  of  commerce  and  importers  a circular  asking  their 


188 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[lIENEY  F.  FRENCH. 


advice,  they  would  have  taken  it  in  perfect  good  faith,  and  we  should 
have  got  their  advice  for  some  scheme  that  would  benefit  them.  But, 
as  I said,  the  whole  matter  was  disturbed  by  one  of  those  accidents 
which  nobody  could  prevent,  and  the  difficulty  still  continues. 

There  are  three  methods,  that  were  principally  suggested  in  the  an- 
swers made  to  the  circulars,  by  which  these  cases  could  be  settled.  Oue 
was  to  arrange  the  matter  very  much  as  the  valuation  of  goods  is  set- 
tled— leave  it  to  the  custom-house  officers  to  settle  the  classification 
just  as  they  settle  the  valuation  of  goods.  That  was  the  leading  idea, 
as  you  will  see  in  the  circular. 

One  objection  was  that,  while  in  New  York  there  is  a large  number 
of  very  able  officers  from  whom  a board  might  be  selected,  with  a 
merchant  appraiser  who  would  be  entirely  competent  to  settle  such 
questions,  yet  in  the  small  x>orts  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  find  any 
such  officers  who  would  be  competent. 

The  importance  of  having  the  decision  right  in  the  first  place,  in  order 
to  have  any  binding  force,  is  manifest.  For  instance,  there  might  come 
an  importation  of  cotton-ties  into  New  Orleans,  or  into  some  small  port 
down  South,  and  the  decision  there  might  be  that  they  were  to  be  clas- 
sified as  hoop-iron.  If  that  decision  were  to  be  conclusive,  it  would  be 
a great  hardship  upon  the  consumers.  On  the  other  hand,  if  decided 
to  be  manufactures  of  iron,  it  would  be  a hardship  on  those  who  desired 
protection.  So  that  that  plan  was  not  insisted  on.  It  seems  to  me 
it  would  be  hardly  safe  to  say  we  could  find  officers  in  the  custom- 
houses of  the  ports  outside  of  New  York,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  and 
Baltimore  who  would  be  competent  to  give  a conclusive  decision.  And 
any  tribunal  that  does  not  give  a final  decision  is  not  of  any  value,  be- 
cause one  of  the  very  things  we  want  to  avoid  is  the  multiplicity  of 
appeals.  On  the  whole,  I am  inclined  to  think  that  we  could  not  carry 
out  that  idea,  and  if  I had  prepared  another  circular  on  the  subject,  I 
should  have  said  so. 

The  next  proposition  which  seemed  to  have  the  most  support,  and  the 
one  which  I should  adopt,  if  it  is  deemed  expedient,  though  I am  not 
very  urgent  on  this  point,  would  be  the  creation  of  what  might  be  called 
a customs  court,  composed  partly  of  experts,  and  with  one  or  two  law- 
yers of  eminence,  who  should  be  judges  learned  in  the  law,  but  made 
up  mainly  of  experts,  who  should  receive  salaries  of  five  or  six  thousand 
dollars  or  more  per  year,  and  whose  appointments  should  be  permanent. 
That  court  might  sit  in  New  York.  But  immediately  men  at  the  other 
ports  would  say,  “Why  not  sit  in  Boston,  or  Chicago,  or  Baltimore'?”  and 
so  on.  There  would  be  no  insuperable  objection  to  having  the  court 
constituted  with  power  to  sit  in  different  places.  It  might  remove,  if 
necessary,  to  Boston  or  Philadelphia.  I mention  New  York  as  the 
headquarters,  because  the  larger  number  of  controversies  arise  there, 
It  would  be  no  greater  hardship,  however,  to  send  all  the  cases  to 
New  York  than  it  is  to  send  them  to  Washington,  where  they  now  go. 
Nobody  who  has  made  that  objection  seems  to  have  thought  that  every- 
body is  obliged  to  go  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  now  with  his 
appeal,  and  in  the  end  is  obliged  to  go  to  the  Supreme  Court  at  Wash- 
ington to  have  a final  decision.  One  of  the  members  of  the  proposed 
court  might  be  detailed,  when  the  importance  of  the  cases  warranted, 
to  sit  at  the  other  ports  and  collate  the  facts,  collect  the  evidence,  take 
it  in  writing,  and  report  it  to  the  full  court. 

In  most  cases  there  is  no  great  difficulty  after  the  case  has  been 
fairly  examined.  The  difficulty  generally  arises  from  misapprehension 
rather  than  from  settled  difference  of  opinion  where  the  case  has  been 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


189 


examined  by  competent  experts.  So  that  practically  there  is  no  great 
difficulty,  in  establishing  such  a court.  Such  a court  would  be  the 
very  best  tribunal  for  investigating  the  matter,  and  its  decisions  would 
be  final.  I would  have  no  appeal  whatever  to  any  other  court.  With 
all  due  deference  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  or  to  any 
court  higher  than  the  ordinary  courts,  the  opinion  of  such  a court  upon 
a mixed  question  of  law  and  fact  involving  such  transactions  would 
be  better  than  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  would  be.  Such  a 
board  of  experts,  giving  their  attention  wholly  to  that  class  of  business, 
would,  in  a very  short  time,  be  regarded  by  everybody  as  better  able  to 
finally  settle  such  questions  than  any  other  tribunal  whatever.  I do 
not  think  there  is  any  difficulty  upon  that  point. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Would  you  retain  the  protest? 

The  Witness.  I think  the  value  of  the  protest,  if  properly  regarded, 
is  very  great.  The  importer  brings  in  his  goods.  They  are  examined 
hastily,  as  they  must  be,  and  classified.  The  appraising  officers  report 
to  the  collector’s  office,  and  the  classification  is  made.  The  importer 
says,  “You  have  made  a mistake  about  that,  and  I want  it  corrected.” 
He  files  his  protest,  stating  the  difficulty.  Now,  I hold,  and  the  depart- 
ment now  holds,  that  the  collector,  having  received  that  protest,  is  not 
only  at  liberty  but  is  bound  to  make  a re-examination  and  see  if  there 
has  been  a mistake.  In  New  York  they  have  officers  who  can  care- 
fully examine  such  questions,  and  if  the  collector  finds  that  he  has  made 
a mistake  he  will  correct  it.  If  that  is  satisfactory  to  the  importer, 
that  ends  it.  I would  not  have  the  protest  disregarded  or  regarded  as 
a mere  matter  of  form,  as  it  has  been  in  many  ports  until  lately.  The 
courts  have  said  repeatedly,  in  adjudicating  upon  the  question  as  to 
whether  a protest  was  sufficient,  that  the  object  of  the  protest  is,  in  the 
first  place,  to  enable  the  collector  to  correct  his  mistake,  if  he  has  made 
one ; in  the  next  place,  that  the  importer  shall  not  change  his  ground 
when  he  comes  into  court;  he  shall  make  it  so  definite  as  to  show  the 
real  point  of  complaint,  and  shall  not  afterwards  change  it  when  he 
goes  beyond  the  custom-house  or  into  the  courts. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  The  protest  supplies  the  place  of  plead- 
ings in  the  courts  of  law,  and  the  party  making  the  protest  must  be 
held  to  the  case  he  makes  in  his  protest. 

The  Witness.  That  is  it;  it  forms  the  issue  directly.  But  I merely 
referred  to  it  because  the  courts  have  repeatedly  said  that  one  object  of 
having  a protest  wa's  to  enable  the  collector  to  correct  his  mistake  if  he 
lias  made  one. 

The  only  practical  objection  to  having  such  a court  of  arbitrators — if 
you  may  call  it  such — or  customs  court,  is  that  there  would  not  be  busi- 
ness enough  to  occupy  it.  While  Congress  can  appropriate  $19,000,000 
to  the  improvement  of  all  the  creeks  and  mud-puddles  in  the  country, 
when  it  comes  to  a question  of  appropriating  $30,000  or  $40,000  to 
settle  thousands  of  controversies,  the  question  of  economy  at  once 
comes  up.  They  say,  “This  is  going  to  be  an  expensive  court.  Five  or 
six  judges  with  salaries  of  $5,000  or  $0,000  a year  each,  and  the  expense 
of  all  the  attendants  upon  the  court  amounts  to  a great  deal.”  Economy 
is  always  to  be  considered;  but  the  only  question  in  my  mind  in  that 
direction  is  this:  Would  there  be  enough  business  to  occupy  the  time 
of  such  a tribunal? 

If  such  a court  could  be  constituted  whose  decision  should  be  final,  it 
would  very  greatly  lessen  the  number  of  suits  involving  the  same  points, 
because  if  you  settle  the  first,  the  other  three  thousand  or  three  hun- 
dred would  not  arise.  And  I am  not  sure  that  there  would  be  a very 
large  amount  of  business  for  such  a court.  Every  time  there  is  an 


190 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[henry  f.  french. 


amendment  of  the  tariff  law  there  is  a crop  of  lawsuits  grows  out  of  it. 
I am  trying  here  to  occupy  the  position  I always  have  occupied  in 
this  matter,  that  of  perfect  impartiality  and  a desire  to  hit  upon  a 
scheme  that  shall  best  accomplish  the  two  objects  of  a speedy  decision 
and  a right  decision. 

A bill  is  now  pending  before  Congress  to  refer  this  class  of  appeals 
to  the  Court  of  Claims.  The  Court  of  Claims  consists  of  five  judges,  who 
try  cases  without  juries ; who  practically  sit  to  hear  the  facts  and  decide 
the  law.  All  the  evidence  is  embodied  in  printed  statements.  The 
judges  in  the  first  place  have  to  agree  upou  a statement  of  facts,  and 
then  they  decide  upon  the  law.  That  tribunal  now  sits  only  in 
Washington,  and  upon  inquiry  made  by  the  Treasury  Department  of 
that  court,  the  judges  unanimously  signed  a statement  to  the  effect  that 
they  could,  without  any  doubt,  fairly  transact  all  the  business  that 
could  arise  upon  these  appeals  in  addition  to  their  present  duties. 
That  court  has  in  it  one  judge  (Bichardson)  who  was  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  for  a time,  and  previously  to  that  was  Assistant  Secretary 
for  several  years.  He  has  been  engaged  in  the  compilation  of  the 
statutes,  and  has  published  a supplement  thereto.  He  is  as  learned  in 
that  kind  of  law  as  any  man  in  the  country.  The  other  judges  are  not 
perhaps  particularly  skilled  in  customs  laws;  they  would  not  be  regarded 
as  experts  in  any  of  these  cases;  but  the  court  is  certainly  a very  respect- 
able one,  and  has  the  confidence  of  the  community. 

An  argument  in  favor  of  transferriug  the  business  to  that  court  is, 
that  there  would  be  no  new  officers  to  be  created,  no  increase  of  salaries, 
no  increase  of  expense  of  any  description. 

The  objection  was  at  once  made  that  the  Court  of  Claims  sat  only  in 
Washington.  This  could  easily  be  remedied  by  providing  that  the  court 
may,  in  their  discretion,  sit  in  any  of  the  ports  of  the  country. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Either  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  or 
Baltimore. 

The  Witness.  Another  argument  for  the  Court  of  Claims  is,  that  the 
Attorney- General  and  his  officers  could  attend  to  the  cases  in  Washing- 
ton, before  the  Court  of  Claims  there,  and  that  the  United  States  attor- 
neys, in  the  other  cities  where  the  trials  were  held,  might  attend  to  the 
interests  of  the  United  States  there. 

I have  suggested  all  the  views  that  occur  to  me  now  on  this  subject. 
I have  no  papers  here,  and  have  spoken  entirely  from  memory;  but  I 
have  suggested  the  various  claims  of  different  kinds  of  tribunals,  and 
it  seems  to  me  a very  important  matter  (if  my  personal  opinion  is  of  any 
value)  that,  in  your  final  report,  you  should  consider  this  matter,  unless 
Congress  shall  before  that  time  have  passed  the  Court  of  Claims  bill, 
and  have  made  some  definite  provision  on  the  subject. 

DUTIES  ON  SUGAR. 

Some  members  of  the  Commission  have  asked  me  to  give  a littlestate- 
ment  as  to  the  present  condition  of  the  sugar  question,  and  I will  go  on 
if  agreeable.  I do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  subject  at  much  length, 
but,  as  the  question  has  gone  over  the  present  session  of  Congress  (evi- 
dently for  the  reason  that  it  is  before  this  Commission),  it  is  very  im- 
portant that  you  should  take  some  action  upon  it.  I think  a fair 
statement  of  the  condition  of  things  under  the  law  will  satisfy  you  that 
there  is  no  item  of  the  tariff  which  more  imperatively  demands  attention 
than  this  of  the  duties  on  sugar,  and  I will  run  it  over  so  that  you  may 
have  a general  idea  of  how  the  question  stands.  Many  of  you  are 
already  familiar  with  it. 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TAEIFF. 


191 


Many  years  ago  what  is  called  the  Dutch  standard  of  color  was  adopted 
for  the  classification  of  sugar.  The  general  theory  was — and  it  was 
correct — that  the  lighter  the  color  of  sugar  the  purer  sugar  it  was  and  the 
more  valuable ; and  this  Dutch  standard  was  based  upon  that  idea — that 
the  value  ranged  somewhat  in  proportion  to  the  color.  That  theory 
worked  very  well  until  the  centrifugal  process  was  adopted. 

A few  years  ago  it  was  found  that  sugars  were  brought  into  the  mar- 
ket which  were  very  pure,  but  which  were  of  very  dark  color,  and  it 
was  soon  ascertained  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Treasury  Department,  al- 
though it  was  denied  by  the  importers  and  by  the  sugar  manufacturers, 
that  those  sugars  were  artificially  colored  for  the  American  market. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  And  will  you  add  in  that  statement  “and 
by  the  customs  experts  in  many  cases’7? 

The  Witness.  Not  universally.  I think  they  are  very  nearly  all  of 
them  now  satisfied  beyond  question  that  the  sugars  were  artificially  col- 
ored. I think  Mr.  McMahon  will  not  say  that  any  officer  of  the  custom- 
house believes  that  any  sugars  that  tested  98  and  rated  at  No.  7 (the  low- 
est Dutch  standard)  were  not  artificially  prepared  for  the  American 
market.  It  was  not  denied  in  the  argument  of  The  case  by  Mr.  Evarts. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  The  sugar  experts  in  the  custom-house^ 
held  that  there  was  no  introduction  of  foreign  substances. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  The  experts  of  New  Orleans  held  a directly 
opposite  opinion — that  those  sugars  were  discolored  for  the  American 
market. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  The  question  is  what  they  were  colored  with ; 
molasses  is  not  a foreign  substance. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  was  a regular  process  of  manufacture, 
but  our  customs  experts  held  that  there  was  no  introduction  of  foreign 
substances.  If  there  had  been  then  it  would  have  been  something  more 
than  sugar — it  would  have  been  sugar  and  something  else. 

The  Witness.  The  important  point  is,  that  about  1878  or  1879,  the 
Dutch  standard  of  color  became  an  entirely  inadequate  and  false  stand- 
ard. It  did  not  do  what  Congress  intended  it  should  do.  It  did  not 
disclose  the  true  value  of  sugar  for  all  practical  purposes,  but  was  en- 
tirely misleading  and  making  the  high-priced  sugars  pay  only  the  lowest 
duty,  which  was  never  intended  by  anybody,  and  was  not  defended  by 
anybody.  It  was  intended  that  it  should  pay  something  like  an  ad  va- 
lorem duty. 

The  department  became  satisfied  that  those  sugars  were  artificially 
colored,  as  we  all  think,  and  as  the  evidence  shows,  colored  by  pumping 
molasses  into  the  vacuum  pan  where  they  were  boiling,  after  they  had 
been  reduced  to  granulated  sugar,  and  which,  in  the  ordinary  process, 
would  bring  a good  deal  of  it  up  to  16  Dutch  standard;  that  after  it 
had  become  sugar,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  they  pumped  in  black 
molasses  which  had  been  throwrn  off  by  the  centrifugal,  and  which  was 
never  used  or  intended  to  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  sugar,  any 
more  than  so  much  blacking  would  be,  and  which  practically  never  was 
used  for  making  sugar.  That  stuff  pumped  back  was  just  as  much,  in 
my  view,  a foreign  substance  as  if  it  had  been  a quantity  of  blacking 
pumped  back  into  the  vacuum  pan,  or  sent  back  by  the  force  of  suc- 
tion, and  the  sugar  colored  as  black  as  they  wanted  to  make  it.  Then 
the  sugar  wras  passed  through  the  centrifugal  without  any  water  to 
wash  it,  and  was  sent  here  and  was  said  to  be,  say,  No.  7,  D.  S.,  and 
claimed  to  pay  that  duty.  It  was  regarded  by  the  department  and  by 
near  y all  the  custom-houses  as  a fraud  upon  our  revenues;  or,  in  other 
words,  the  department  held  that  we  were  bound  to  regard  the  true  color 
of  the  sugar  and  not  the  apparent  color.  The  New  York  custom-house 


192 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


took  the  ground  that  they  had  a right  to  do  what  they  chose  with  the 
sugar. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Allow  me  to  say  that  we  held  also  that  if 
it  was  a fraud,  as  you  say,  you  should  have  seized  the  sugar  and  for- 
feited it. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  care  particularly  about  discussing  the  New 
York  custom-house  here. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I do  not  want  you  to  put  the  New  York 
custom  house  in  a false  position. 

The  Witness.  The  New  York  custom-house  is  just  the  same  to  me  as 
any  other  custom  house  in  the  country,  and  I will  protect  and  defend 
it  and  its  collectors,  with  whom  I have  always  had  friendly  intercourse, 
as  soon  as  anybody  else.  I should  not  have  had  anything  to  say  about 
it  and  did  not  allude  to  it  until  Mr.  McMahon  thought  proper  to  intro- 
duce the  subject. 

The  responsibility  is,  of  course,  upon  the  Treasury  Department.  We 
said  this:  We  had  to  regard  the  true  color  of  the  sugar.  This  black 
sugar  ground  in  a mortar  was  nearly  white ; the  color  was  all  on  the 
outside  of  the  grains.  We  showed  it  repeatedly  before  the  committees 
of  Congress  and  everywhere  else.  We  said  that  was  not  the  true  color. 
If  I agree  to  sell  a man  a pair  of  white  horses,  and  bring  him  a pair  of 
black  horses  with  a coat  of  whitewash  over  them,  he  will  not  be  bound 
to  receive  them  as  white  horses.  They  are  not  white  horses.  They  are 
merely  a pair  of  black  horses  disguised.  So  we  held  in  regard  to  the 
sugar  j this  apparent  color  was  not  the  true  color,  and  we  contended 
that  we  had  the  right  to  ascertain  the  true  color,  either  by  pulverizing 
it  in  a mortar,  or  by  examining  it  otherwise,  to  see  what  its  true  color 
was. 

We  know  that  in  the  ordinary  processes  of  manufacturing  sugar, 
color,  as  I said,  is  a fair  index  of  purity.  These  sugars  were  dark.  We 
tested  them  by  the  polariscope  and  by  chemical  analysis  to  find  their 
saccharine  strength.  We  found,  for  instance,  that  a sugar  that  was 
entered  as  No.  7 and  was  darker  than  any  No.  7,  would  test  98  or  99  per 
per  cent,  pure  sugar,  while  the  true  No.  7,  made  by  the  ordinary  pro- 
cess, would  only  test  from  65  to  75.  We  saw  that  this  was  a fraud  upon 
honorable  importers  who  did  not  care  to  engage  in  any  trick  of  that 
kind,  for  it  is  a trick.  It  was  a fraud  on  the  producers  of  this  country 
who  had  a right  to  the  protection  of  the  law  so  long  as  the  law  stands. 
We  undertook  to  look  through  the  disguises  and  assess  the  sugar  upon 
its  real  color  and  not  its  apparent  color.  We  never  claimed  any  right 
to  do  anything  except  to  assess  by  the  Dutch  standard  of  color.  To 
ascertain  that  color  we  removed  the  disguises  either  by  washing  (which 
we  could  do  at  once)— put  some  in  a tumbler  and  stir  it,  or  put  it  in  a 
mortar  and  grind  it  and  bring  out  the  true  color ; or,  again,  test  it  by  the 
polariscope,  and  that  would  disclose  exactly  what  the  true  character  of 
the  sugar  was. 

And  now  a word  as  to  the  polariscope.  That  we  know  is  a modern 
instrument,  made  for  ascertaining  various  matters,  and  used  very  gen- 
erally for  ascertaining  the  value  and  quality  of  sugar.  It  is  an  instru- 
ment, I may  say,  in  universal  use  among  all  the  buyers  and  sellers  of 
centrifugal  sugars,  as  the  test  of  its  value.  In  the  New  York  Times  of 
this  morning  1 find  the  quotations  of  the  Havana  market  stated  thus : 

Havana,  July  29. — Sugar — The  market  lias  continued  inactive  for  want  of  sellers, 
but  prices  were  linn  ; molasses  sugar,  84°  to  87°  polarization,  G$  © 6£  reals,  gold,  per 
arroba;  Muscovado,  common  to  fair,  (if  © 7f  reals;  centrifugal,  92°  to  96°  polariza- 
tion, in  boxes  and  hogsheads,  8f  © 9f  reals. 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


193 


That  is  in  all  the  reports  of  prices  of  sugar  in  foreign  markets.  The 
polariscope  is  used,  as  I said,  by  the  buyer.  He  makes  his  orders  with 
reference  to  that  test,  and  the  whole  trade  adopts  it  as  the  just  criterion 
of  value.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Dutch  standard.  They  do  not 
care  what  the  color  is.  It  is  the  purity  of  the  sugar  which  they  regard. 
Mr.  Kenner  knows  all  about  this,  and  will  substantiate  what  I say 
about  the  use  of  it  in  this  country.  I understand  that  sugar  in  New 
Orleans  is  bought  and  sold  by  this  test.  The  polariscope  is  used  uni- 
versally in  the  sugar  business  at  the  South,  and  nothing  else  is  used  as 
a test. 

Gentlemen  say  in  Congress  and  out  of  Congress  that  the  polariscope 
is  an  instrument  that  the  custom-house  folks  cannot  use;  that  it  is  an 
instrument  of  fraud,  and  that  the  government  should  not  undertake  to 
use  it.  There  has  been  great  objection  from  some  sugar  importers  to  its 
adoption.  The  objection  does  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  people 
who  deal  in  sugar  do  not  know  that  the  instrument  is  universally  used 
as  a test,  but  it  arises  ordinarily  from  the  want  of  agreement  among  the 
various  classes  of  persons  interested  in  sugar  as  to  how  the  tariff  shall 
be  established.  At  present  the  tariff  is  pretty  nearly  uniform ; that  is, 
the  high  sugars  may  come  in,  and  a good  many  of  them  do  come  in,  at 
a low  rate  of  duty,  and  that  is  favorable  to  a good  many  persons  inter- 
ested in  sugar.  I have  attended  all  the  meetings,  or  at  least  I have 
generally  attended  the  meetings,  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 
when  the  Treasury  was  invited  to  be  present,  end  there  lias  never  been 
a time  when  the  parties  interested  in  refining  sugar  and  importing  it, 
have  tendered  to  that  committee  any  agreement  as  to  the  best  mode  of 
classifying  sugar.  They  have  been  asked  to  do  so  repeatedly.  When 
they  came  before  the  committee  the  chairman  has  said:  u This  is  a legis- 
lative committee,  gentlemen.  You  are  here  to  help  us  to  legislate. 
Have  you  agreed  upon  any  basis  upon  which  you  will  have  sugar  clas- 
sified and  the  tariff  fixed?”  And  in  every  instance  they  have  been 
unable  to  answer  in  the  affirmative.  One  gentleman  would  contend 
that  there  should  be  two  rates,  those  below  the  No.  13,  Dutch  standard, 
and  those  above  No.  13.  That  would  not  be  a difficult  matter  to  manage. 
Some  of  the  others  have  wanted  the  polariscope  used,  but  they  were 
persons  who  did  not  agree  with  the  first  class  as  to  how  they  wanted 
the  duties  arranged.  It  would  be  a very  simple  matter  to  say:  Retain 
the  present  rates,  or  reduce  them  25  per  cent,  if  you  think  proper;  and 
it  would  be  a very  simple  matter  to  say  that  the  various  classes  or 
grades  should'be  tested  by  the  polariscope;  there  is  no  difficulty  about 
executing  that  at  all.  An  ad  valorem  duty  can  be  very  easily  levied 
and  collected.  I presume  at  the  present  time  more  people  would  agree 
to  an  ad  valorem  than  any  other. 

There  is  something  about  the  polariscope  that  acts  like  a scare  crow 
upon  some  people.  Two  or  three  years  ago  there  was  some  doubt 
whether  it  was  an  accurate  instrument,  but  I think  now  everybody  who 
deals  in  sugars  uses  the  polariscope  as  a test.  If  you  assess  an  ad  valo- 
rem duty  the  polariscope  would  be  the  instrument  to  ascertain  the 
value  of  the  sugar.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  to  the  department 
or  to  anybody  else  how  these  duties  are  arranged.  If  it  is  intended  to 
get  anything  like  a graduated  scale  of  duties  the  polariscope  must  come 
in  to  determine  the  value. 

You  have  two  questions  before  you.  One  is  whether  you  will  raise 
or  lessen  the  tariff  upon  sugar,  or  preserve  it  as  it  is.  The  other 
is  how  you  will  grade  it,  and  how  you  will  ascertain  the  value  of 
different  sugars.  My  suggestions  are  intended  merely  to  give  you  the 
n.  Mis.  0 13 


194 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  F.  FRENCH. 


present  status  of  the  question,  and  to  make  some  suggestions  as  to  the 
proper  mode  of  establishing  the  tariff  upon  sugar.  Sugar  now  pays 
the  largest  amount  of  duties  upon  the  schedule.  We  have  not  the 
amount  paid  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1882,  but  for  the  year 
ending  June  30,  1881,  the  amount  of  duty  on  sugar  was  $48,000,000. 
I believe  there  was  something  over  $50,000,000  this  year. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  We  have  it  to  March,  1882,  that  is  all. 

The  Witness.  In  1875  there  was  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  added  to  sugar, 
and  there  has  been  a proposition  in  Congress — which  has  been  decided 
by  the  postponement  of  the  bill — to  take  off  25  per  cent.,  which  would 
be  a reduction  of  20  per  cent.,  and  that  would  reduce  the  tariff  if  it  is 
$50,000,000  to  $40,000,000.  I have  nothing  to  say  upon  this  point  or 
any  other,  as  to  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  any  such  measure;  it 
is  not  my  province ; 1 am  not  an  advocate  for  anybody,  and  in  fact  I 
do  not  care  about  it.  My  whole  mission  here  is  to  suggest  to  the  Com- 
mission the  points  of  difficulty  in  administering  the  law  so  that  you  may 
avoid  difficulties  when  you  come  to  make  your  final  report. 

That  is  all,  Mr.  President,  I have  to  submit. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  polari- 
scope  should  be  relied  upon  to  ascertain  the  saccharine  strength  of  all 
sugars 

The  Witness.  Yes.  I ought  to  say  that  when  the  question  of  appar- 
ent color  with  reference  to  the  assessment  of  duties  by  the  department 
went  to  the  Supreme  Court,  that  court  decided  that  the  introduction  of 
coloring  matter  in  the  way  I have  suggested — and  that  was  proposed 
to  be  proved  and  expressly  relied  upon — although  it  was  done  to  evade 
the  tariff,  was  not  such  a fraud  as  to  authorize  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment to  look  at  anything  but  the  apparent  color  of  the  sugar  as  it  was 
imported.  So  that  at  present  any  man  has  a right,  in  the  course  of 
manufacturing  his  sugar — though  not  by  any  process  for  making  the 
best  sugar  in  the  shortest  time  and  cheapest  way — to  introduce  any 
coloring  matter  for  the  very  purpose  of  reducing  the  duty  on  sugar,  or, 
as  Mr.  Evarts  expressed  it,  to  meet  the  American  tariff,  and  the  duties 
cannot  be  assessed  in  any  way  except  upon  the  apparent  color. 

To  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  I bow  with  profound  respect, 
only  reserving  the  right  to  agree  with  the  minority,  which  is,  of  course, 
no  more  disrespectful  to  the  majority  than  it  is  disrespectful  for  the 
minority  of  the  judges  to  disagree  with  the  majority.  There  were  two 
judges  who  entertained  an  entirely  different  view  of  the  matter,  and 
took  the  ground  that  the  department  took  upon  the  subject.  They 
published  a dissenting  opinion  which  can  be  furnished  to  you  with  the 
opinion  of  the  majority;  they  are  published  together.  I have  only  to 
say  that  with  that  minority  I entirely  agree.  The  law  is  to  be  executed 
precisely  as  the  Supreme  Court  determined,  and  I think  I will  add  one 
statement  in  that  regard. 

Of  course  the  department  is  criticized  in  all  directions,  and  that  is  all 
perfectly  proper.  It  has  been  stated  by  way  of  criticism  that  this  deci- 
sion of  the  Supreme  Court  has  cost  the  government  an  immense  amount 
of  money.  There  is  no  loss  to  the  government.  The  government  is 
only  refunding  the  money  which  was  wrongfully  taken  according  to  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  Treasury  has  not  suffered  at  all 
by  the  process.  The  importers  may  have  suffered.  By  reason  of  the 
careful  attention  given  in  the  course  of  the  controversy  which  arose  as 
to  the  grading  of  sugar  and  the  assessment  of  duties,  it  appears  that 
the  revenue  from  sugar  during  the  two  or  three  years  while  that  deci- 
sion of  the  Treasury  Department  was  in  force  was  increased  something 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF 


195 


like  five  million  dollars  by  the  higher  classification  in  cases  where  no 
controversy  arose  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  polariscope.  So  that,  in 
fact,  after  striking  a balance  in  regard  to  the  whole  controversy,  I think 
the  government  has  collected  several  millions  more  money  than  if  the 
controversy  had  not  arisen,  even  after  refunding  what  was  declared  to 
have  been  illegally  collected.  The  statistics  upon  which  I rely  are  the 
reports  of  the  special  agents.  I refer  to  the  actual  duties  and  not  the 
estimated  duties.  It  has  been  noticed  in  Congress  that  there  is  a differ- 
ence between  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  and  the  figures  in  the  Secretary’s 
report,  and  it  has  been  a great  puzzle. 

Commissioner  MOMahon.  The  liquidated  duties  were  much  less. 

The.  Witness.  That  is  all,  gentlemen,  I have  to  say. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  In  connection  with  the  matter  as  to  wdiich 
Judge  French  has  been  speaking — the  establishment  of  a tribunal  for 
the  adjudication  of  customs  cases — we  have  had  sent  to  us  a communi- 
cation from  Senator  Sherman  to  Judge  Richardson,  of  the  Court  of 
Claims,  and  Judge  Richardson’s  reply  thereto,  together  with  a copy  of 
the  bill  reported  by  Senator  Morrill  which,  as  I see  by  a memorandum, 
includes  or  covers  the  Sherman  bill.  The  matter  is  nowr  before  the 
Commission,  and  the  correspondence  and  bill  can  be  read  if  desired. 

The  President.  The  papers  will  be  read  if  there  is  no  objection. 

Commissioner  Oliver  then  read  the  following  papers : 

Correspondence  in  relation  to  the  best  method  of  determining  controverted  questions  in  cus- 
toms-revenue cases. 


Senate  Library  Committee, 

Washington,  December  19,  1881. 

Hon.  Wm.  A.  Richardson, 

Washington , D.  C.: 

Sir:  My  experience  in  tlie  Treasury  convinced  me  of  the  great  importance,  both  to 
the  United  States  and  to  private  litigants,  of  the  organization  of  a tribunal  to  try 
customs  cases,  or  of  transferring  jurisdiction  in  such  cases  to  the  Court  of  Claims. 

Your  experience  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  Assistant  Secretary,  together 
with  your  experience  as  a judge  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  will  enable  you  to  give  to 
Congress  important  information,  both  as  to  the  necessity  of  such  a tribunal  and  the 
best  mode  of  securing  it. 

Referring  to  our  recent  conversation,  I respectfully  ask  you  to  state  in  writing  your 
views  upon  the  subject  in  such  form  as  may  be  available  for  use  in  Congress. 

Very  truly  yours, 


JOHN  SHERMAN. 


Chambers  of  the  Court  of  Claims, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  December  23,  1881. 

Hon.  John  Sherman, 

United  States  Senator : 

My  Dear  Sir:  You  do  me  the  honor,  in  your  letter  of  the  19th  instant,  of  asking 
me  to  state  in  writing  my  views  upon  the  subject  of  making  some  better  provision  for 
the  hearing  and  determination  of  appeals  from  collectors  of  customs  and  other  cus- 
toms officers,  in  customs-revenue  cases,  than  now  exist  under  the  present  system. 

I have  thought  much  on  the  subject  during  the  past  eleven  or  twelve  years.  I was 
convinced,  while  in  the  Treasury  Department,  from  my  five  years’  experience  there, 
as  you  say  you  were  from  your  experience  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  that  it  was  of 
great  importance  both  to  the  United  States  and  to  private  litigants  that  something 
should  be  done  for  the  relief  of  the  department,  the  courts,  and  the  parties  interested. 
Further  reflection  during  the  more  than  seven  years  that  I have  been  in  this  court  has 
confirmed  that  conviction.  The  existing  evils  are  numerous,  and  the  plan  proposed 
by  the  bill  introduced  by  you  in  the  Senate  affords  an  easy  remedy  and  complete  re- 
lief. 

Under  the  existing  system,  if  an  importer  is  dissatisfied  with  the  rate  and  amount 
of  duty  assessed  by  a collector  upon  any  importation,  ho  must,  within  ninety  days, 
appeal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Practically,  such  an  appeal  is  to  the  Treas- 
ury Department,  and  is  generally  heard  by  the  head  of  the  customs  division,  or  an 


196 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  f.  french. 


Assistant  Secretary,  since  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  for  the  Secretary  himself, 
with  all  his  other  numerous  and  important  duties  pressing  upon  him,  to  give  personal 
attention  to  the  thousands  of  appeals  that  reach  the  department  every  year  from  the 
collectors  of  customs. 

If  tc-e  importer  desires  a hearing  on  his  appfeal,  he  must  come  to  Washington  with 
his  witnesses,  and  first  submit  his  case  to  the  Treasury  officials.  They  are  executive 
and  not  judicial  officers,  and  do  not  have  the  same  facilities  and  safeguards  for  the 
trial  of  cases  that  mark  and  distinguish  the  proceedings  in  courts  of  justice;  the 
hearing  is  entirely  ex  parie.  It  is  always  unsatisfactory  to  try  controverted  questions 
of  law  or  fact  before  executive  officers,  and  none  feel  the  embarrassment  more  than  do 
those  officers  themselves. 

As  a general  proposition,  no  one  would  deny  that,  as  far  as  practicable,  executive 
officers  should  be  relieved  from  the  duty  of  determining  controversies  which  involve 
disputed  questions  of  fact  or  law. 

But  that  the  importer  must  first  try  his  case  before  executive  officers,  at  considera- 
ble expense  and  delay,  is  perhaps  the  least  of  the  difficulties  to  which  he  may  be  sub- 
jected. If  he  is  dissatisfied  with  the  decision  of  the  Treasury  Department  he  may 
bring  his  action,  within  ninety  days,  against  the  collector,  in  the  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States,  or  in  a State  court,  as  the  case  may  be.  Or,  if  the  department  delays  a 
decision  beyond  ninety  days,  then  he  may  bring  his  action  without  waiting  longer  for 
the  department  to  act. 

To  a large  extent  the  courts  are  thus  resorted  to,  more  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
questions  of  construction  of  the  revenue  laws  as  applied  to  particular  classes  of  im- 
portation than  to  recover  back  the  money  paid  in  the  particular  cases  themselves,  in 
order  that  importers  and  domestic  manufacturers  may  know  for  a certainty  to  what 
rate  of  duty  the  goods  are  to  be  subjected  in  the  future.  Speedy  trials  and  uniformity 
of  decisions  are.  therefore,  of  the  first  importance.  Under  the  present  system  they 
have  neither. 

It  is  well  known' that  the  courts  in  which  this  class  of  cases  are  tried  are  crowded 
with  business,  and  are  three  or  four  years  behind  in  their  dockets,  with  several  thou- 
sand customs-revenue  cases  still  pending.  Then,  if  either  party  carries  a case  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  after  a final  hearing  and  decision  in  the  circuit 
court,  there  is  another  delay  of  several,  often  making  seven  or  eight  years  in  all. 

The  several  revenue  cases  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  1881,  and  reported  in  103 
United  States  Reports,  were  brought  against  Chester  A.  Arthur,  now  President,  when 
he  was  collector,  upon  importations  made  in  1873,  nearly  eight  years  after  the  impor- 
tation ; and  the  Jong  delay  in  those  cases  was  not  exceptional.  During  all  this  time 
counsel  have  to  be  employed  and  the  taxable  cost  is  accumulating.  When  the  case  is 
finally  determined  by  the  court  of  last  resort,  the  losing  party  is  subjected  to  a bill  of 
cost  frequently  greater  than  the  amount  of  duties  which  is  in  controversy.  Moreover, 
after  this  long  delay,  the  class  of  goods  to  which  the  case  relates  may  no  longer  be 
imported  in  precisely  the  same  condition  of  manufacture,  and  the  judgment  and  de- 
cision finally  rendered  may  therefore  be  of  no  benefit  as  a precedent.  But  the  objec- 
tions to  the  present  system  do  not  end  here.  Uncertainty  of  results,  controlled  as 
they  may  be  by  technicalities  of  judicial  proceedings  in  the  courts  of  common  law,  by 
the  hurry  of  jury  trials,  by  accidents  incident  thereto,  and  by  the  success  which  one 
party  or  the  other  may  have  in  obtaining  witnesses  to  appear  in  open  court  on  the 
very  day  of  trial. 

In  controversies  between  individuals  the  public  has  no  interest,  nor  have  any  per- 
sons any  special  interest  therein  besides  the  litigants  themselves. 

Not  so  in  the  customs-revenue  cases.  In  them,  all  importers  and  all  domestic  man- 
ufacturers of  the  same  articles  are  deeply  interested,  as  the  results,  if  followed  as  pre- 
cedents, directly  affect  their  business.  And  yet  they  have  little  or  no  means  of  know- 
ing what  questions  are  in  litigation  beyond  those  which  are  involved  in  their  own 
cases  in  court. 

Moreover,  the  general  public,  who  are  purchasers  and  consumers  of  imported  goods, 
are  not  only  interested  in  the  rate  of  duties  charged,  but  are  among  the  actual  sufferers 
by  the  present  uncertainty  and  delay.  If  the  collector  exacts  the  highest  rate  of  duty 
upon  any  class  of  goods,  the  importer  adds  it  to  the  cost  of  the  goods,  and  the  con- 
sumers pay  it.  If  he  brings  his  action  to  recover  back  an  excess  alleged  to  have  been 
imposed  by  the  collector,  and  is  successful,  the  amount  recovered  does  not  go  to  the 
consumers  who  actually  paid  it,  but  to  the  importer  as  additional  profit. 

There  are  a large  number  of  courts  in  which  these  actions  are  brought,  and  they  are 
in  different  parts  of  the  country,  widely  separated.  Experience  has  shown  that  their 
decisions  are  not  the  same  in  the  different  courts  on  precisely  the  same  questions.  Not 
only  that,  but  instances  have  occurred  in  which  two  cases  exactly  alike,  in  the  same 
court,  have  been  submitted  to  different  juries,  at  the  same  term,  with  opposite  rcMilts 
in  the  verdicts.  Often  one  importer  recovers  back  the  money  paid  by  him,  while 
another  does  not,  in  cases  exactly  alike  In  such  cases  no  principle  is  settled  by  the 
verdict  of  a jury.  Importers  and  manufacturers  in  New  York  are  unaware  of  the  cases 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.] 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


197 


and  questions  pending  in  New  Orleans  and  San  Francisco,  as  are  tlie  importers  and 
manufacturers  of  every  State  unaware  of  the.  pending  cases  in  other  States;  and 
they  may  he  affected  by  decisions,  if  followed  as  precedents,  in  cases  which  they  had 
no  control  over,  and  which  may  have  been  badly  tried  and  inconsiderately  decided. 

The  remedy  proposed  is  simple,  inexpensive,  and  requiring  no  new  organization.  It 
merely  transfers  the  duties,  in  part,  from  one  set  of  public  officials  to  other  public 
officials,  with  no  additional  cost,  and  with  great  reduction  in  expenses,  both  to  the 
government  and  to  importers,  and  at  the  same  time  affords  relief  to  the  common-law 
courts,  which  are  overwhelmed  with  business. 

It  is  not  all  appeals  that  the  parties  desire  to  litigate  in  the  courts.  Many  of  them 
are  unimportant,  either  in  the  amount  involved  or  the  questions  raised.  These  may 
well  be  settled  in  the  Treasury  Department,  as  now.* 

So  your  bill  proposes  to  give  to  parties  the  option,  when  taking  their  appeals,  to 
appeal  either  to  the  department  or  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  If  they  appeal  to  the  de- 
partment, they  are  to  be  bound  by  the  decisions  there  rendered,  and  no  further  litiga- 
tion is  to  be  had  thereon. 

If  they  have  important  and  complicated  questions  of  fact  and  of  law  to  be  litigated, 
and  desire  the  judgment  of  a court  thereon,  they  will  appeal  directly  to  the  Court  of 
Claims,  instead  of  bringing  suit  in  the  circuit  court,  or  in  a State  court,  against  the 
collector.  The  collector  has  no  interest  in  the  matter,  and  is  merely  a nominal  defend- 
ant. The  controversies  are  really  with  the  United  States. 

By  the  method  proposed  the  cases  actually  intended  for  trial  in  a court  of  law — 
cases  involving  important  principles — will  be  separated  from  the  ordinary  appeals, 
and  taken  at  once  to  the  court  for  adjudication  without  the  expense  and  delay  of  a 
preliminary  hearing  in  the  department ; and  thus  speedy  trials  will  be  had  and  early 
adjudication  obtained. 

The  Court  of  Claims  is  organized  for  the  express  purpose  of  trying  cases  against  the 
government,  or,  more  properly  speaking,  in  the  language  of  the  act  of  its  organiza- 
tion, “ for  the  investigation  of  claims  against  the  United  States.”  In  one  of  the  circu- 
lar letters  issued  by  you  when  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  it  is  thus  referred  to : 

“ The  Treasury  Department  is  admirably  organized  to  pass  upon  accruing  demands 
upon  the  government  and  upon  the  accounts  of  disbursing  officers.  All  its  machinery 
and  checks  are  adapted  to  this  duty,  and  no  serious  complaint  has  been  or  is  likely  to 
he  made  of  the  proper  discharge  of  this  duty.  But  when  claims  long  past  due  are 
presented  upon  ex  parte  evidence  to  officers  who  have  no  means  of  calling  witnesses, 
no  powers  to  cross-examine  them,  no  modes  of  testing  the  sufficiency  of  testimony  or 
its  credibility,  none  of  the  safeguards  of  an  open  court  of  justice,  the  passage  of 
fraudulent  claims  is  unavoidable.  Congress  has  by  law  provided  a Court  of  Claims, 
where,  within  a limited  period,  all  demands  founded  upon  contracts  may  be  pre- 
sented and  openly  tried  and  decided.  If  this  remedy  in  any  case  should  be  insufficient, 
claimants  can  appeal  to  Congress,  which  may  grant  either  a new  trial  in  the  courts, 
or  a re-examination  in  the  departments,  or  directly  furnish  such  relief  as  it  deems 
right  and  proper.  The  Treasury  Department  is  not  a Court  of  Claims,  and  the  reason 
for  withholding  the  ordinary  powers  of  such  a court  became  apparent  to  Congress  by 
actual  errors  that  had  occurred.” 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Court  of  Claims  is  peculiarly  fitted  for  the  investi- 
gation and  determination  of  customs-revenue  cases.  It  is  composed  of  live  judges 
whose  whole  time  is  devoted  to  the  study  and  consideration  of  the  statutes  and  laws 
of  the  United  States. 

The  judges  all  sit  in  each  trial,  so  that  the  minds  of  all  are  brought  to  the  independ- 
ent consideration  of  each  case  and  each  question  raised,  and  the  law  expressly  requires 
the  concurrence  of  at  least  three  judges  lor  the  entry  of  any  judgment. 

The  investigations  are  conducted  with  great  deliberation  and  thoroughness.  There 
is  no  jury,  and  cases  are  not  subject  to  the  accidents  and  uncertainties  of  jury  trials. 
Parties  are  not  turned  out  of  court  on  technicalities  which  further  time  would,  enable 
them  to  remedy,  but  the  court  endeavors  to  have  the  cases  investigated  on  their 
merits.  All  the  testimony  is  taken  in  writing  and  printed,  and  is  open  to  the  exami- 
nation of  not  only  the  litigating  parties  while  the  cases  are  in  preparation,  but  to  that 
of  all  oth6r  persons  who  may  be  interested  in  the  questions  involved. 

Thus  importers  and  domestic  manufacturers  could  easily  know  of  every  pending 
case  affecting  their  interests,  and  exactly  what  testimony  was  introduced  in  each. 
The  cases  being  all  in  one  court,  anti  all  the  proceedings  being  in  print,  it  would  not 
be  difficult  to  keep  the  run  of  the  whole  business. 

The  court,  after  the  trial,  draws  up  carefully-prepared  “findings  of  facts,”  and  gives 
an  elaborate  opinion  upon  the  law.  These  findings  and  opinions  are  printed  at  once 
for  distribution  to  persons  interested,  and  are  published  in  volumes  of  reports  for  per- 

* The  chamber  of  commerce  bill,  which  accomplishes  the  same  result,  has  been  sub- 
stituted, by  agreement  of  all  parties  concerned,  for  the  Sherman  bill,  and  has  been 
reported  by  Senator  Morrill. 


198 


TARIFF  COMMISSION 


[HENBY  F.  FRENCH. 


manent  preservation  as  precedents.  In  a short  time  these  reports  would  contain  an 
invaluable  collection  of  customs-revenue  cases  which  would  be  certain  guides.  The 
decisions  being  rendered  all  by  the  same  court  there  would  be  uniformity  and  cer- 
tainty, which  are,  above  all  things,  desirable  in  the  administration  of  the  law ; for, 
as  was  said  by  Sir  Edward  Coke  two  hundred  years  ago,  u the  known  certainty  of  the 
law  is  the  safety  of  all.” 

It  may  be  said  that  parties  from  distant  parts  of  the  country  would  be  compelled  to 
go  a long  way  to  try  their  cases,  but  that  will  prove  to  be  no  objection  when  it  is 
known  how  the  business  is  conducted  in  the  Court  of  Claims.  Parties  and  witnesses 
are  not  required  to  appear  before  the  court,  and  counsel,  even,  may  never  be  there  in 
person,  and  yet  may  conduct  their  cases  from  beginning  to  end.  Let  us  take  a case 
and  follow  it.  An  appeal  is  taken  to  the  Court  of  Claims  from  the  collector  of  the 
port  of  New  York.  The  appeal  may  be  forwarded  to  Washington  by  mail,  with  a peti- 
tion setting  out  the  particulars  as  now  required  by  law ; and  it  is  entered  on  the  docket 
by  the  clerk.  No  fees  are  to  be  paid  and  no  costs  are  taxed  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end.  Parties  go  on  in  New  York,  or  elsewhere,  and  take  the  depositions  of  such 
witnesses  as  they  wish  to  examine.  This  they  do  at  their  leisure,  from  time  to  time, 
as  opportunity  and  convenience  permit.  Each  party  has  an  opportunity  to  cross-ex- 
amine all  the  witnesses  of  the  other  party.  When  the  claimant  has  his  case  prepared 
to  his  satisfaction,  and  the  defendants  have,  iu  like  manner,  put  in  their  evidence — 
which  the  claimant  has  all  the  time  he  desires  to  examine  and  to  answer — he  puts  the 
case  ou  the  trial  docket  by  letter  to  the  clerk.  The  court  will,  if  requested  to  do  so, 
fix  a day  for  trial  according  to  the  wishes  of  distant  counsel,  so  that  they  can  go  to 
Washington  and  try  their  case,  or  rather  argue  their  case  orally  with  no  loss  of  time. 
Or  counsel  can  file  a printed  argument,  and  so  not  leave  their  office  at  all,  and  not 
once  go  to  Washington  from  the  inception  to  the  close  of  the  case. 

If  the  claimant’s  case  is  lost,  he  is  not  mulcted  in  a bill  of  cost,  as  in  courts  of  com- 
mon law,  and  the  whole  proceedings  he  will  find,  whether  he  wins  or  loses  his  case, 
are  attended  with  far  less  exxieuse  than  are  ordinary  suits  at  law. 

If  parties  should  deem  it  desirable,  the  court  might  be  required  or  permitted  to  sit 
in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  or  elsewhere,  at  stated  periods,  or  in  special  cases. 

To  the  government  the  plan  proposed  would  be  as  advantageous  as  it  would  be 
to  individuals.  The  Treasury  Department  would  be  relieved  from  a troublesome  class 
of  cases,  which  often  involve  its  officers  in  disagreeable  controversies  and  collisions 
with  importers,  manufacturers,  and  others,  and  subject  them  to  unfair  criticisms  and 
unjust  imputations.  It  would  save  the  enormous  expense  now  incurred  i.n  the  trial 
of  cases  in  different  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States,  amounting  to  more  than  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars  a year,  and  it  would  bring  all  the  cases  into  the  office  of 
the  Attorney-General  at  Washington,  where  they  would  be  prepared  under  the  imme- 
diate supervision  of  the  Attorney-General  and  his  assistants,  with  the  aid  of  the  Soli- 
citor of  the  Treasury  and  other  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  familiar  with  the 
question  to  be  tried. 

While  I am  quite  sure  that  the  bill  which  you  have  introduced,  if  enacted  into  a 
law,  would  establish  an  admirable  system,  which  would  work  easily,  inexpensively, 
and  satisfactorily,  I am  aware  that  amendments  in  the  details  may  readily  be  suggested 
to  meet  the  different  impressions  of  different  persons,  and  to  such  it  would  be  well  to 
yield  a ready  assent,  in  order  that  the  views  of  as  many  persons  as  possible  may  be 
adopted,  provided  the  main  features  of  the  bill  are  not  undermined. 

I am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  A.  RICHARDSON. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  June  20,  1882. 

Mr.  Morrill,  from  the  Committee  on  Finance,  reported  the  following  bill;  which  was 
read  the  first  and  second  times  by  unanimous  consent. 

A BILL  to  provide  a better  system  for  the  trial  of  customs-revenue  cases. 


Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  appeals  provided  for  by  sections  2931  and  2932  of  the  Re- 
vised Statutes  maybe  made  by  the  appellant,  at  his  election,  either  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  or  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  to  be  there  proceeded'with,  determined,  and 
disposed  of  as  suits  against  the  United  States;  and  so  much  of  said  sections  as  relates 
to  bringing  suits  for  the  recovery  of  duties  alleged  to  have  been  erroneously  or  illegally 
exacted  is  hereby  repealed. 

Sec.  2.  That  every  appellant  to  the  Court  of  Claims  shall  enter  his  appeal  in  said 
court  within  thirty  days  after  the  taking  thereof,  by  filing  a petition  iu  writing  against 
the  United  States,  setting  out  the  facts  and  giving  the  name  of  the  importer  or  im- 
porters, the  description  of  the  merchandise  and  place  from  which  imported,  the  uame 


HENRY  F.  FRENCH.  | 


AMBIGUITIES  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


199 


of  the  vessel  or  means  of  importation,  the  date  of  the  invoice,  the  date  of  the  entry  at 
the  custom-house,  the  precise  amount  of  duty  or  moneys  claimed  to  have  been  exacted 
in  excess,  the  date  of  payment  thereof,  the  day  and  year  on  which  protest  was  tiled 
against  such  exactions,  and  the  date  of  appeal  thereon,  and  otherwise  complying  with 
the  rules  of  said  court. 

Sec.  3.  That,  except  as  hereinafter  provided,  the  said  Court  of  Claims  shall  have 
the  same  power,  proceed  in  the  same  manner,  and  be  governed  by  the  same  rules  in 
respect  to  the  mode  of  hearing,  adjudication,  and  determination  of  said  appeals  as  it 
now  has  in  relation  to  the  adjudication  of  claims  against  the  United  States;  but  said 
court  may  make  such  other  and  additional  rules  as  may  be  necessary  to  save  costs  and 
prevent  delays  in  the  prosecutions  of  such  appeals.  All  laws  relating  to  prosecutions 
of  claims  against  the  United  States  in  said  court  shall  apply,  as  far  as  applicable,  to 
the  prosecutiou,  practice,  hearing,  and  determinations  of  appeals  under  this  act : Pro- 
vided, That  in,the  trial  of  such  appeals  no  person  shall  be  excluded  as  a witness  be^ 
cause  he  or  she  is  a party  to  or  interested  in  the  same. 

Sec.  4.  That  on  motion  of  the  plaintiff  in  any  action  now  pending  against  any  col- 
lector of  customs  or  other  customs  officers  in  customs-revenue  cases,  of  like  kind  to 
those  herein  described  in  any  circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  said  court  shall,  by 
order  m writing,  transfer  said  case,  with  all  the  papers  therein,  to  said  Court  of  Claims, 
to  be  proceeded  with,  heard,  determined,  and  disposed  of  as  an  action  against  the 
United  States  in  like  manner  as  appeals  made  directly  to  said  court  under  this  act. 
Unless  such  motion  shall  be  made,  any  such  case  now  pending  in  the  circuit  court  may 
be  tried  and  prosecuted  to  final  judgment,  notwithstanding  the  repeal  of  the  statutes 
applicable  thereto  by  this  act. 

Sec.  5.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall,  on  request  of  any  appellant,  and 
may  on  his  own  motion,  by  order  in  writing,  transfer  to'  the  Court  of  Claims  any  ap- 
peal heretofore  or  hereafter  made  to  him  in  customs-revenue  matters  of  like  kind  to 
those  herein  described,  with  all  the  papers  and  documents  filed  therein,  or  certified 
copies  thereof,  to  be  proceeded  with  under  the  rules  of  sa*:d  court  in  the  same  manner 
as  1 hough  said  appeals  were  taken  originally  to  said  court  after  the  passage  of  this  act. 

Sec.  6.  That  whenever,  within  such  time  as  the  court  shall  by  general  rule  pre- 
scribe, the  appellant  files  a written  request  therefor,  the  trial  shall  be  had  at  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  Boston,  or  Baltimore,  in  whichever  of  said  ports  the  case  may 
have  originated,  and  the  proceedings  thereon  shall  be  as  follows : 

A single  judge  of  said  court  shall  proceed  to  the  port  where  said  case  originated, 
and  with  two  assessors,  one  to  be  appointed  by  the  collector  of  the  port  and  the  other 
by  the  appellant,  shall  hear  the  parties  upon  oral  evidence. 

The  assessors  shall  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  that  they  are  not  interested  in  the 
matter  in  controversy,  nor  in  the  question  involved  therein,  and  that  they  will  faith- 
fully and  impartially  discharge  the  duties  imposed  upon  them.  Each  assessor  shall  be 
paid  five  dollars  a day  for  his  services  out  of  the  public  treasury,  upon  the  certificate 
of  the  judge. 

The  judge  shall  draw  up  in  writing  findings  of  fact,  in  accordance  with  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  of  the  three,  and  shall  add  his  conclusions  of  law  thereon.  The  find- 
ings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  thus  found  shall  be  filed  in  the  court  and  judg- 
ment entered  thereon : Provided,  That  either  party  may  appeal  from  the  conclusions 
of  law  by  a single  judge  to  the  court  in  banc,  and  such  appeal  shall  be  heard  as  other 
cases  are  heard  on  questions  of  law,  and  judgment  shall  be  entered  in  accordance  with 
the  conclusions  of  law  made  by  the  court. 

Sec.  7.  That  a stenographer  may  be  appointed  by  the  court,  or  by  a siugle  judge, 
to  reduce  the  oral  testimony  to  writing,  upon  his  own  motion  or  at  the  request  of  either 
party.  Such  stenographer  shall  be  allowed  a reasonable  compensation,  to  be  certi- 
fied by  the  court  or  judge,  and  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury. 

Sec.  8.  That  the  court  may  appoint  regular  terms  for  the  trial  of  cases  by  a single 
judge  with  assessors,  at  either  of  said  ports,  or  may  hold  special  terms  therefor,  and 
may  sit  in  banc  at  either  of  said  ports,  as  necessity  or  convenience  may  require. 

Rooms  for  said  terms  shall  be  provided  in  the  court-house  when  practicable,  or  the 
court  may  procure  rooms  for  that  purpose  when  necessary,  the  expense  thereof  to  be 
allowed,  on  the  certificate  of  the  court  or  a single  judge,  and  paid  out  of  the  public 
treasury. 

Sec.  9.  That  from  any  final  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  except  when  the  same 
is  entered  upon  the  conclusions  of  law  by  a single  judge,  t here  shall  be  the  same  light 
of  appeal,  either  by  the  United  States  or  by  the  claimant,  and  subject  to  the  same 
rules  and  regulations  as  are  prescribed  by  law  for  appeals  in  other  cases  against  the 
United  States  from  the  judgments  of  said  court. 

Sec.  10.  That  if  no  appeal  be  taken  from  the  judgment  and  determination  of  the 
Court  of  Claims  in  cases  provided  for  in  this  act  within  the  term  limited  by  law  for 
appealing  from  the  judgments  of  said  court,  the  same  shall  be  final ; and  in  all  cases 
of  final  judgments  by  the  Court  of  Claims,  or  on  appeal  by  the  Supreme  Court  where 
the  same  are  affirmed  in  favor  of  the  claimant,  said  judgments  shall  be  certified  to  the 


200 


TAKIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ftkxry  p.  frexch. 


Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  paid  as  moneyisrefnndednpon  the  decisions  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  in  case  of  the  unascertained  duties,  or  duties  or  other  money  paid 
under  protest  and  appeal.  In  cases  where  the  judgment  appealed  from  by  the  United 
States  is  in  favor  of  the  claimant,  and  the  same  is  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court,  in- 
terest thereon  at  the  rate  of  live  per  centum  shall  be  allowed  from  the  date  of  its  ren- 
dition iu  the  Court  of  Claims,  but  no  interest  shall  be  allowed  subsequent  to  the  affirm- 
ance unless  presented  for  payment  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  within  thirty  days 
thereafter. 

Sec.  11.  That  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  by  himself  or  his  assist- 
ants, shall  defend  the  United  States  against  all  appeals  from  customs  officers  prose- 
cuted in  said  court,  and  on  appeal  in  the  Supreme  Court,  in  like  manner  as  he  is  now 
by  law  required  to  defend  the  United  States,  with  the  same  power  to  interpose  therein 
counter-claims  and  offsets  and  defenses  for  fraud  practiced  or  attempted,  and  all  other 
legal  defenses.  s 

Sec.  1*2.  That  hereafter  no  action  shall  be  brought  against  any  collector  or  other 
proper  officer  of  the  customs  in  any  manner  in  which  an  appeal  is  allowed  by  this  act 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  or  to  the  Court  of  Claims  : and  sections  3011  and  3012 
are  hereby  repealed,  but  such  repeal  shall  not  affect  pending  cases,  except  as  herein- 
before set  out.  In  sections  1 and  2 of  the  act  of  March  3, 1875,  chapter  136,  the  words 
“circuit  or  district  court  of  the  United  States”  are  stricken  out,  and  the  words  “ Court 
of  Claims  ” are  inserted. 


Joseph  Wharton.] 


NICKEL. 


201 


JOSEPH  WHARTON. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Joseph  Wharton,  of  Philadelphia,  representing  the  nickel  in- 
terest, appeared  before  the  Commission  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and 
made  the  following  statement : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I was  unfortunate  in  not  being 
present  to  hear  the  whole  of  Mr.  Wheeler’s  statement  to  you,  but  lam 
told  that  he  spoke  in  regard  to  nickel  as  well  as  on  other  subjects  con- 
nected with  the  tariff,  and  that  he  stated,  among  other  things,  that  nickel 
had  been  admitted  almost  duty  free  until  a few  years  ago,  when  a duty 
of  20  cents  a pound  had  been  placed  upon  it,  whereupon  the  price  of 
nickel  had  promptly  doubled.  Now  that  is  a gross  misstatement  of  the 
case.  We  must  hold  to  facts  as  a basis  for  our  arguments,  and  I shall 
address  you  on  that  basis. 

The  facts  are  that  nickel,  being  an  extremely  difficult  thing  to  make, 
was  not  made  in  this  country,  and  being  considered  as  a raw  material 
the  duty  on  it  remained  at  15  per  cent,  even  after  I had  established  its 
manufacture  here.  It  was  only  after  many  very  tedious  attempts  to 
show  the  true  state  of  the  case  to  Congress  that  it  was  induced  to  place 
the  duty  at  30  cents  a pound  upon  nickel  and  20  cents  a pound  upon  alloy 
of  nickel  with  copper.  The  effect  of  that  duty  was  not  apparent  in  any 
change  of  price.  There  was  no  considerable  change  of  price  until  the 
German  Government,  after  the  cessation  of  the  war  between  Germany 
and  France,  undertook  to  adopt  nickel  alloy  coins.  The  adoption  of  that 
system  of  coinage  by  Germany  raised  the  European  price  of  nickel  from 
4 shillings  to  20  shillings  a pound.  I did  not  take  advantage  of  this 
increase  of  price  in  nickel  abroad,  and  did  not  charge  my  customers  so 
high  a price  as  their  rivals  were  paying  for  nickel  in  Europe.  I repeat, 
I not  only  did  not  add  the  duty  to  my  price,  but  I did  not  charge  my 
customers  so  high  a price  as  the  European  manufacturers  charged  their 
customers.  The  high  price  continued  until  the  German  Government  fin- 
ished its  coinage  ; and  that  government  had  to  pay  double  as  much  for 
the  nickel  entering  into  its  coinage  (although  Germany  was,  so  tar  as 
nickel  is  concerned,  a free-trade  country,  and  is  besides  the  original  home 
of  the  nickel  manufacture)  as  the  American  Government  had  to  pay  for 
the  nickel  in  its  coinage,  although  American  nickel  is  protected  by  30 
cents  a pound  duty.  This  shows  the  falsity  of  the  theory  that  the  duty 
is  always  added  to  the  cost  of  the  article.  After  this  great  demand  for 
nickel  in  Germany,  on  account  of  the  nickel  coinage,  ceased,  a discovery 
was  made  in  New  Caledonia  of  a nickel  ore  of  greater  richness,  and 
easier  access  to  the  sea,  and  better  workability  than  had  theretofore 
been  used  in  this  country  or  Europe;  a great  flood  of  these  ores  came 
into  Europe,  and  that,  combined  with  the  cessation  of  the  German  de- 
mand, put  the  price  down  lower  than  it  had  ever  been  before.  When 
that  took  place  there  was  a very  keen  demand  on  the  part  of  the  Euro- 
pean makers  of  nickel  to  get  possession  of  this  market.  They  not  only 
resorb'd  to  all  the  ordinary  means  for  putting  their  wares  into  this 
market,  but  they  resorted  to  a curious  trick,  which  I will  now  explain. 
The  duty,  as  has  been  said,  was  30  cents  a pound  upon  nickel,  while  it 


202 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  WH  VRTON. 


was  only  20  cents  a pound  upon  nickel  alloyed  with  copper.  This  meant 
that  the  article  to  be  admitted  at  20  cents  per  pound  should  be  composed 
one-half  of  copper  and  one-half  of  nickel,  or  about  those  proportions. 
I have  a right  to  say  this,  because  I wrote  those  words  in  the  law  myself, 
and  know  just  what  was  meant,  and  know  it  was  thoroughly  explained 
to  the  law -makers  in  both  houses  of  Congress,  and  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  law.  Commercially  pure  nickel  at  that  time  contained 
about  95  per  cent,  of  nickel,  and  the  alloy  of  copper  with  nickel  was 
about  half  and  half. 

The  foreign  manufacturers,  finding  that  nickel  was  reduced  in  price 
very  much  in  their  home  market,  and  that  the  possession  of  this  market 
was  extremely  desirable  to  them,  experimented  on  the  credulity  of  our 
officials  and  began  to  make  artificial  alloys  of  nickel  with  copper,  with 
just  as  much  nickel  and  just  as  little  copper  as  they  could  get  through 
the  custom-house  at  this  duty  of  20  cents  a pound.  Their  experiments 
resulted  in  making  an  alloy  of  95  per  cent,  of  nickel  and  5 per  cent,  of 
copper.  They  therefore  merely  replaced  the  5 per  cent,  of  worthless 
matter  contained  in  the  commercially  pure  nickel  of  the  law  by  5 per 
cent,  of  valuable  copper  and  brought  that  composition  into  this  country 
in  the  disguise  of  alloy  of  nickel  with  copper,  and  claimed  to  have  it 
brought  in  at  20  cents  a pound.  The  New  York  custom-house  officials 
would  not  pass  it,  the  case  was  carried  to  Washington,  and  orders  came 
from  Washington  under  a Treasury  ruling  to  admit  it  at  20  cents  duty. 
I was  kept  in  ignorance  of  that  ruling,  and  never  discovered  it  until  I 
was  informed  of  the  fact  by  my  customers.  That  fraud  or  evasion  has 
been  maintained  ever  since.  The  Treasury  officials  have  never  yet  been 
able  to  convince  themselves  that  they  should  interfere  in  this  matter  in 
order  to  protect  American  manufacturers,  and  this  fraud  has  continued 
to  go  on  from  that  day  until  the  present  moment.  This  is  one  point  for 
this  Commission  to  adjust. 

I desire  that  alloy  of  nickel  with  copper  shall  be  placed  at  30  cents 
a pound,  the  same  rate  that  is  placed  upon  pure  nickel.  The  purpose 
of  the  law  has  been  evaded  and  nullified;  the  importation  of  nickel 
under  the  disguise  of  nickel  alloy  has  become  greater  and  greater,  and 
about  all  the  importations  now  are  in  that  form.  My  own  business  is 
drying  up,  and  I have  given  orders  to  stop  mining  until  I see  how  it  is 
going  to  end,  although  I do  not  propose  to  go  out  of  tlse  business.  If  I 
have  got  to  go  into  the  fight  I shall  try  to  make  it  interesting  to  the 
parties  on  the  other  side. 

Here  is  a case  where  the  weakness  of  our  system  is  shown  in  the  rulings 
of  the  Treasury  Department  on  questions  open  to  doubt.  *There  ought  to 
be  some  system  by  which  the  decisions  of  the  Treasury  Department  may 
be  more  intelligent,  and,  at  the  same  time,  more  fixed  and  less  liable  to 
vacillation.  My  own  notion  about  that  matter  is  that  there  eventually 
will  be  a body  in  this  country  with  power  something  akin  to  the  powers 
vested  by  the  government  in  the  English  board  of  trade,  that  is  to  say, 
a body  which  shall  have  absolute  control  of  all  these  questions  of 
Treasury  rulings,  and  even,  perhaps,  within  narrow  limits,  have  juris- 
diction of  the  question  of  rates.  I do  not  see  that  otherwise  we  are 
going  to  be  on  a permanent  solid  basis  in  this  country  in  regard  to  this 
large  class  of  questions,  where  law  is  made  by  comparatively  irre- 
sponsible Treasury  officials,  which  was  never  contemplated.  They  have 
made  law  to  an  extent  that  is  absolutely  bewildering,  and,  I believe, 
entirely  incredible  to  persons  who  have  never  paid  attention  to  the 
subject.  But  the  worst  of  it  is,  that  the  official-made  law  has  been 
against  the  American  manufacturer  and  in  favor  of  the  foreign  im- 


JOSEPH  WHARTON.] 


NICKEL. 


203 


porter  or  the  agent  of  the  foreign  importer.  The  animus  of  the  Treas- 
ury officials  seems  to  be  against  the  American  manufacturer;  they  seem 
to  think  the  importers  have  vested  rights  and  the  American  manufact- 
urers have  none. 

I will  state  to  the  commission  that  I have  about ' 00  persons  employed 
in  this  nickel  manufacture.  If  matters  remain  as  they  are,  this  force  of 
laborers  will  be  dismissed  and  the  business  will  be  wound  up;  and  all 
in  order  that  two  or  three  New  York  importers  can  draw  commissions 
upon  their  importations.  If  I alone  were  interested  in  this  matter,  I 
should  not  urge  it  upon  your  attention  with  so  much  earnestness,  for  per- 
haps it  would  be  a little  matter  to  the  government  under  those  circum- 
stances. But  while  it  is  a matter  of  some  indifference  to  me  whether  I 
continue  in  this  business  or  not,  as  I am  not  at  all  dependent  on  it,  it 
is  of  great  importance  to  the  persons  who  are  consuming  nickel.  When 
Germany  was  taking  and  consuming  for  coinage  a large  proportion  of 
the  nickel  of  the  world,  the  nickel-consuming  industries  would  have  been 
extinguished  in  this  country  if  my  establishment  had  not  been  kept 
running.  But  I kept  it  running,  and  supplied  my  customers  w ith  nickel 
at  a lower  price  than  they  could  have  bought  it  for  in  any  part  of 
Europe,  if  there  had  been  no  freight  or  duty  to  pay.  That  case  may 
arise  again.  The  French  Government  has  thought  of  coining  nickel, 
and,  although  the  supplies  now  are  larger,  still  the  conditions  might 
arise  where,  if  American  consumers  were  wholly  dependent  upon  the 
foreign  manufacturer,  they  might  be  unable  to  procure  adequate  sup- 
plies. Therefore,  I say  it  is  imprudent  to  the  last  degree  to  destroy  an 
American  manufacture  in  order  that  a few  foreign  manufacturers  may 
be  able  to  take  advantage  of  some  temporary  condition  of  affairs  in  this 
country  to  extend  their  business.  I regard  it  as  a case  of  waste  that 
can  hardly  be  characterized  in  too  strong  words.  When  a farmer  sets 
out  an  orchard  he  expects  that  orchard  to  yield  him  fruit  for  a great 
many  years.  He  does  not  expect  that  the  w hole  profit  to  be  gained  will 
return  to  him  in  the  course  of  a year  or  two  after  the  time  he  plants  it. 
He  knows  that  it  is  only  by  great  care  and  nursing  and  watchfulness, 
extended  over  many  years,  that  he  can  make  it  profitable,  and  one  great 
part  of  that  labor  consists  in  keeping  out  his  neighbor’s  hogs.  It  would 
be  a most  shocking  case  of  wastefulness  on  the  part  of  the  farmer  to 
allow  his  wdiole  orchard  to  be  cut  down,  because  at  one  moment  it  might 
seem  to  be  cheaper  to  buy  his  apples  from  some  one  living  in  an  adjoin- 
ing State.  1 think  the  same  rule  applies  in  regard  to  the  production 
of  any  article  of  agriculture  or  manufacture,  and  it  applies  as  w;ell  to 
nickel. 

I have  nothing  more  to  say  about  nickel,  bitt  I would  like  to  speak 
on  other  subjects.  I would  like  to  say  a word  or  twro  in  regard  to  cop- 
per. I am  told  that  the  gentleman  who  j>receded  me  (Mr.  Wheeler) 
spoke  of  nickel  and  copper  being  made  so  high  by  the  duties  upon  them 
that  the  articles  made  from  them  could  not  be  exported.  There  he  came 
face  to  face  with  another  hard  fact,  which  makes  his  statement  seem 
almost  grotesque.  I know  that  large  quantities  of  Lake  Superior  cop- 
per are  exported  every  year,  and  that  manufacturers  of  copper  in  this 
countiy,  to  a very  large  extent  indeed,  have  been  exporting  their  w ares, 
particularly  in  the  article  of  cartridges  and  the  material  lor  making 
cartridges.  Several  of  my  customers  who  deal  in  brass,  German  silver, 
and  copper  have  taken  contracts  for  almost  countless  millions  of  these 
cartridges  made  of  copper,  and  they  have  been  sent  to  Turkey,  Bussia, 
and  France.  Then  in  regard  to  nickel,  1 have  supplied  it  to  some  of 
these  same  men  for  making  coins  for  foreign  countries.  1 sold  large 
quantities  of  nickel  in  Europe  at  high  prices  during  the  years  of  the 


204 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  WHARTON. 


German  nickel  coinage.  Exportation  of  nickel,  therefore,  has  taken 
place.  I know  also  that  these  men  have  their  agents  in  all  parts  of 
the  world  for  selling  their  German  silver  goods,  which  also  contain 
nickel;  and  they  have  that  outlet.  But  the  measure  of  utility  of  a tariff 
law  is  not  to  be  taken  by  the  quantity  of  manufactured  goods  that  can 
be  exported.  There  is  no  country  in  the  world  that  is  comparable  to 
this  country  as  a market  for  manufactured  goods.  AM  the  countries  in 
the  world,  that  we  could  hope  to  do  business  with,  would  not  yield  us 
one-tenth  part  of  the  business  of  our  own  country.  The  value  of  our 
own  market,  in  comparison  with  all  other  markets,  is  the  hrst  thing  to 
be  considered.  We  must  conquer  our  own  market  before  we  can  hope 
to  export.  If  we  have  here  a plenum , the  surplus  will  flow  to  other 
countries;  but  if  a vacuum  exists  here,  foreign  articles  will  flow  into 
our  country. 

Take  the  case  of  copper.  When  the  Lake  Superior  mines  were  opened, 
we  had  some  small  factories  of  copper  which  drew  their  supplies  mainly 
from  South  America.  The  ores  of  Chili  and  Peru  were  brought  to  this 
country,  and  in  Baltimore,  Boston,  and  New  York,  there  were  prosper- 
ous manufactories  of  copper ; but  they  were  all  trifling  compared  with 
the  huge  production  of  copper  in  the  Lake  Michigan  region.  I have 
been  in  Washington,  before  committees  of  Congress,  for  many  years;  for 
at  least  twenty  years  I have  been  there  whenever  there  was  a tariff*  fight 
on  hand,  and  I remember  when  the  fight  occurred  there  on  copper.  At 
that  time  the  great  mining  companies  of  Lake  Superior  were  struggling 
and  doing  the  best  they  could  to  make  their  way,  and  the  supply  of 
Lake  copper  was  just  beginning  to  be  developed  in  this  country.  The 
existing  duty  upon  copper  was  decided  upon,  and  it  is  a higher  duty 
perhaps  than  is  necessary  now.  But  the  Lake  Superior  copper  produc- 
tion has  increased  under  it  from  the  very  trifling  figure  of  those  days  to 
an  enormous  figure — I do  not  recall  the  figures  exactly,  but  it  is  so 
great  as  to  fill  this  country  with  copper,  and  almost  prevent  any  impor- 
tations, not  because  of  the  duty  being  too  high,  but  because  of  the  im- 
mense production.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  a trifling  supply  of  English- cop- 
per coming  in  all  the  time,  but  our  fostering  of  our  own  copper  production 
gives  us  a great  deal  of  copper  to  export,  and  it  also  gives  this  country 
copper  of  a higher  quali ty  than  any  other  country  has.  All  the  European 
countries  use  the  old-fashioned  smelting  processes  of  extracting  copper 
from  ores,  and,  as  a result,  all  their  copper  contains  impurities  and  is 
not  fit  for  the  fine  uses  that  the  Lake  Superior  copper  is  tit  for. 

Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill  says  that  it  sometimes  happens  that  the  least 
expensive  way  in  which  a country  can  introduce  a new  and  useful  in- 
dusry  is  by  temporarily  taxing  itself  to  support  the  new  manufacture; 
and  he  is  a good  free-trade  authority.  This  happened  in  the  case  of  the 
Lake  Superior  copper,  and  we  have  the  copper  industry  now,  by  virtue 
of  the  tariff*  law,  in  the  favorable  condition  of  development  that  1 have 
mentioned.  I do  not  undertake  to  speak  for  the  copper  people,  although 
I am  the  owner  of  copper  land  in  the  Lake  Superior  region  and  was 
president  of  a company  there.  I have  no  doubt  you  will  hear  from  the 
metal  men  in  person. 

Now  1 will  say  a word  in  regard  to  Bessemer  steel.  1 am  interested 
in  two  of  the  eleven  Bessemer  steel-rail  companies,  and  know  what  I 
am  talking  about,  i know  when  we  were  working  this  manufacture 
into  a condiditiou  of  substantial  prosperity,  those  who  did  not  utterly 
fail  had  a very  hard  struggle,  and  received  very  moderate  dividends  on 
the  capital  invested,  and  thought  themselves  fortunate  in  being  able  to 
hold  their  heads  above  water.  One  of  the  companies  I was  inteiested 
in  did  not  make  any  dividends  for  seven  years.  But  we  survived ; we 


JOSEPH  WHARTON.] 


NICKEL. 


205 


put  up  a lot  of  new  money  and  kept  improving  our  works,  preparatory 
to  taking  a new  start.  I put  up  about  $G00,000  of  new  money  myself 
to  keep  one  of  these  concerns  going.  We  kept  it  going  and  went  with- 
out dividends,  and  built  up  our  works  and  put  them  on  a basis  of  much 
greater  efficiency  than  was  the  case  in  any  part  of  the  world,  and  now 
our  practice  in  manufacturing  steel  is  so  excellent  that  the  European 
steel-makers  come  to  us  for  instruction.  Steel. rails  are  now  selling  at 
$:0  or  less  per  ton,  and  have  sold  as  low  as  $40  a ton. 

The  transportation  of  the  country  has  been  cheapened  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  these  Bessemer  steel  works.  The  railroads  get  steel  rails 
as  cheap  as  they  used  to  get  iron  rails,  and  the  steel  rails  last  from 
three  to  ten  times  as  long  as  the  iron  rails,  because  they  are  much  stronger 
and  harder.  Thence,  also,  the  railroad  companies  can  put  twice  as  much 
weight  in  a car;  instead  of  using  ten-ton  cars,  they  frequently  carry  as 
many  as  twenty  tons  to  the  car.  There  is  nothing  in  the  world  which, 
has  done  so  much  to  cheapen  freight  for  Western  farmers,  many  of  whom 
got  their  land  for  almost  nothing  from  the  government,  and  have  had 
all  sorts  of  aid  from  the  government  besides  — I say  nothing  has 
done  so  much  to  advance  the  interest  of  that  class  of  people  as 
the  establishment  of  these  Bessemer-steel  works.  When  the  gov- 
ernment wanted  a line  of  railroad  built  across  the  continent,  it  gave 
immense  amounts  of  land  and  money  to  the  promoters  of  those  en- 
terprises, and,  although  many  people  growled  at  it,  we  cannot  see 
how  these  roads  could  have  been  built  without  government  aid.  An 
equally  great  service  has  been  rendered  to  the  country  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  these  Bessemer-steel  rail  factories,  and  yet  it  has  not  cost 
the  government  anything,  nor  has  it  cost  the  people  of  the  county  any- 
thing. They  have  been  able  to  buy  their  rails  cheaper  by  far  than  they 
would  have  done  if  these  Bessemer-steel  rail  establishments  had  not  ex- 
isted. When  we  began  to  make  them  the  price  was  $125  to  $130  a ton. 
The  Bethlehem  Company  had  an  offer  of  $100  a ton  for  a number  of 
thousand  tons,  and  in  that  time  of  incipient,  and  almost  experimental, 
manufacture,  we  had  to  decline  the  order  on  account  of  the  lowness 
of  the  price;  but  now  we  are  glad  to  sell  these  rails  for  $50,  and 
have  sold  them  as  low  as  $40  a ton.  The  country  has  lost  nothing, 
as  far  as  individuals  are  concerned  or  as  far  as  the  government  is  con- 
cerned; on  the  other  hand,  the  nation  has  been  strengthened  by  this 
increase  in  the  building  of  railroads  through  every  part  of  the  country ; 
transportation  has  been  cheapened  and  the  products  of  the  West 
brought  to  our  sea-board,  and  thereby  our  country  gets  the  money  to 
pay  its  foreign  debts. 

1 also  know  something  about  aniline  dyes,  because  I was  invited  to 
go  into  that  industry,  and  had  occasion  to  examine  it  at  the  time.  I 
declined  to  go  into  it  because  I had  so  many  other  kinds  of  business  on 
hand.  The  idea  that  we  have  not  in  this  country  the  material  for  manu- 
facturing aniline  dyes  is  absurd.  A small  fraction  of  the  waste  of  our 
gas-works  would  make  all  that  the  country  wants.  There  is  a lack  of 
skill  here  to  produce  the  dyes,  and  a certain  amount  of  danger  to  life  in 
the  process  of  producing  them.  They  are  mostly  made  by  the  use  of 
arsenic,  which  makes  poisonous  compounds,  sometimes  destroying  the 
lives  of  healthy  workmen,  and  perhaps  destroying  the  lives  of  the  per- 
sons who  use  aniline-dyed  carpets  or  live  in  the  rooms  where  the  walls 
are  covered  with  paper  colored  with  aniline.  But  there  is  no  trouble 
about  the  making  of  aniline  dyes  in  this  country.  I think  it  is  an  in- 
dustry that  should  have  every  measure  of  encouragement  that  the  gov- 
ernment sees  lit  to  give  to  other  industries. 

The  same  is  the  fact  in  regard  to  tin  plates.  There  have  been  several 


206 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  WHARTON. 


attempts  to  establish  the  manufacture  of  tin  plates,  but  all  have  failed, 
because  the  people  were  not  patient  enough,  or  had  not  money  enough, 
and  did  not  keep  long  enough  at  the  business  to  establish  it.  The  tin- 
plate people  want  government  protection  of  some  sort,  and  nnless  they 
are  protected  by  tariff  duties  they  cannot  last  very  long,  although 
they  are  ready  and  anxious  to  establish  the  manufacture.  1 know  there 
is  considerable  feeling  in  the  western  part  of  this  State  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  that  manufacture,  and  if  the  people  are  allowed  they  will 
establish  it.  There  is  not  the  slightest  occasion  for  spending  $15,000,000 
abroad  for  tin  plates  that  can  be  just  as  well  produced  in  this  country. 
We  could  keep  all  that  money  among  us  as  well  as  not.  But  the  per- 
sons who  are  to  be  the  pioneers  to  build  up  this  industry  justly  think  it 
is  due  to  them  that  they  should  have  whatever  measure  of  protection 
the  government  sees  fit  to  give  to  other  persons  engaged  in  other  manu- 
factures. It  is  not  a doubtful  result  ; the  production  of  tin  plates  will  be 
a success  eventually. 

In  regard  to  wool  I desire  to  say  a word.  I have  frequently  had  con- 
versation with  the  largest  carpet  maker  in  America,  Mr.  John  Dobson,  of 
the  firm  of  John  & James  Dobson,  of  Philadelphia.  I believe  it  is  a 
fact  that  they  make  more  carpets  than  any  American  manufacturer — 
even  more  than  are  made  in  Lowell,  Mass.  Mr.  Dobson  is  going  into 
the  raising  of  sheep  in  connection  with  the  production  of  carpets.  He 
has  at  present  many  thousands  of  sheep  in  Texas.  He  does  not  think  it 
necessary  to  dry  up  our  wool  industry  in  order  that  the  carpet-men  may 
thrive.  He  takes  the  ground  that  we  must  have  our  wool  here,  and,  as 
I say,  he  is  largely  engaged  in  the  growing  of  wool.  I cannot  say 
whether  the  sort  of  wool  he  is  growing  is  the  sort  that  he  will  consume 
in  his  own  works.  But  the  greatest  manufacturer  of  carpets  in  the 
country  is  also  a believer  in  the  production  of  American  wool,  and  is 
doing  liis  share  to  accomplish  that  result. 

Now  as  to  ad  valorem  duties.  What  I said  a little  while  ago  as  to 
the  effect  of  the  duty  on  nickel  will  illustrate  the  working  of  the  ad 
valorem  duty  as  compared  with  the  specific  duty.  If,  at  the  time  nickel 
was  selling  in  England  at  from  1G  to  20  shillings  a pound,  the  duty  had 
been  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent.,  it  would  have  been  about  $1.30 
a pound  upon  nickel,  at  a time  when  it  did  not  need  any  duty  whatever. 
The  price  was  so  high  on  the  other  side  that  the  duty  fell  away  as  a 
useless  thing,  and  this  duty,  which  under  the  ad  valorem  system  would 
have  been  $1.30,  would  have  been  totally  useless.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  the  price  of  nickel  on  the  other  side  goes  down  to  three  shillings 
a pound,  as  at  present,  the  same  duty  of  30  per  cent,  would  be  a little 
over  20  cents  a-pound.  The  result  is  the  duty  slides  up  and  down  (but 
exactly  the  wrong  way),  and  this  uncertainty  often  adds  to  the  price  of 
nickel  here  and  to  the  difficulty  surrounding  the  consumers  of  nickel 
here  who  are  unable  to  make  their  calculations  for  the  future.  If  it 
was  possible  to  have  an  ad  valorem  duty  so  contrived  as  to  be  high 
when  foreign  prices  are  low,  and  low  when  foreign  prices  are  high,  I 
think  it  would  be  a very  good  idea.  But  as  the  thing  works  in  practice, 
it  is  absurd  as  anything  I can  think  of;  1 mean  in  its  practical  workings. 
I do  not  say  there  are  no  occasions  whatever  on  which  an  ad  valorem 
duty  on  a staple  article  would,  under  all  circumstances,  work  absurdly. 
But  the  necessary  outcome  of  it  is  that  the  duty  is  unduly  high  at  times 
of  prosperity,  or  what  I may  call  inflation,  and  unduly  low  at  times  of 
depression,  when  our  people  want  all  the  protection  that  the  law  gives 
them.  Gentlemen,  I do  not  need  to  intrude  upon  your  time  any  further 
at  present. 


HF.NET  BOWSE. 


ANILINE  DYES. 


207 


HENRY  BOWER. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  26, 1882. 

Mr.  Henry  Bower,  of  Philadelphia,  made  the  following  statement 
before  the  Commission  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  aniline  dyes,  in  addi- 
tion to  his  former  statement  on  the  general  subject  of  chemicals,  given 
on  the  22d  of  July  : 

I would  like  to  make  a short  additional  statement  on  the  subject  of 
aniline  dyes.  Some  time  ago,  while  this  whole  question  was  being  dis- 
cussed in  a public  way,  I received  a letter  from  Mr.  H.  K.  Lansing,  the 
treasurer  of  the  Albany  Aniline  and  Chemical  Works,  relating  to  this 
subject,  which  I will  take  the  liberty  of  reading.  It  was  as  follows : 

Albany  Aniline  Chemical  Works, 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  February  8,  1882. 

Dear  Sir:  We  desire  to  inform  you  that  the  manufacture  of  colors  (aniline)  com- 
menced in  this  country,  we  think,  in  1866  by  T.  and  C.  Holliday,  who  subsequently 
old  out  to  the  Albany  Aniline  and  Chemical  Works,  a company  incorporated  in  April, 
1868,  with  a capital  of  $*i5,000,  and  increased  to  $100,000.  After  expending  all  their 
capital  on  machinery  and  experiments  in  the  manufacture  of  fine  aniline  colors,  they 
reduced  the  capital  to  $25,000,  and  confined  their  attention  to  the  product  of  aniline 
red  until  about  two  years  ago,  when  new  premises  were  purchased  and  some  $60,000 
expended  for  machinery.  Chemists  were  brought  from  Switzerland  and  England,  and 
we  are  now  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  all  the  fine  aniline  blues,  and  expecting 
ere  long  to  make  all  the  finer  colors  made  in  Europe.  As  an  illustration  of  the  benefit 
the  country  has  derived  from  our  efforts,  we  can  state  that  large  crystals  of  red  were 
sold  in  1868  at  $6.50,  gold.  We  now  supply  the  trade  with  an  acknowledged  better 
color  at  $2.50  per  pound.  Blues  were  sold  one  year  ago  at  $4.  Since  we  commenced 
making  the  price  has  dropped  to  $2.50.  We  think  we  deserve  the  sympathy  and  en- 
couragement of  the  powers  that  be. 

Verv  respectfully,  yours, 

H.  K.  LANSING, 

Treasurer. 

I will  state  that  I have  notified  Mr.  Lansing  of  the  hearing  that  is 
going  on  before  you,  and  he  will  appear  in  person  and  make  a statement 
on  this  subject. 

I desire  also  to  add  that  it  appears  that  in  1880  there  were  563,932 
pounds  of  aniline  dyes  of  foreign  manufacture,  of  value,  with  duty  added, 
$1,600,166.48,  entered  for  consumption,  while  during  the  last  census  year 
only  80,518  pounds  were  produced  in  the  United  States,  in  value  amount- 
ing to  $107,282.  These  figures  are  the  most  exemplary  that  can  be 
given  to  show  the  depressing  effect  on  an  industry  of  an  unpremeditated 
reduction  of  d^iity.  Had  the  other  50  cents  per  pound  been  allowed  to 
remain,  the  position  of  aniline  dyes  would  doubtless  have  been  about 
the  same  as  licorice  and  borax,  and  the  country  would  have  been  inde- 
pedent  in  this  regard.  Not  only  has  the  reduction  of  this  duty  prevented 
the  manufacture  from  growing  until  quite  recently,  but  the  danger  of 
having  another  50  cents  per  pound  lopped  off  has  naturally  aided  in 
hindering  it,  as  one  house  sank  $50,000,  another  $30,000  to  my  knowl- 
edge, following  the  reduction. 

I am  informed  that  the  manufacture  of  aniline  dyes  in  Europe  is  prac- 
tically controlled  by  an  English  monopoly,  which  buys  a large  amount 


208 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[henry  bower. 


of  material  for  this  manufacture  in  this  country,  sending  it  to  Germany 
and  Switzerland,  where  these  colors  are  produced  by  the  poorest  paid 
labor  in  Europe,  and  shipped  to  England  and  America.  Already  an  exten- 
sive English  house  has  made  overtures  to  parties  in  this  country,  looking 
to  the  control  of  these  products,  and  thus  to  deprive  us  of  the  raw  mate- 
rial after  present  contracts  have  expired.  I could  name  other  articles  of 
chemical  manufacture  which  are  held  in  about  the  same  prospective  con- 
dition if  the  large  European  combinations  should  succeed  in  breaking 
through  the  barriers  of  our  protective  system. 


CHARLES  A.  STADLER.J 


MILT. 


209 


i 


CHARLES  A.  STADLER. 


Long  Branch,  K J.,  July  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Charles  A.  Stadler,  secretary  of  the  United  States  Maltsters’ 
Association,  appeared  before  the  Commission  in  response  to  its  invita- 
tion and  made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I desire  to  state  that  we  import 
annually  from  six  to  ten  millions  of  bushels  of  Canada  barley  and 
Canada  malt.  The  Canada  barley  being  of  better  quality  than  that  of 
the  United  States,  and  barley  being  besides  an  uncertain  crop  within 
the  States,  our  consumers  cannot  do  without  the  Canada  supply. 

Whether  the  Canada  produce  is  imported  either  in  barley  or  malt 
does  not  affect  the  import  revenue  from  the  same,  as  the  present  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty  on  foreign  malt  and  the  specific  duty  of  15  cents 
per  bushel  on  foreign  barley  are  nearly  equal,  the  one  exceeding  the 
other  merely  according  to  the  market  price  of  the  article.  Any  differ- 
ence in  favor  of  malt  is  wiped  out  by  the  lower  invoices  of  the  ad  valo- 
rem duty  on  malt  against  the  specific  duty  on  barley. 

Under  the  Canadian  reciprocity  treaty  the  duty  on  malt  was  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  the  same  as  it  is  now.  Barley  was  free  of  duty. 

When  that  treaty  was  abolished  barley  no  longer  remained  free,  but 
a specific  duty  of  15  cents  per  bushel  was  put  on  it,  while  the  duty  on 
the  manufactured  article  remained  the  same  as  when  the  raw  material 
was  free  of  duty.  That  was  an  oversight  in  legislation,  and  the  source 
of  all  the  complaints  of  the  maltsters  of  the  United  States,  as  thereby 
they  are  prevented  from  competing  successfully  with  their  Canada 
neighbors. 

The  Canadian  Government  levies  a specific  duty  of  34  cents  on  the 
bushel  of  American  malt,  against  our  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on 
Canada  malt. 

The  United  States  maltsters,  unwilling  and  unable  to  bear  this  state 
of  affairs,  which  with  the  yearly  increasing  importation  of  Canada 
malt  will  in  the  end  ruin  their  business,  went,  four  years  ago,  before 
Congress,  and  asked  an  increase  of  duty  on  foreign  malt  from  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  to  35  cents  specific  duty  per  bushel  of  34  pounds.  To 
that  the  brewers,  through  the  United  States  Brewers’  Association,  ob- 
jected, and  the  bill  failed.  The  brewers,  however,  seeing  the  injustice 
done  the  American  maltsters,  made  (at  their  annual  convention  at  Bal- 
timore in  June,  18  8)  a compromise  with  them,  agreeing  on  a rate  of 
duty  on  malt  of  25  cents  per  bushel  of  34  pounds.  At  the  present  20 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty,  that  amount  is  received  by  the  government 
whenever  the  valuation  of  one  bushel  of  malt  in  the  Canadian  market 
reaches  $1.25.  The  brewers  accepted  that  as  a mean,  the  price  of  malt 
running  from  90  cents  up  to  $1.70.  For  that  reason  the  25  cents  duty 
asked  will  simply  equalize  the  present  duties  between  malt  and  barley. 

H.  Mis.  6 14 


210 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHARLES  A.  8TADLER. 


So.  for  instance,  the  price  of  malt  at  present  is  $1.30  to  $1.50,  which,  at 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  gives  a duty  from  26  to  30  cents  per  bushel,  an 
increase  respectively  of  one  to  five  cents  duty  on  the  25  cents  in  the 
bill.  If  the  bushel  of  malt  cost  $1.80,  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  will 
be  36  cents  per  bushel ; if  $2,  40  cents  per  bushel.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  price  is  less  than  $1.25,  the  duty  will  be  correspondingly  less 
than  25  cents  per  bushel.  The  brewers  were  guided  in  effecting  this 
compromise  not  merely  by  the  desire  to  help  American  maltsters  and 
retain  the  money  for  malting  Canada  barley  in  this  country,  but  they 
desired  also  to  have  a fixed  duty,  which  gives  them  more  fixed  prices. 
For  that  reason  a cammittee  was  appointed  at  the  Baltimore  Brewers7 
Convention  in  1878  to  visit  Washington  and  petition  Congress.  A bill 
was  introduced,  and  though  it  passed  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  after  full  deliberation,  it  failed  to  pass  the  House  on  account  of 
want  of  time.  In  spring,  1880,  another  bill  was  introduced,  and,  after 
due  deliberation  in  the  committee,  it  passed  the  House  unanimously. 
Before  its  passage  the  brewers  met  in  convention  in  Buffalo,  in  June, 
1880,  when,  after  a full  and  lengthy  discussion,  with  but  two  dissenting 
votes,  adopted  a resolution  in  which  they  reiterated  their  adherence  to 
the  compromise  agreed  upon  in  June,  1878,  at  Baltimore. 

Since  then  the  Canadian  maltsters,  supported  by  their  customers  in 
the  United  States,  have  made  strong  efforts  to  ignore  the  almost  unani- 
mous action  of  the  last  four  brewers’  conventions. 

But  against  them  stand  the  bulk  of  the  brewers  of  the  United  States 
as  represented  through  that  intelligent  body,  the  United  States  Brew- 
ers’ Association.  Hence  this  bill  is  both  advocated  by  consumers  and 
manufacturers  alike. 

With  the  permission  of  the  Commission  I will  read  an  extract  from  a 
report  made  by  B.  H.  Hinds,  special  agent  of  the  Treasury  Department, 
dated  March  15,  1881: 

u In  Canada  there  is  a malt-tax,  and  every  malt-honse  is  a bonded 
warehouse.  It  appears  that,  under  some  regulation  of  the  inland  rev- 
enue authorities,  the  manufacturer  is  allowed  to  withdraw  for  consump- 
tion per  cent,  more  than  the  quantity  on  which  he  pays  excise  duty. 
* * * (jn  so  flimsy  a pretext  as  this  have  the  Canadian  shippers  for 

years  been  claiming  and  receiving  discounts  of  2J  per  cent,  from  the 
total  amounts  of  their  invoices  at  the  various  frontier  ports. 

“In  the  United  States  such  a discount  is  entirely  unknown,  so  far  as 
I can  learn,  except  New  York  City  ; and  I am  informed  by  American 
maltsters,  that  on  account  of  this  discount  from  regular  prices  at  New 
York,  malt  is  always  quoted  and  sold  in  that  market  about  2J  per  cent, 
in  advance  < f other  markets ; so  that  even  there  the  allowance  is  merely 
nominal,  and  the  purchaser,  in  fact,  receives  no  benefit  from  such  local 
custom. 

“The  impropriety,  therefore,  of  allowing  it  on  entries  made  by  foreign 
shippers  is  obvious,  since  the  American  purchaser  does  not  receive  the 
benefit  of  this  discount. 

“ From  January  1,  to  September  30,  1880,  there  were  imported  into 
the  various  frontier  ports  the  following  quantities  of  malt,  which  were 
entered  and  paid  duties  at  the  prices  and  with  the  allowances  indi- 
cated. In  these  tables  I have  reduced  all  importations  to  the  Ameri- 
can bushel  of  34  pounds,  and  varied  the  invoice  prices  to  conform  to 
such  standard.  I have  also  for  convenience,  in  cases  where  the  dis- 
count of  2£  per  cent,  has  been  made  on  the  quantity,  reduced  such 


CHARLES  A.  6T ADLER. ] MALT.  211 

allowance  to  bushels  and  taken  the  value  of  the  amount  so  deducted 
at  the  invoice  prices  : 


Port. 

Bushels  entered. 

Dutiable  value. 

Valueless  2\ per 
cent,  commis- 
sion. 

Average  invoice 
price. 

Deduction  for 
dust. 

Amount  of  allow- 
ance for  dust. 

Port  Huron 

77,  560 

$57,  985 

$56,  571 

Cents. 

72.9 

Per  cent. 
2i 

$1,  515  05 

Detroit  

34,  284 
58,  500 

25,  710 

25,  084 
43,  541 

73. 1 

None. 

Buffalo 

44,  627 

74.5 

2i 

346  00 

Niagara 

576,  433 
29,  435 

443, 511 

432,  699 

74.  5 

2\ 

10,  549  87 

Oswego 

21,  346 

20,  820 

69.0 

2 h 

597  00 

Cape  Vincent 

27,  611 

18,  777 

18,  325 

66.4 

2| 

186  00 

Oswegatchie 

16,  597 
4,698 
6,  246 

12,  853 
3,  758 

12,  540 

3,  676 

4,  958 

75.  5 

None. 

Champlain  

78.  2 

None. 

Vermont 

5,  078 

80.0 

2i 

123  95 

831,  364 

618,  214 

13,  317  87 

General  average  price,  74.36  cents  per  bushel  of  thirty-four  pounds. 


“I  come  now  to  the  question  of  what  was  the  true  market  value  of  the 
malt  imported  as  per  foregoing  table —taking  into  consideration  the 
condition  of  the  Canadian  barley  market  during  the  season  of  1879-780. 
I am  informed  by  parties  who  were  large  purchasers  of  Canadian  bar- 
ley during  the  fall  and  winter  of  1879  and  the  spring  of  1880,  that  the 
average  price  of  No.  2 Toronto  did  not,  during  those  months,  vary  much 
from  65  cents  per  bushel. 

“I  should  here  state  that  all  malt  imported  into  this  country  from 
Canada,  so  far  as  1 have  been  able  to  learn,  is  consigned  by  the  Cana- 
dian manufacturer  and  owner  either  to  a railroad  broker  for  the  pur- 
pose of  entry,  or  to  the  party  to  whom  it  has  been  sold.  It  is  univer- 
sally sold  by  sample  at  an  agreed  price  delivered  in  this  country;  and 
the  pretense  that  there  are  recognized  grades  in  Canadian  malt,  as  most 
of  the  invoices  would  seem  to  imply  from  the  statement  that  a particular 
lot  is  No.  2 or  No.  1,  is  not  warranted  by  the  facts.  The  largest  brewers 
in  Milwaukee,  who  purchase  large  quantities  of  the  malt,  inform  me 
that  they  always  buy  by  sample,  and  know  nothing  about  grades  in 
either  American  or  Canadian  malt.  I have  to  state  that  in  October 
last  one  of  the  largest  maltsters  in  Toronto  informed  me  that  his  prices 
for  malt  had  been  during  the  season  90  cents  per  bushel  of  thirty-six 
pounds,  which  was  as  low  as  he  could  afford  to  sell  it. 

uIn  the  testimony  taken  before  the  consuls  in  Canada,  it  was  shown 
that  during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1880,  while  shippers  to  the 
United  States  were  invoicing  their  malt  at  from  70  to  80  cents  per  Cana- 
dian bushel,  these  witnesses,  who  were  brewers,  were  paying  for  the 
same  quality  of  malt,  from  90  to  95  cents  per  bushel,  exclusive  of  the 
inland  tax. 

u These  several  kinds  of  evidence,  coming  as  they  do  from  such  various 
and  independent  sources,  concurring  and  corroborating  each  other  in 
such  an  unmistakable  manner,  point  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  that 
a bushel  of  malt  is  fairly  worth  about  25  cents  more  than  a bushel  of 
the  barley  from  which  it  is  made.  It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  the 
estimate  submitted  by  me  allows  that  the  small  Canadian  manufacturer 
can  produce  malt  nearly  three  cents  per  bushel  cheaper  than  the  largest 
and  best-equipped  American  establishments,  and  even  then,  the  mar- 
ket value  of  the  malt  is  shown  to  be  from  21.9  cents  to  25.3  cents  in 


212 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHAKLES  A.  STABLER. 


advance  of  the  average  cost  of  the  barley,  according  as  we  estimate 
the  manufacturer’s  profit  at  10  or  15  per  cent. 

“Applying  these  calculations  to  the  importations  from  January  1 to 
September  30, 1880,  and  reducing  the  price  from  90  cents  for  36  pounds 
to  85  cents  to  conform  to  the  American  bushel  of  34  pounds,  we  find 
that  while  the  actual  market  value  was  85  cents,  the  average  invoice 
price,  as  shown  by  table,  was  only  74.3  cents,  requiring  an  advance  of 
more  than  14  per  cent,  to  make  true  market  value.  It  is  true  that  some 
shipments  were  not  undervalued  to  this  extent;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
many  must  have  been  invoiced  from  20  to  30  per  cent,  below  their  true 
market  value,  and  I have  therefore  taken  the  average  percentage.  As 
the  value  of  the  importations  at  the  average  price  per  bushel  is  $618,214, 
and  as  this  was  14  per  cent,  less  than  the  true  aggregate  value,  or  only 
86  per  cent,  of  such  correct  value,  it  follows  that  the  full  value  of  these 
importations  must  have  been  $718,853,  and  that  the  difference  between 
these  amounts,  which  is  $100,639,  escaped  the  payment  of  the  20  per 
cent.  duty. 

“I  became  convinced  during  the  autumn  of  last  year  that  large  and 
systematic  undervaluations  were  being  practiced  by  the  shippers  of 
malt,  and  I therefore  ascertained,  in  a few  cases,  the  prices  at  which  it 
had  been  delivered  in  this  country  and  the  expenses  attending  the  ship- 
ment. By  comparing  these  with  the  invoice  prices,  the  percentage  of 
the  undervaluation  in  each  shipment  could  be  approximately  ascer- 
tained. I will  submit  a few  instances,  by  way  of  illustration: 

“ 1 James  Slater,  of  London,  during  the  early  winter  and  spring,  shipped 
some  60,000  bushels  to  the  Best  and  Schlitz  Brewing  Companies,  at 
Milwaukee,  at  prices  varying  from  $1.10  to  $1.05,  and  at  the  close  of 
the  season,  in  August,  he  disposed  of  the  remainder  of  the  stock  at  $1. 
He  invoiced  this  at  an  average  of  75J  cents  per  American  bushel,  with 
2J  per  cent,  discount,  which  brings  it  to  73.3  cents.  The  cost  of  trans- 
portation I found  to  be  7 cents  per  bushel,  which,  with  duty  at  20  per 
cent,  on  73.3  cents,  would  be  21.92  cents.  This  added  to  the  invoice 
price  should,  in  an  honest  importation,  be  very  nearly  the  selling,  price 
delivered.  It  amounts,  however,  to  only  95.2  cents,  while  the  selling 
price  averaged  105. 

“‘ J.  McMillan  shipped  in  May,  1880,  3,500  bushels  from  Kingston  to 
the  Best  Brewing  Company,  of  Milwaukee,  invoiced  at  66^  cents  per 
American  bushel.  The  shipping  expenses  on  this  lot  were  probably  1 
cent  per  bushel  more  than  on  Slater’s,  so  that  if  his  invoice  price  was  a 
correct  one,  and  included  his  profit,  he  could  afford  to  deliver  it  for  about 
88  cents.  I learned  at  the  brewery,  however,  that  they  paid  him  $1.22j- 
for  the  whole  lot,  and  that  it  was  an  extraordinarily  fine  lot  of  malt 
made  from  Bay  of  Quinte  barley,  which  was  worth  at  least  10  cents 
per  bushel  more  than  Toronto  barley.’ 

“I  was  informed  in  Buffalo  that  one  of  the  Toronto  shippers,  William 
D.  Matthews  & Co.,  furnished,  under  a contract,  125,000  bushels  of 
malt,  during  the  season  of  1879-’80,  to  Peter  Doelger,  a brewer  in  New 
York  City,  at  an  average  of  $1.18.  Matthews’  entries  are  made  at 
various  ports  at  the  rate  of  about  73.3  cents  for  the  bushel  of  thirty- 
four  pounds,  including  discounts,  and,  as  the  expense  of  shipping  can- 
not exceed  10  cents  per  bushel,  it  is  evident  that  the  malt  is  greatly 
undervalued  on  the  invoices. 

“There  is  too  sharp  a competition  among  manufacturers  of  this  article 
to  justify  the  presumption  that  any  unusual  advance  over  regular  mar- 
ket rates  was  obtained  in  any  of  these  transactions,  and  the  conclusion 


CHARLES  A.  ST  ADLER.]  MALT.  213 

therefore  is  that  the  government  was  defrauded  out  of  a very  large 
amount  of  duties  by  means  of  these  undervaluations. 

44 1 have  already  stated  that  all  Canadian  malt  imported  into  this 
country,  so  far  as  I can  learn,  is  consigned  by  the  shipper  or  manu- 
facturer at  a stipulated  price,  delivered  to  the  purchaser.  In  this  re- 
spect it  bears  a close  resemblance  to  consignments  made  by  European 
manufacturers  to  their  American  agents,  and  it  has  been  found  that 
the  temptation  to  undervalue  such  goods,  being  an  ad  valorem  rate  of 
duty,  is  too  strong  to  be  resisted  by  a large  majority  of  consignors. 

The  fact  that  these  shippers  from  Canada  and  the  continent  of  Europe 
are  not  required  to  make  oath  to  the  correctness  of  their  invoices  before 
any  magistrate  having  local  jurisdiction  seems  to  offer  a still  further 
inducement  to  fraud,  since  the  only  oath  taken  during  the  course  of 
the  importation  is  by  an  agent,  to  whom  the  goods  have  been  consigned 
for  the  purpose  of  entry,  and  whose  action  is,  therefore,  of  the  most 
perfunctory  character. 

44  It  is  true  that  some  of  the  consuls  make  a pretense  of  administering 
oaths  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  shipper’s  declaration  when  they  cer- 
tify invoices,  but  as  no  record  of  such  oath  appears  on  the  invoice  or 
elsewhere,  and  as  an  oath  taken  before  a United  States  consul  cannot 
be  recognized  in  the  courts  of  Canada  as  a basis  for  a prosecution  for 
perjury,  it  does  not  clearly  appear  for  what  purpose  this  ceremony  is 
performed. 

44 1 have  in  several  instances,  both  at  consulates  and  custom  houses, 
found  invoices  and  entries  of  malt  and  barley  made  on  the  same  day  at 
the  same  price.” 


214 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DE  WITT  C.  WAKD. 


DE  WITT  0.  WALD. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  26,  1882. 

Mr.  De  Witt  C.  Ward,  of  New  York,  chairman  of  the  executive 
committee  of  the  United  States  Maltsters’ Association,  appeared  before 
the  Commission,  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and  gave  the  following 
statement  in  regard  to  the  malt  interest : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  In  relation  to  the  subject  of  malt, 
concerning  which  I appear  before  you  to-day,  I desire  to  state  that  about 
four  years  ago,  as  malt  manufacturers  of  the  State  of  New  York  and  of 
the  United  States,  we  found  ourselves  at  a great  disadvantage  in  sell- 
ing our  goods.  Upon  making  inquiry  as  to  the  cause,  we  ascertained 
that  by  reason  of  undervaluations,  exteusively  practiced  on  the  Cana- 
dian borders,  and  also  by  reason  of  the  opportunities  that  the  Canadians 
had  of  manufacturing  very  cheaply  indeed,  we  were  at  a disadvantage 
so  great  that  they  could  undersell  us  in  our  own  market.  I was  one  of 
a committee  who  went  to  Washington  and  brought  these  matters  to  the 
attention  of  Congress. 

On  the  9th  September,  1854,  what  is  known  as  the  reciprocity  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Canada  was  ratified.  By  that  treaty 
barley  and  other  raw  materials  intended  for  consumption  in  the  United 
States  was  allowed  to  be  imported  free  of  duty.  But  the  duty  of  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  on  malt,  which  was  then  in  force,  was  suffered  to  stand 
unchanged,  malt  being  classed  as  a manufactured  article. 

In  March,  1861,  there  was  an  act  passed  levying  a duty  of  15  cents 
per  bushel  on  barley,  and  a duty  on  malt  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and 
this  act  is  still  in  operation.  But  from  the  years  U61  to  1866  Canadian 
barley  was  exempt  from  this  duty  by  virtue  of  the  reciprocity  treaty, 
which  allowed  the  raw  material  to  be  imported  into  the  United  States 
from  Canada,  duty  free. 

When,  however,  that  treaty  was  annulled,  in  1866,  Canadian  barley 
necessarily  became  subject  to  the  duty  referred  to  of  15  cents  per  bushel 
(malt  continuing,  as  before,  subject  to  an  ad-valorem  duty  of  20  per 
cent.),  and  thus  ever  since  1866  the  American  maltster  lias  been  com- 
pelled by  the  act  of  his  own  government  to  pay  15  cents  a bushel  more 
than  he  did  before  on  every  bushel  lie  imports. 

At  that  period  the  malting  business  was  not  of  the  large  extent  to 
which  it  has  since  necessarily  grown  in  order  to  meet  the  increased  con- 
sumption of  malt-liquors.  Neither  did  Canadian  maltsters  then  possess 
the  facilities  which  they  have  since  acquired  for  making  large  quantities 
of  malt  for  export.  Besides,  owing  to  the  high  and  fluctuating  prices 
of  grain,  as  of  other  commodities  during  the  inflation  period,  say  from 
1866  to  1874,  the  20  per  cent,  ad- valorem  duty  on  malt  actually  amounted 
to  about  double  what  it  is  now.  Thus,  for  example,  in  the  winter  of 
1873-’74,  when  the  best  Canadian  barley  was  selling  in  New  York  as 
high  as  $2  per  bushel,  malt  made  from  such  barley  was  worth  say  $2  25 
to  $2.30  per  bushel;  while,  then,  the  specific  duty  on  barley  was  15 
cents  per  bushel,  the  ad-valorem  duty  on  malt  must  have  come  to  45 
cents  per  bushel. 

When  the  great  fall  in  prices  began  to  take  place  there  was  necessarily 
a corresponding  fall  in  the  duty  actually  paid  on  malt.  This  has  lor  the 


DE  WITT  C.  WARD.] 


MALT. 


215 


past  two  or  three  years  (taking”  36  pounds  of  malt  as  the  equivalent  of 
48  pounds  of  barley)  seldom  amounted  to  more  than  from  11  cents  to  15 
cents  per  36  pounds.  Thus  we  have  the  duty  on  the  raw  material,  which 
the  American  maltsters  are  to  manufacture,  higher  than  the  duty  on  the 
manufactured  article  itself. 

This  slate  of  things  has  within  the  last  four  years  been  respectfully 
presented  to  the  notice  of  the  United  States  Government  on  several 
occasions  by  the  American  maltsters,  but  thus  far  without  any  effect.  It 
is  in  the  mean  time  growing  more  and  more  plain  to  them  that,  unless  a 
speedy  change  takes  place,  the  large  and  once  prosperous  business  of  malt- 
ing must  soon  come  to  an  end  in  the  United  States,  particularly  in  New 
York  State,  where  so  large  a quantity  of  malt  is  made. 

The  maltsters  in  New  York  and  neighboring  States  consume  yearly 
from  five  to  seven  million  bushels  of  Canadian  barley,  and  to  Canada 
they  must  always  look  for  the  great  bulk  of  their  supply.  They  would 
prefer  to  have  Canadian  barley  come  in  as  it  did  before  1866,  duty  free. 
Nor  are  they  able  to  perceive  why  an  act  which,  like  many  others,  was 
made  necessary  by  the  exigencies  of  a great  war  should  still  be  kept  in 
force,  to  their  great  detriment,  in  these  times  of  peace. 

But  if  the  present  duty  of  15  cents  per  bushel  on  barley  must  be  main- 
tained, then  they  ask  for  a proportionate  specific  duty  on  malt.  A spe- 
cific duty  of  35  cents  per  bushel  would  fairly  represent  the  difference 
that  existed  in  reciprocity  times.  A specific  duty  bn  malt  is,  moreover, 
required  in  order  to  preserve  the  proper  proportion  between  the  rates  of 
duty  on  barley  and  malt  and  to  keep  them  uniform.  It  would  also  evi- 
dently be  the  most  suitable  in  this  case,  since  the  malt  imported  from 
Canada  is,  and  is  likely  to  be,  in  the  main,  of  a uniform  quality. 

The  reasons  for  placing  a higher  duty  on  malt  than  on  barley  are  sim- 
ple and  obvious.  But  lew  need  be  presented.  They  are  such  as  are 
common  to  many  kinds  of  manufactures  in  the  United  States,  where 
foreign  raw  materials  are  used  on  which  a duty  has  been  paid. 

The  American  maltsters  buy  their  Canadian  barley  from  the  importers 
of  it,  who,  after  having  paid  duty,  freight,  and  other  charges,  are,  at 
present  prices,  obliged  to  ask  an  advance  of  about  50  per  cent,  on  its  first 
cost.  Moreover,  in  turning  the  barley  into  malt  there  is  a necessary 
wastage  of  about  25  per  cent,  of  the  barley,  upon  which  wastage  the 
American  maltster  has,  nevertheless,  to  pay  duty  and  transportation,  all 
which,  of  course,  increase  the  cost  of  the  malt. 

The  Canadian,  on  the  other  hand,  buys  his  barley  at  first  hand  from 
the  farmers,  and  thereby  escapes  many  charges  which  his  American  com- 
petitor is  liable  to.  Nor  is  he  obliged  to  pay  freight  and  duty  until  he 
lias  his  manufactured  goods  ready  for  sale  in  the  United  States.  Con- 
sequently, he  requires  only  about  one-half  of  the  capital  that  an  Ameri- 
can maltster  must  have  tor  a business  of  the  same  extent. 

Canadian  barley,  furthermore,  has  first  to  be  distributed  by  the  im- 
porters among  the  maltsters,  and  then  again  by  the  maltsters  among  the 
brewers;  but  this  first  distribution  the  Canadian  maltster  does  not  have 
to  pay  for,  inasmuch  as  he  can  buy  his  barley  from  farmers  at  his  own 
door;  and  as  for  the  second,  he  usually  ships  his  malt  direct  from  Can- 
ada to  his  customers  in  the  United  States. 

American  maltsters  think  that,  as  most  of  the  large  manufacturing  in- 
terests in  the  United  States  are  protected  to  a greater  or  less  extent,  so 
as  to  enhance  the  cost  of  materials  and  the  price  of  labor,  it  is  ex- 
tremely unjust  on  the  part  of  our  government  to  pursue  a policy  so 
ruinous  to  the  malting  business  as  to  permit,  as  is  actually  the  case,  for- 


216 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ DE  WITT  C.  WARD. 


eign  maltsters  to  sell  their  malt  in  our  own  markets,  not  merely  on  the 
same  footing  with  ourselves,  but  on  the  payment  of  a less  duty  on  their 
manufactures  than  the  American  maltster  pays  on  the  raw  material. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  Canada  protects  her  malt 
manufacturers  by  a duty  of  34  cents  per  bushel,  and  it  does  seem  only 
justice  that  the  small  protection  asked  for  by  the  Americans  should  be 
granted. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  Would  it  make  a particle  of  difference  one  way  or  the  other 
to  the  consumer  of  the  beer? — Answer.  No,  sir.  I suppose  this  Com- 
mission knows  very  well  about  barley  malt.  Barley  malt  is  to-day  worth 
$1.40  a bushel;  20  per  cent,  on  that  is  pretty  nearly  30  cents  a bushel. 
We  ask  25  cents  a bushel  protection.  Even  at  the  worst  it  could  not 
be  more  than  3 cents  increase.  It  takes  2J  bushels  of  malt  to  make  a 
barrel  of  beer,  aud  when  you  divide  the  3 cents  up  on  2J  bushels  of 
malt,  it  would  require  a microscope  to  enable  you  to  discover  an  increase, 
if  it  was  an  increase,  to  the  consumer.  We  contend  it  is  no  increase 
whatever.  It  is  simply  an  equalization  of  duty  all  round,  and  1 think 
you  gentlemen  will  come  to  that  conclusion  when  you  have  fully  consid- 
ered that  fact. 


E.  P.  WHEELER,  j 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


217 


E.  P.  WHEELER. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Everett  P.  Wheeler,  of  New  York,  representing  the  New 
York  Free  Trade  Club,  appeared  before  tbe  Commission,  in  response  to 
its  invitation,  and  made  the  following  statement : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I desire  to  state,  in  the  first  place, 
that  we  do  not  wish  to  present  our  views  on  tariff  matters  to  the  Com- 
mission in  a theoretical  light.  We  appreciate  entirely  the  observations 
of  your  president  at  the  opening  of  your  sessions,  that  the  policy  of 
the  country,  so  far  as  the  Commission  is  concerned,  is  settled  by  the 
law  of  its  creation,  and  that  what  yon  are  about  to  undertake  is  a re- 
vision of  the  tariff,  and  not  any  radical  change  in  its  principal  features. 
We  appreciate  fully,  too,  the  importance  of  the  suggestions  that  were 
made  by  your  president,  that  in  considering  this  subject  attention  should 
be  paid  to  all  branches  of  industry;  that  it  would  not  be  just  to  dis- 
criminate in  favor  of  one  industry  at  the  expense  of  another,  but  that  the 
aim  should  be  to  harmonize  the  operation  of  the  tariff  laws  and  modify 
them  in  such  a way  as  to  do  justise  to  each  industry.  What  we  un- 
derstand free  trade  to  mean  is  fair  trade;  an  impartial  and  equitable 
system  of  taxation. 

It  seemed  to  us  and  to  the  gentlemen  whom  we  represent,  who  are 
engaged  in  a great  many  different  industries,  some  in  commerce,  some 
in  manufacturing  pursuits,  and  some  in  other  branches  of  business,  that 
these  particular  topics  that  we  shall  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission 
to  are  perhaps  the  most  obnoxious  and  more  open  to  criticism  than  any 
part  of  the  present  tariff.  Without  going  into  the  whole  subject, 
which  is  a great  one,  and  in  regard  to  which  I am  sure  you  already  realize 
its  magnitude  and  its  difficulties,  I think  I can  briefly  call  your  atten- 
tion to  a few  points,  and  suggest  what  I think  will  be  a practical  reform 
in  any  revision  of  the  tariff  you  may  choose  to  adopt.  I may  say  in 
the  beginning,  that  one  object  we  had  in  mind  in  suggesting  any  changes 
at  all  is  relief  to  manufacturing  industries  and  consequently  to  con- 
sumers by  diminishing  or  abolishing  altogether  the  duties  on  raw  ma- 
terials. We  appreciate  that  it  is  important  that  this  country  should  be 
a great  manufacturing  country,  as  it  is  already  one  of  the  greatest 
manufacturing  countries  in  the  world.  We  appreciate,  too,  that  it  is 
very  desirable  we  should  have  a foreign  market  for  our  manufactured 
product ; that  we  should  not  be  shut  up  entirely  to  the  limits  of  our  own 
American  Union.  Of  course  this  country  does  afford  us  a great  market 
in  itself,  but  in  times  of  depression  of  business  it  Avould  be  a great  ad- 
vantage to  manufacturers  to  be  able  to  dispose  of  their  surplus  goods 
in  foreign  markets.  But  if  raw  materials  are  heavily  taxed,  we  cannot 
compete  with  those  countries.  In  this  view  of  the  question,  it  seems 
to  me  it  would  be  desirable  to  begin  a revision  of  the  present  tariff  sys- 
tem in  this  direction. 

Take,  for  example,  the  first  of  the  subjects  to  which  I desire  to  call 
your  attention,  that  is,  copper.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  enumerate 
the  great  variety  of  articles  into  the  manufacture  of  which  copper  en- 
ters. There  is  probably  not  a house  in  America  in  which  there  is  not 


218 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fE.  P.  WHEELER. 


some  article  in  wliicb  copper  is  used.  It  is  used  in  the  plumbing,  in 
culinary  utensils,  in  hardware,  in  everything  into  wdiich  brass  enters, 
as  we  know;  as  clocks  and  gas  fixtures;  and  the  labor  which  enters  into 
the  manufacture  of  these  copper  goods  is,  to  a great  extent,  skilled  labor, 
and  the  goods  are  of  a character  which  require  a large  amount  of  labor 
in  their  manufacture.  Of  course  we  are  all  aware  that  in  all  manufac- 
tured goods  there  are  some  into  which  the  element  of  labor  enters  but 
little;  I mean  goods  that  are  easily  made,  where  machinery  does  the 
most  of  the  work.  There  are  other  articles,  however,  like  those  I have 
just  mentioned,  which  require  more  labor  and  skill,  and  in  regard  to 
which  the  wages  bear  a larger  proportion  to  the  expense  of  producing 
the  manufactured  article  than  in  other  directions. 

I should  like  to  call  your  attention  in  the  first  place  to  the  present 
duty  on  copper  and  copper  ore.  The  duty  on  copper  ore  is  three  cents 
a pound  for  each  pound  of  fine  copper  contained  in  the  ore,  graduated 
according  to  the  richness  of  the  ore  itself.  The  duty  on  copper  ingots 
amounts  to  five  cents  a pound.  The  copper  mining  industry  in  this 
country  exists  principally  in  the  State  of  Michigan.  There  are,  of 
course,  copper  mines  in  Maine,  Maryland,  and  Missouri,  and  in  a few 
other  States,  but  the  great  bulk  of  the  business  is  done  in  the  State  of 
Michigan,  so  that  as  it  appears  from  the  last  census  returns,  out  of 
50,655,140  pounds  of  the  product  of  the  copper  mines,  45,830,202  pounds 
were  produced  in  Michigan.  The  cost  of  producing  the  copper  thus 
mined  was,  in  wages,  $2,915,103.  In  making  up  the  statement  of  the 
capital  employed,  the  figures  are  not  given  of  the  capital  invested.  I 
do  not  know  why  the  schedules  of  the  census  in  this  regard  were  made 
up  on  a different  basis  from  those  in  reference  to  some  other  indus- 
tries where  the  capital  invested  is  treated  as  the  amount  in  regard 
to  which  a return  was  sought.  But  in  this  particular  case  the  capital 
is  stated  in  various  subdivisions.  In  the  first  place,  the  working  capi- 
tal is  given,  then  the  value  of  the  plant,  then  the  value  of  the  real 
estate.  I venture  to  say  that  in  regard  to  most  of  these  copper  mines, 
the  value  of  the  real  estate,  as  stated  in  these  schedules,  is  very  much 
in  excess  of  its  cost.  Take,  for  example,  the  Calumet  and  Ilecla  mines, 
the  most  profitable  in  the  State  of  Michigan.  Undoubtedly  the  value 
is  what  the  present  owners  consider  it  to  be,  and  not  what  it  cost  them, 
and  it  is  perhaps  the  value  they  ought  to  give.  So  that  in  looking  at 
these  figures,  although  they  show  a large  return  of  the  capital  invested, 
and  give  to  the  owners  the  benefit  of  all  the  profits  that  had  been  applied 
and  realized  by  the  raising  of  the  duty  on  copper  ore  and  copper  ingots, 
still  we  find  that  even  on  the  basis  of  the  present  valuation,  the  profit 
during  the  census  year  amounted  to  14  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the 
capital  invested.  Taking  the  cost  of  production  by  adding  to  the 
materials  and  supplies  used  the  amount  paid  for  wages,  and  then 
deducting  it  from  the  aggregate  value  of  the  products  of  the  mine  (and 
I am  speaking  here,  you  will  observe,  of  the  ore  that  is  mined  without 
reference  to  the  form  that  it  afterward  assumes),  we  find  a profit  on  the 
capital  in  its  present  enhanced  value  of  14  per  cent. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  one  of  those  raw  materials  in  regard  to 
which  the  duties  ought  to  be  very  small,  if  there  should  be  any  duty  at 
all  imposed.  The  miners  have  cheap  water  transportation.  The  mines 
are  right  on  the  shores  of  Lake  Superior.  To  a very  large  degree  the 
mines  are  above  ground,  and  the  expense  of  mining  is  much  less  than 
it  is  in  most  of  the  copper  mines  of  Europe.  I notice,  for  example, 
in  the  statement  of  the  character  of  the  labor  of  the  persons  employed  in 
these  mines,  that  half  of  them  are  employed  above  grouud.  And  any  one 


E.  P.  WHEELER.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


219 


who  has  ever  visited  those  mines  knows  that  the  operations  of  mining 
there  are  comparatively  inexpensive  compared  with  mining  in  Europe, 
where  they  go  to  a great  depth.  So  that  we  have  in  the  case  of  these 
Michigan  mines  two  very  favorable  elements:  first,  cheap  production: 
second,  cheap  transportation. 

We  say,  then,  is  it  just  to  increase  the  profits  of  the  capital  invested 
in  this  business  at  the  expense  of  the  industries  of  this  country  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  copper  and  brass  goods,  and,  as  a consequence, 
that  they  should  be  taxed  for  that  purpose?  It  seems  to  us  that  this  is 
a manifest  injustice,  and  that  it  would  be  no  injustice  to  the  mining 
interests  of  Michigan  if  copper  ore  were  put  on  the  free  list  as  it  was 
upon  the  tariff  as  it  existed  before  the  war. 

Let  me  say  in  this  connection,  and  it  shows  the  effect  of  changes  of 
duties,  that  at  that  time  it  was  very  common  for  vessels  engaged  in  the 
South  American  trade  to  bring  copper  ore  from  South  American  states, 
especially  from  Chili,  in  ballast  to  New  York,  and  there  was  a consider- 
able smelting  interest  which  grew  up  in  New  York  engaged  in  the  smelt- 
ing of  this  ore ; but  as  soon  as  the  duty  was  imposed  on  copper  ore,  that 
industry  there  was  entirely  destroyed,  because  the  value  of  the  ore  was 
not  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  stand  the  duty.  In  point  of  fact,  there 
is  no  copper  ore  of  any  consequence  imported  into  this  country  now,  or 
if  there  is,  the  amount  is  infinitesimal.  I have  the  figures  here,  but 
they  are  so  small  as  to  practically  amount  to  nothing.  The  entire  value 
of  copper  ore  imported  into  this  country  in  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1880,  amounted  to  only  $165,000,  and  of  copper  in  ingots  only  $86,000 ; 
so  that,  practically,  the  operation  of  the  tariff  is  to  give  a monopoly  of 
the  copper  production  to  the  copper  mining  interests  of  this  country, 
and  it  operates  as  a tax  upon  all  these  manufacturers  who  are  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  copper  and  brass  goods. 

So  much  for  the  subject  of  copper.  I will  state,  Mr.  President  and 
gentlemen  of  the  commission,  that  1 propose  to  submit  to  you  at  a later 
date,  in  a printed  form,  these  figures  and  statistics  which  I am  now 
stating  in.  this  cursory  and  conversational  way,  in  order  to  lay  them 
more  conveniently  before  you. 

The  next  subject  to  which  I call  the  attention  of  the  commission  is 
the  subject  of  nickel.  This  is  also  a comparatively  crude  material  which 
enters  very  largely  into  the  manufacturing  industries  of  this  country, 
and  wdiich,  under  the  tariff  as  it  existed  before  1861,  was  admitted  free 
of  duty.  In  1870  the  duty  was  increased  to  its  present  rate,  which  is  30 
cents  a pound.  This  increase  in  the  tariff  on  nickel  was  almost  contem- 
poraneous with  the  invention  of  a very  ingenious  citizen  of  your  own 
State,  Mr.  President,  Mr.  Adams,  who,  for  the  first  time,  discovered  a 
process  by  which  nickel-plating  could  be  cheaply  done.  Up  to  that 
time  almost  all  plated  goods  that  were  comparatively  cheap  in  their 
price  were  silver-plated.  Nickel,  while  it  has  not  the  brilliant  luster  of 
silver  tarnishes  less  readily,  is  more  desirable  for  plating  for  various 
purposes,  and  it  is  used  for  almost  everything.  The  railroad-car  I rode 
on  this  morning  in  coming  here  I noticed  had  nickel- plated  arms  to  the 
seats.  The  bicycles  we  see  on  our  streets  are  to  a considerable  extent 
plated  with  nickel;  the  carriages  that  we  use  have,  many  of  them,  some 
portion  plated  with  nickel,  and  so  with  the  harness,  and  so  you  may  go 
through  every  variety  of  metal  work  of  every  quality  and  description 
that  it  is  desirable  to  protect  from  the  weather,  and  you  will  find  that 
it  is  plated  with  this  useful  material. 

Almost  the  entire  production  of  nickel  in  this  country  is  from  one  mine 
in  Pennsylvania,  and  I am  told  that  the  effect  of  the  duty  on  nickel, 


220 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  P.  WHEELER. 


which  is  practically  a prohibitory  one,  it  being  so  large  as  to  prevent 
the  profitable  importation  of  the  nickel  at  all,  lias  been  to  yield  an  enor- 
mous profit  to  the  producer  of  this  article  iu  Pennsylvania,  and  there  is 
but  one  large  producer  in  America.  I am  informed  by  the  nickel  man- 
ufacturers that  the  moment  the  duty  was  increased  to  its  present 
figure,  without  any  increase  in  the  cost  of  production  at  all,  without 
any  increase  in  wages,  without  any  increase  in  invested  capital,  there 
was  an  immediate  doublingof  the  price  per  pound  to  the  nickel-plater,  and 
that  that  price  has  been  maintained  and  to  some  extent  increased  since 
that  time.  To  so  great  an  extent  has  this  injustice  reached  that  the 
Meriden  Britannia  Company,  which  is  one  of  the  largest  consumers  of 
nickel  in  this  country,  has  been  obliged  to  establish  a factory  in  Cnaada 
in  order  to  compete  for  the  foreign  market.  The  price  of  nickel  in  this 
country  is  such,  owing  to  the  existing  tariff,  that  it  cannot  be  profit- 
ably exported,  and  with  all  their  skilled  laborers  and  understanding 
of  the  business  (and  they  make  the  best,  or  claim  to  make  the  best, 
plated  goods  that  are  made  in  the  world),  they  cannot  sell  them  in  Eng- 
land, in  South  America,  or  on  the  Continent  of  Europe,  because  they  have 
to  pay  so  much  for  what  to  them  is  a raw  material.  The  expense  of  the 
manufacture  or  of  the  reducing  of  nickel  from  the  form  in  which  it  is 
found  iu  the  mine  is  not  expensive  or  difficult.  Without  going  into  de- 
tails as  to  the  method  employed  to  do  this,  and  in  regard  to  which  I 
have  brought  some  memoranda  here,  I will  simply  state  as  the  fact  that 
it  is  not  an  expensive  process,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
owner  of  the  mine  who  digs  the  ore  of  nickel  out  of  the  earth  should 
be  protected  or  benefited,  because  it  is  not  in  any  just  sense  a produc- 
tion which  should  be  benefited  and  enriched  by  imposing  what  becomes 
a duty  on  the  purchaser,  on  the  nickel-plater,  and  on  every  consumer  of 
nickel  goods.  It  seems  to  us  that  a reduction  from  30  cents  a pound  to 
5 cents  a pound  would  certainly  yield  all  that  the  nickel-miners  and 
nickel-smelters  of  this  country  can  justly  claim,  and  at  the  same  time 
it  would  afford  a great  benefit  to  all  the  nickel-platers  and  cheapen 
the  price  of  their  product  largely  by  enabling  them  to  bring  back  to 
America  this  factory  which,  owing  to  our  injudicious  laws,  they  have 
been  obliged  to  transport  to  Canada. 

The  next  topic  which  I call  the  attention  of  the  commission  to,  is  the 
subject  of  steel  rails.  This  subject  has  been  very  much  discussed  in 
Congress  and  out  of  it.  But,  with  the  permission  of  the  Commission,  I 
will  state  very  briefly  the  way  in  which  the  duty  on  steel  rails  came  to 
be  fixed  at  the  present  figure  of  $28  a ton,  or  1J  cents  a pound.  Down 
to  the  time  when  that  duty  was  changed,  which  was  in  the  latter  part 
of  1870,  the  price  of  steel  rails  in  England  had  been  about  £11  10s.  a 
ton.  The  reason  why  they  had  been  at  that  figure  was  manifold.  In 
the  first  place,  the  original  Bessemer  patent,  under  which  for  the  first 
time  it  became  possible  to  make  steel  rails  at  all,  had  not  then  expired, 
and  Mr.  Bessemer  received  a royalty  of  10  shillings  a ton  for  every  ton 
made  in  England.  Under  the  operation  of  our  patent  laws  the  term 
of  the  expiration  of  his  English  patent  was  also  the  term  of  the 
expiration  of  any  American  patent  that  might  be  obtained.  While 
there  have  been  subsequent  patents,  and  some  are  still  in  force, 
lor  particular  improvements  in  the  manufacture  of  all  Bessemer  steel, 
substantially  this  royalty  was  paid.  When  that  patent  expired,  of 
course  the  production  and  manufacture  was  open  to  all.  That,  in  itself, 
in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1871,  produced  a reduction  in  the  price  of 
10  shillings  in  the  pound,  or  about  $2.50  in  the  ton.  In  addition  to  that, 
the  impetus  that  was  given  to  the  English  manufacture  of  this  article 


E.  P.  WHEELER.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


221 


by  taking  off  this  royalty,  and  the  greater  scope  that  was  given  to  the 
ingenuity  of  those  that  were  engaged  in  the  manufacture  (and  I may 
say  the  same  thing  in  reference  to  the  cost  of  production  in  this  country, 
because  our  American  ingenuity  is  equal  to  that  of  any  country  in  the 
world,  and  there  have  been  improvements  made  here  as  well  as  there  in 
the  method  of  production),  owing,  I say,  to  these  two  circumstances  com- 
bined, the  taking  off  of  the  royalty,  and  the  improved  methods  of  pro- 
duction, the  cost  of  production  was  largely  reduced.  So  that  the  price 
of  steel  rails  delivered  on  board  the  vessel  at  Liverpool  has  fallen  from 
£11  10s.  a ton  in  1889  to  £5  5s.  a ton  at  the  present  time.  It  fluctuates 
a little,  but  it  does  not  vary  much  from  that.  It  has  been  £5  10s.  a ton 
within  the  last  year.  Roughly  speaking,  without  going  into  exact  details, 
it  is  about  one-half  of  what  it  was  in  1869. 

In  this  country  we  have  not  got  the  benefit,  to  any  considerable  ex- 
tent, of  that  reduction  in  the  cost  of  production,  or  at  least  the  con- 
sumers have  not,  because  of  this  duty  on  the  foreign  article  which  at 
the  present  cost  of  the  rail  in  England,  amounts  to  100  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  At  the  time  the  change  was  made  it  was  not  a change  in 
amount.  It  was  only  a change  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a specific  duty. 
But  the  value  was  such  that  at  the  time  the  duty  of  1J  cents  a pound 
was  put  on  steel  rails,  there  was  no  difference  in  the  amount  the  importer 
would  pay  on  his  importations,  and  it  was  not  intended  there  should  be 
any  difference.  Nobody  contended  that  the  duty  on  steel  rails  was  not 
sufficient  to  enable  the  American  manufacturer  to  compete  in  the  Ameri- 
can mat  ket  with  the  foreign  manufacturer.  That  is  the  theory  of  a duty 
imposed  in  good  faith;  that  it  should  enable  the  American  manufacturer 
to  compete  in  the  American  market  with  the  foreign  manufacturer. 
When  it  goes  beyond  that  and  gives  him  a monopoly,  then  it  becomes 
an  injustice  to  the  consumer  which  no  intelligent  government  ought  to 
tolerate.  It  did  become  that  in  the  case  of  steel  rails.  There  were 
several  years  in  which  we  imported  no  steel  rails  at  all,  and  it  has  only 
been  because  of  the  immense  increase  during  the  past  five  years  of  rail- 
road building  in  this  country  and  the  wonderful  way  in  which  railroads 
have  been  extended  in  Texas  and  throughout  the  whole  southwestern 
country,  and  across  the  plains,  that  there  has  been  any  importation  of 
steel  rails  at  all. 

I call  your  attention,  also,  to  the  fact  that  the  expense  of  these  rails 
enters  so  largely  into  the  expense  of  the  construction  of  a railroad 
that  the  cost  of  freight  and  cost  of  passage  is  necessarily  very  largely 
enhanced  by  an  increased  cost  in  the  construction  of  the  road.  A rail- 
road is  a manufacture.  The  company  engaged  in  building  it  is  a manu- 
facturer. It  is  one  of  the  most  complicated  and  difficult  productions  of 
modern  times.  I think  it  may  be  said  without  hesitation  that  a well- 
built  railroad  is  one  of  the  most  intricate  constructions  that  the  inge- 
nuity of  man  has  ever  undertaken.  When  you  consider  its  lolling- 
stock  and  road-bed,  its  switches,  and  all  the  methods  of  operating  it,  I 
think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  the  business  of  railroad  manufactur- 
ing deserves  very  great  consideration.  And  there  is  not  a person  in 
this  country  who  is  not  personally  affected  in  one  way  or  another  by 
the  expense  of  transportation  on  railroads.  Everybody  rides  in  the 
cars ; everybody  buys  that  which  is  transported  in  the  cars  ; and  there 
is  not  a citizen  in  the  United  States,  from  Maine  to  California  and  from 
Minnesota  to  Florida,  who  does  not  to-day  pay  more  in  one  shape  or 
another  for  the  goods  that  he  uses  because  of  the  increased  price  that 
railroad  companies  have  been  obliged  to  charge  by  reason  of  the  in- 
creased cost  of  building  the  roads,  owing  to  this  enormous  duty  of  100 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the  rails  which  compose  the  road. 


222 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


IE.  P.  WHEELEB. 


There  is  another  objection,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Com- 
mission, to  this  duty  upon  steel  rails  that  I desire  to  call  your  attention 
to.  The  effect  of  this  cheapened  production  of  steel  has  been  to  very 
largely  change  the  use  of  iron  rails  to  steel  rails.  So  much  has  the  pro- 
duction of  steel  been  cheapened  and  improved  that  it  really  costs  very 
little  more  to  make  a ton  of  steel  rails  than  it  does  to  make  a ton  of  iron 
rails;  the  difference  is  not  very  considerable.  But  our  tariff  in  this 
respect  discriminates  against  the  superior  article  and  in  favor  of  the 
inferior  article.  The  tariff  on  iron  rails  is  70  cents  on  the  hundred 
pounds,  which,  as  you  will  perceive,  is  about  half  the  duty  on  steel 
rails.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  reason  in  this  discrimination,  or  at 
least  no  good  reason  why  the  duty  on  these  two  descriptions  of  articles 
should  not  be  the  same,  and  I call  your  attention  particularly  in  that 
connection  to  these  circumstances*  The  iron  industry  of  this  country 
certainly  prospered  between  the  years  1860  and  1870.  Before  the  duty 
was  put  at  its  present  enormous  figure  on  steel  rails  there  was  no  com- 
plaint, so  far  as  I am  aware.  If  you  compare  the  products  of  1860  and 
1870  by  the  figures  contained  in  the  census,  you  will  find  that  the  capi- 
tal invested  had  largely  increased;  that  the  return  on  that  capital  had 
largely  increased;  that  the  number  of  persons  employed  had  increased, 
and  that  the  product  had  increased  very  largely.  So  that  under  this 
system  as  it  existed  during  those  ten  years,  which  was  a system  of 
high  duties,  the  product  had  very  much  increased.  There  was  not  any 
just  cause  of  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  iron  industry  against  the  tariff 
duties  of  the  country.  Yet  this  change,  so  made  in  the  duties  simply 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  frauds  in  the  valuation  of  imported  steel 
rails,  has  operated  in  the  way  I have  mentioned,  and  largely  increased 
the  profits  realized  by  gentlemen  who  have  been  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  this  particular  article,  and  has  very  largely  increased,  in  con- 
sequence, the  expense  of  our  roads  in  the  way  which  I have  suggested. 

I do  not  care  to  urge  again  what  very  likely  many  gentlemen  here 
have  already  read — the  facts  that  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
public  by  a litigation  before  the  Orphans’  Court  in  Pennsylvania,  in  re- 
gard to  the  estate  of  Mr.  J.  Edgar  Thompson.  That  did  show  in  a 
very  tangible  and  precise  form  the  profits  that  had  been  realized  by  the 
steel-rail  manufacturing  companies  in  which  Mr.  Thompson  was  a 
stockholder,  and  showed  that  there  had  been  several  years  during  the 
past  decade  in  which  these  profits  amounted  to  77  per  cent. 

Now  let  us  be  just.  I would  not  make  the  duty  on  steel  rails  less 
than  the  duty  on  similar  articles  manufactured  of  iron ; articles  in  ref- 
erence to  which  the  cost  of  production  and  the  requirements  of  the 
whole  country  are  equally  useful  and  important.  But  it  seems  to 
me  that  there  could  be  no  injustice  to  the  steel-producing  industry 
by  putting  it  on  the  same  basis  as  the  iron-producing  industry,  and 
making  the  duty  on  the  superior  article  of  rails  the  same  as  that  on  the 
other.  And  1 say  superior  in  quality,  because  the  superiority  in  quality 
is  greater,  owing  to  the  increased  improvements  in  the  production,  than 
the  difference  in  the  price;  and  if  we  are  to  have  a specific  duty  at  all 
on  either  of  these  articles,  it  seems  to  me  it  should  be  the  more  mod- 
erate one  imposed  on  iron  rails.  I submit  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Commission  whether  it  would  not  be  taking  a large  view  of  the  subject, 
in  reference  to  future  years  and  future  improvements ; whether  it  would 
not  be  more  just  to  make  the  duty  on  steel  rails  and  on  iron  rails  both 
an  ad  valorem  duty  of  say  45  per  cent.,  and  whether  this  rate  of  duty 
under  previous  legislation  did  not  yield  a sufficient  compensation  to  the 
steel  industries  of  this  country  in  return  for  any  disadvantages  which 


ep.  wheeler.}  CRUDE  MATERIALS.  223 

they  may  be  exposed  to,  and  whether  it  would  not  be  therefore  making 
a more  permanent  provision. 

The  only  objection  I know  of  against  an  ad  valorem  duty  as  opposed 
to  a specific  duty  is  the  opportunity  it  offers  for  fraudulent  under- 
valuations. But  I would  suggest  that  in  regard  to  a staple  article  like 
steel  and  iron  rails,  dealt  in  in  enormous  quantities,  and  in  regard  to 
which  no  disguise  or  concealment  is  possible,  there  is  no  reason  for 
specific  duty  at  all.  There  are  some  articles  undoubtedly  which  it  is 
comparatively  easy  to  undervalue.  Some  gentlemen  may  remember 
the  litigation  in  regard  to  the  value  of  champagne.  It  was  shown 
that  there  were  some  brands  of  that  wine  made  in  France  for  the  Ameri- 
can market  which  were  not  sold  in  France  at  all,  and,  therefore,  the 
producers  put  their  own  value  on  them,  and  it  was  thought  that  fraud 
had  arisen,  and  juries  found  verdicts  against  them.  But  no  such  case 
is  possible  in  regard  to  steel  and  iron  rails.  They  are  exposed  to  view, 
and  the  price  is  a matter  of  public  notoriety  everywhere,  and  is  well 
known  at  the  custom-house.  I suggest  therefore  that,  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  the  consumers  of  this  country  the  fair  benefit  they  ought  to, 
get  from  an  increased  cheapness  in  the  cost  of  production,  it  would  be 
better  to  make  this  duty  an  ad  valorem  one. 

I use  in  illustration  of  this  the  facts  stated  by  Mr.  Campbell  in  regard 
to  aniline  dyes.  It  was  shown  by  him  clearly,  and  I think  there  is  no 
dispute  about  that,  that  the  cheapening  the  cost  of  production  of  these 
goods  abroad  has  not  benefited  to  the  extent  it  ought  the  parties  in  this 
country  who  use  them,  because  the  duty  being  a fixed  one  of  so  much  a 
pound  instead  of  being  based  on  a sliding  scale,  the  price  has  been  kept 
up  instead  of  being  diminished.  And,  as  a consequence,  all  of  us  who 
use  printed  goods  of  any  description,  or  paper  of  any  description,  have 
to  pay  more  in  the  long  run  than  we  otherwise  should  have  done  if  the 
maufacturers  could  have  bought  a cheaper  dyestuff. 

And  I would  call  your  attention  in  that  connection  to  a fallacy  that  I 
have  often  noted  in  the  discussion  of  these  tariff  subjects,  of  minimising, 
so  to  speak,  the  difference  in  the  cost  produced  by  a reduction  of  duty. 
For  instance,  on  a pane  of  window  glass  8 by  10  inches  it  makes  only  a 
difference  of  one-half  a cent,  for  example,  and  on  a sheet  of  paper  it 
would  make  perhaps  only  the  difference  of  one-tenth  or  one-liundredth 
of  a cent.  But  these  gentlemen  who  make  these  statements  forget  how 
many  pounds  of  window  glass  and  sheets  of  paper  are  used  in  the  course 
of  a year.  They  forget  that  in  this  country  we  like  to  live  on  a more 
large  and  liberal  scale  than  in  other  countries.  It  has  been  our  boast 
that  the  conditions  of  life  in  America  are  such  that  we  use  articles  of 
all  descriptions  with  more  freedom  and  liberality  than  other  people  in 
other  countries,  where  the  conditions  of  life  are  more  exacting.  But  we 
never  can  do  this  unless  we  reduce  the  cost  of  production  in  small 
amounts.  The  difference  of  half  a cent  a yard  on  a cheap  print  may 
make  all  the  difference  in  the  ability  of  the  producer  in  Massachusetts 
to  sell  it  in  South  America  in  competition  with  a foreign  manufacturer. 
When  you  find  you  are  selling  goods  at  5 or  6 cents  a yard,  then  the 
additional  one-half  cent  a yard  is  an  immense  percentage  on  the 
cost.  1 hope  that  will  be  remembered  when  statistics  of  this  sort  are 
produced  in  reference  to  the  very  slight  benefit  that  is  obtained  by  a 
reduction  of  duty  on  each  particular  item,  or  the  slight  increase  of  cost 
that  would  be  caused  by  increasing  the  duty.  It  may  be  a slight  thing 
in  each  particular  instance,  but  when  you  add  the  aggregates  for  a year 
it  makes  a very  important  difference.  And  one  reason,  in  my  judgment, 
why  it  is  so  much  more  expensive  to  live  in  this  country  than  in  any 


224 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  P.  WHEELER. 


other  country  in  the  world,  is  because  this  fact  has  been  lost  sight  of, 
and  while  people  have  thought  that  it  would  not  make  much  difference 
in  any  particular  instance,  or  in  regard  to  any  particular  article,  yet 
when  the  aggregate  of  quantities  used  by  a household  in  the  course  of 
a year  is  ascertained,  it  is  the  difference  between  comfort  and  discomfort. 
If  I may  be  pardoned  for  referring  to  a familiar  illustration  on  this  point 
I would  say  that  Mr.  Micawber  summed  up  the  whole  question  in  a very 
few  words  when  he  said  in  regard  to  this  matter,  u income,  20  shillings; 
expenditures,  20  shillings  and  6 pence;  result,  misery.  Income  20  shil- 
lings; expenditure,  19  shillings  and  G pence;  result,  happiness.”  It  is 
just  that  shilling  on  the  right  or  the  wrong  side  of  the  ledger  that  makes 
the  difference  between  comfort  and  discomfort  in  the  expenses  of  a 
family.  It  is  these  little  things  and  this  slight  reduction  or  increase  of 
duty  that  will  enter  into  the  expense  of  many  American  families  and 
affect  their  comfort  in  a very  important  way. 

The  next  topic  to  which  I desire  to  call  your  attention  is  that  of  wire; 
and  I will  speak  of  that  briefly.  The  operation  of  the  present  tariff  on 
wire  is  beneficial  to  the  manufacturers  of  that  article;  that  is  to  say, 
a great  deal  of  the  steel  wire  that  is  made  in  this  country  is  made  of 
wire  rods  that  are  imported.  The  rate  on  wire  rods  which  are  over  three- 
sixteenths  of  an  inch  in  diameter  is  only  a cent  and  a quarter  a pound, 
which  amounts  to  about  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; whereas,  the  rate  of 
duty  on  the  finished  article  is  2J  cents  a pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem ; being,  as  you  see,  double  duty.  I do  not  object  that  the  wire 
manufacturers  of  this  country  should  have  a benefit.  I do  not  object 
that  the  duty  on  the  manufactured  article  should  be  more  than  that  on 
the  rods  out  of  which  they  draw  their  wire.  It  seems  to  me  proper 
that  it  should  be  so.  But  the  difference  which  practically  prohibits  the 
importation  of  foreign  wire,  and  makes  manufacturers  here  entirely  in- 
dependent of  foreign  competition,  is  unreasonable.  We  all  know  that 
steel  wire  is  used,  particularly  in  the  WTest,  for  fences  to  a very  great  ex- 
tent. Large  tracts  of  country  in  the  West,  where  they  cannot  use 
lumber  at  all,  and  do  not  have  any  stone  to  build  up  stone  walls,  as 
they  do  in  New  England,  must  be  fenced  in  with  fences  made  of  this 
steel  wire.  There  is  much  complaint  among  the  western  farmers 
that  the  tariff  is  such  on  steel  wire  as  to  unduly  increase  the  profits 
of  the  manufacturers  of  wire.  And  it  seems  to  those  gentlemen,  and 
I confess  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  the  duty  on  steel  wire  were  reduced 
from  the  present  compound  duty  to  two  cents  a pound  it  would  give  to 
the  manufacturers  of  the  article,  by  the  difference  between  that  two  cents 
and  the  one  and  a quarter  cents  a pound  on  the  rods  out  of  which  they 
draw  the  wire,  a sufficient  benefit  to  put  them  quite  on  a level  with  the 
English  manufacturers  of  wire,  and,  in  fixer,  to  give  them  an  advantage 
which  perhaps  would  be  proper  to  compensate  them  for  the  increased 
cost  of  labor  in  this  country.  No  doubt  there  are  some  expenses  to  which 
American  manufacturers  are  put  which  are  greater  than  the  expenses 
incurred  by  the  foreign  manufacturers  for  the  same  thing.  I think  it 
ought  to  be  considered,  however,  that  there  are  some  expenses  which 
are  much  less.  For  instance,  land  is  much  cheaper  in  this  country  than 
it  is  abroad,  and,  whereas,  formerly,  the  interest  on  American  capital 
was  much  higher  than  abroad,  yet,  owiug  to  the  accumulation  of  wealth 
in  this  country,  it  is  no  longer  the  case,  and  the  rate  of  interest  on  de- 
mand loans  in  New  York  to-day  is  no  higher  than  it  is  in  London. 

The  next  topic  to  which  I desire  to  call  your  attention  is  one  which 
interests  us  all,  and  I trust  my  presentation  of  it  may  not  be  entirely 
devoid  of  interest,  although  I know  there  is  very  much  in  these  subjects 


E.  P.  WHEELER.  | 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


225 


that  one  may  easily  be  tedious  about.  The  subject  is  building  material. 
Everybody  must  live  in  a house  of  some  kind,  whether  of  stone,  wood,  or 
brick.  The  building  industry  in  this  country  is  an  enormous  industry, 
and  I think  is  not  often  considered  as  it  should  be.  I have  the  statistics  of 
that  industry,  which  I have  taken  from  thecensus  report,  and  you  will  find 
by  looking  over  the  interesting  pamphlet  published  by  the  Census  Bu- 
reau in  regard  to  the  manufactories  of  cities,  that  one  of  the  largest 
manufacturing  industries  in  New  York,  for  example,  is  that  which  enters 
into  the  construction  of  a house.  You  look  through  the  entire  list  and 
it  is  divided  up  so  that  the  whole  effect  is  not  given.  But  take  carpen- 
try, copper-smithing,  plumbing,  and  the  other  articles  that  enter  into  the 
building  of  a house,  such  as  lumber,  marble,  stonework,  gas-fitting,  &c., 
and  you  will  find  that  a very  large  percentage  of  the  entire  investment 
of  capital,  and  the  entire  number  of  persons  employed,  are  engaged  in 
that  particular  industry  of  building  and  repairing  houses.  This  must 
of  necessity  be  so  in  any  country,  but  especially  is  it  so  with  an  in- 
creasing population  like  ours.  Our  buildings  are  not  generally  erected 
as  substantially  as  they  are  in  foreign  countries,  and  need  reconstruc- 
tion more  frequently,  and,  as  our  wealth  increases,  our  style  of  living  is 
better,  and  we  pull  down  our  old  barns  and  build  new  ones.  I there- 
fore call  your  attention  to  the  degree  to  which  the  present  tariff  in 
creases  the  expenses  of  house  building.  There  is  hardly  an  article  that 
enters  into  the  construction  of  a house  that  is  not  subject  to  the  opera- 
tion of  the  present  tariff.  As  you  will  observe  in  reference  to  house 
building,  all  these  things  come  under  the  head  of  raw  material.  Every- 
thing in  a house  is  composed  of  raw  material,  on  which  carpenters, 
masons,  and  others,  have  labored,  and  the  increased  cost  of  material 
makes  the  cost  of  the  house  greater,  the  rent  of  the  house  greater, 
and  the  number  to  be  built  less.  I had  occasion  a few  years  ago  to 
build  four  houses  in  the  city  of  New  York.  I discovered  by  figuring, 
that  the  operation  of  the  duties  upon  building  material  was  such  that 
I could  have  built  five  houses,  if  there  had  been  no  tariff*  on  any  of  these 
things,  with  the  same  amount  of  money  it  took  to  build  four  houses. 
I should  have  spent  the  same  amount  of  money,  but  I should  have 
spent  more  of  it  for  labor  and  less  for  material.  It  is  a rule  that 
the  greater  the  expense  of  material  the  less  will  be  the  amount  that 
will  go  into  the  wages  of  the  persons  who  are  working  upon  that 
material,  other  things  being  equal.  I do  not  say  that  in  every  instance 
that  is  the  fact,  but  take  the  whole  year  through  and  I think  you  will  find 
it  is  generally  true;  that  if  you  diminish  the  expense  of  material, 
you  increase  the  amount  expended  for  wages,  and  give  that  much  im- 
petus to  the  industry  of  the  country,  and  in  that  wa}r  everybody  is 
benefited,  because  the  wages  are  spent  in  buying  the  products  of  man- 
ufacturers and  the  products  of  agricultural  industry.  The  interest  of 
the  employer  and  the  laborer  is  identical.  When  the  laborers  prosper 
and  get  good  wages  and  spend  the  money  they  earn,  everybod}'  pros- 
pers. 

There  are  some  of  the  heavy  articles  that  enter  into  the  construction 
of  a house  that  we  do  not  import  at  all.  Brick,  for  example,  are  subject 
to  a duty  of  25  per  cent.,  which  duty  is  in  fact  a prohibitory  one.  A 
bulky  article  like  that  cannot  be  imported  at  all,  with  the  duty  at  that 
rate.  It  may  be  that  it  would  not  be  imported  under  any  circumstances; 
and  I only  speak  of  it  in  order  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  t hat  every- 
thin g is  on  the  taxed  side  of  the  schedule,  and  not  on  the  free  list,  that 
enters  into  the  building  of  a house.  All  kinds  of  lumber  used  in  house- 
building is  taxed  at  various  rates.  Hemlock  pays  one  dollar  a thousand 
H.  Mis.  G 15 


226 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  I\  WHEELER. 


feet  board  measure,  and  a better  class  of  lumber  two  dollars  a thousand 
feet,  and  so  on.  We  imported  into  this  country  during  the  last  fiscal 
year  lumber  of  this  description  to  the  amount  of  $6,279,541.  It  seems 
to  me  it  might  be  worth  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  see  whether 
any  injustice  would  be  done  to  the  owners  of  American  forests  and  those 
engaged  in  the  first  stages  of  that  particular  industry  by  repealing 
the  duty  on  imported  lumber.  It  is  well  known  that  our  forests  are 
rapidly  diminishing,  and  that  the  very  effect  of  this  tax  on  the  importer 
of  lumber  has  been  to  increase  the  consumption  of  wood  from  our  own 
forests,  and  the  result  has  been  to  destroy  them  in  many  cases  where 
they  formerly  existed.  One  of  the  results  of  this  has  been  seen  in  the 
more  continuous,  protracted,  and  severe  droughts  w e experience  during 
the  summer  season ; the  effect  of  forests  in  the  country,  as  is  generally 
conceded,  being  to  increase  the  rainfall.  And  I think  if  there  is  any- 
thing on  the  whole  list  in  regard  to  which  no  bounty  or  benefit  to  be 
derived  from  a tax  is  found,  it  is  a tax  like  this.  Have  we  not  in  this 
country,  in  the  benefits  nature  has  given  us,  all  the  advantages  that  the 
owners  of  saw  mills  or  planing-mills  ought  to  ask,  without  this  tax 
which  makes  so  much  increase  in  the  cost  of  every  house  ? Because  it 
is  a fact  that  the  difference  in  price  between  Canadian  lumber  and  our 
own  is  the  almost  exact  equivalent  of  the  duty. 

I know  that  in  some  instances  the  effect  of  a duty  is  not  to  modify  the 
price ; but  I think  you  w7ill  find  when  you  come  to  examine  the  case 
that  this  is  where  the  duty  is  prohibitory  or  nearly  so.  For  example, 
suppose  a duty  is  put  at  such  a figure  that  it  prohibits  the  importa- 
tion of  a foreign  article.  Competition  springs  up  in  this  country,  and 
the  effect  of  that  competition  is  to  give  us  the  product  at  a cheaper 
price.  As  was  mentioned  by  Mr.  Jones  in  regard  to  the  chemical  in- 
dustries, where  the  price  in  this  country  was  less  than  the  rate  of  the 
duty,  the  effect  of  the  duty  is  to  prohibit  the  importation,  and  w*e  are  lelt 
entirely,  therefore,  to  the  competition  between  different  manufacturers 
of  that  article  in  this  country.  But  I do  not  think  it  is  just  to  argue  in  that 
way,  that  the  general  effect  of  a duty  that  is  not  prohibitory  is  not  .to  in- 
crease prices.  Take,  for  instance,  steel  rails : the  difference  between 
Liverpool  and  NewYork  prices  is  almost  exactly  the  duty.  It  is  so  in 
the  instance  of  lumber  as  well,  and  it  is  generally  so  in  cases  wthere  the 
duty  is  not  a prohibitory  oue,  although  there  are  a few  exceptions. 

The  duty  on  window7  glass,  which  enters  so  largely  into  use  in  a house, 
varies  according  to  the  grade  of  the  glass  from  a cent  and  a half  to  three 
cents  a pound,  and  the  effect  of  this  duty  when  turned  into  an  ad  valo- 
rem scale  is  in  many  instances  to  prohibit,  the  importation  altogether. 
In  many  instances  it  is  almost  100  per  cent.,  I am  told.  It  is  as  to  its 
effect  in  one  particular  that  I would  like  to  speak.  The  effect  is  the 
same  as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  compound  duty  on  wool,  that  is,  it  dis- 
criminates in  favor  of  the  more  costly  and  against  the  cheaper  article,  and 
that  is  a discrimination  w hich  does  not  seem  to  be  defensible  on  prin- 
ciple. If  there  was  any  discrimination  to  be  made,  it  would  seem  as 
though  it  ought  to  be  made  in  favor  of  the  cheaper  article,  used  by 
poorer  people  and  laboring  men,  who  are  unable  to  pay  high  prices. 
Yet  in  reference  to  glass  as  well  as  in  reference  to  wroolen  goods,  the 
tax  is  higher  ad  valorem  upon  the  cheap  article  than  it  is  upon  the 
dear  one. 

Take  also  the  article  of  hardware,  that  enters  into  the  construction 
of  houses,  and  there  is  a flagrant  instance  of  the  injustice  of  the  pres- 
ent system.  The  duty  on  wood  screws  is  from  eight  to  eleven  cents  a 
pound,  and  is  in  effect  entirely  prohibitory.  That  duty,  as  a matter  of 


E.  P.  WHEELER.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


227 


current  history,  was  imposed  at  the  instance  of  a manufactory  in  Provi- 
dence, the  Wood  Screw  Company,  and  the  effect  of  it  has  been  to  give 
to  that  single  producer  a bounty  at  the  expense  of  all  persons  who  use 
iLie  article.  I do  not  believe  that  we  should  import  any  considerable 
amount  of  English  screws  if  the  duty  was  reduced  one-half.  1 am  in- 
clined to  think  the  machinery  and  skill  at  the  control  of  the  wood  screw 
companies  of  this  country  would  enable  them  to  compete  with  foreign 
manufacturers  if  there  was  no  duty  at  all.  But  I think  a duty  which 
gives  to  the  producer  a monopoly  is  not  to  be  justified  on  any  prin- 
ciple, particularly  in  an  article  of  such  universal  necessity  as  this.  There 
is  not  a house  in  America  in  which  there  is  not  a necessity  for  the  use 
of  this  article,  and  I think  it  is  certainly  a great  injustice  to  the  con- 
sumers and  to  the  purchasers  of  the  article  into  which  these  screws  enter 
as  raw  material,  because  that  is  not  to  be  lost  sight  of.  I think  it  is 
very  important  to  be  considered  in  any  revision  of  the  tariff.  The  raw 
material  of  one  business  is  the  product  of  another.  The  expense  of  the 
crude  ore  which  is  taken  out  of  the  earth  is  ehielly  in  the  labor  expended 
in  the  digging.  And  so  1 might  enlarge  upon  this  subject,  but  I think  it 
unnecessary  to  do  so. 

Without  going  into  details,  I should  like  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
duty  on  lead  pipe.  That  is  a prohibitory  duty.  It  is  fixed  at  2f  cents 
a pound.  We  imported  last  year  only  $17,469  worth  of  lead  pipe.  This 
is  an  article  that  is  easily  manufactured.  The  lead  is  melted  and  put 
into  a c\  linder  and  forced  by  a piston  through  a die  which  gives  the  size 
of  the  bore  and  the  size  of  the  exterior  of  the  pipe.  In  order  to  benefit 
the  lead-pipe  makers  of  America  this  prohibitory  duty  has  been  imposed. 
A duty  of  a cent  a pound  on  that  pipe  would  put  the  manufacturers  of 
lead  pipe  in  a position  in  which  they  could  compete  successfully  with 
t he  foreign  manufacturer,  and  at  the  same  time  it  would  reduce  the  price 
of  lead  pipe  to  every  consumer  in  America,  and  to  that  extent  benefit 
every  house  builder  and  every  man  who  lives  in  a house. 

Again,  we  come  to  the  subject  of  the  marble  used  in  the  mantels  of  a 
house.  The  duty  on  this  article  is  one  of  the  largest  and  heaviest  of  our 
duties.  It  has  been  imposed  in  order  to  enable  the  quarry -men  of  Ver- 
mont to  keep  out  foreign  competition.  I may  say,  in  passing,  that  I am 
the  owner  of  shares  in  a marble  quarry  in  Vermont,  and  I know  in  re- 
gard to  this  matter  from  practical  experience.  The  effect  has  been  to 
give  an  undue  bounty  to  that  particular  branch  of  American  industry. 
Formerly,  when  this  duty  was  first  imposed  as  many  of  you  are  aware, 
the  marble  quarrying,  the  getting  out  of  blocks,  was  done  almost  en- 
tirely by  hand.  The  process  is  a very  simple  one.  The  rock,  we  will 
say,  is  a rough  exposed  surface  like  a cliff.  The  first  thing  is  to  clear 
away  this  rough  surface  and  you  get  what  is  called  a floor.  The  object 
is  to  have  a smooth  and  even  surface  of  stone.  Formerly  a number  of 
mechanics  were  employed  to  drill  at  intervals  all  over  this  marble  floor 
nntil  it  assumed  the  appearance  of  a checker-board,  the  size  of  the 
checkers  being  the  size  of  the  blocks.  When  the  corner  block  had 
been  raised,  then  they  pried  under  and  raised  up  each  block  separately. 
That  is  mostly  done  by  machinery  now,  and  the  result  is  that  the  ex- 
pense of  quarrying  in  Vermont  is  very  slightly  in  advance  of  the  expense 
of  quarrying  in  Italy.  But  I think  there  are  not  many  businesses  in  this 
country  in  which,  under  present  conditions,  the  profits  are  greater  than 
in  the  working  of  a good  marble  quarry  in  Vermont. 

Can  you  say  how  the  effect  of  this  specific  duty  of  so  much  a foot  on 
marble  has  operated  to  increase,  unreasonably  and  unfairly,  the  profits 
of  those  engaged  in  the  quarrying  of  it  ? The  cost  of  production  has 


228 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  P.  WHEELEB. 


diminished,  bat  the  duty  being  a fixed  one,  and  not  varying  according 
to  the  price  of  the  imported  article,  the  consumer  does  not  get  the  bene- 
fit of  the  cheapness  of  the  production  as  he  ought  to.  I think  we  should 
consider  what  affects  the  producer  and  consumer  alike,  and  should  en- 
deavor to  adjust  these  matters  on  an  equitable  basis  ; therefore,  I say, 
give  to  the  house  builders,  and  the  people  who  live  in  houses,  the  benefit 
of  the  cheapness  that  has  been  brought  about  in  the  production  of 
marble. 

Now,  take  the  manufacture  of  tin-rooting  plates;  there  the  duty  is  35 
per  cent.,  but  these  articles  are  almost  entirely  imported  into  this  coun- 
try, and  the  importation  last  \ear  amounted  to  $4,149,387.  Why  should 
not  that  duty  be  reduced  ? That  is  a case  where  there  is  no  American 
industry  which  would  be  prejudiced  by  a reduction  of  the  duty,  and 
it  would  benefit  everybody  who  lives  in  cities  where  tin  roofs  are  com- 
monly used  instead  of  shingle  roofs. 

Another  article  I desire  to  call  your  attention  to  is  that  of  paint. 
This  article  is  necessary  in  the  finishing  of  all  houses  and  in  a great- 
many  other  ways,  and  enters  into  so  many  different  branches  of  busi- 
ness that  1 fear  I shall  not  have  time  to  consider  it  in  detail.  I will, 
however,  state  a few  facts  in  regard  to  the  matter.  In  regard  to  red 
lead,  white  lead,  and  whiting,  the  duty  on  these  three  articles  which 
enter  so  much  into  all  ordinary  branches  of  painting  is  practically  a 
prohibitory  one.  The  duty  on  red  and  white  lead  is  three  cents  a pound, 
and  the  duty  on  whiting  is  one  cent  a pound  dry  and  two  cents  a pound 
when  ground  in  ods.  We  imported  last  year  in  red  and  white  leads 
only  $66,828  worth,  and  of  whiting  only  $8,148  worth.  Undoubtedly 
the  amount  of  capital  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  paint  in  this 
country  is  very  large  and  is  burdened  by  the  duty  on  chemicals,  and  I 
expect,  you  will  have  special  applications  from  paint  men  to  reduce  the 
duty  on  the  chemicals  that  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  paints.  On 
my  general  theory  that  the  duty  on  raw  material  should,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, be  put  at  a low  figure  or  repealed,  I would  favor  any  appli- 
cation like  that.  1 think  in  that  respect  the  manufacturers  of  red 
and  white  lead  in  this  country  deserve  consideration,  for  they  are 
heavily  taxed  by  the  duties  on  chemicals,  and  perhaps  they  should  re- 
ceive some  equivalent  for  this.  Any  duty  that  is  a prohibitory  duty 
and  in  its  operation  prevents  importation  altogether,  giving  no  compe- 
tition between  the  American  and  foreign  product  in  the  markets  of  this 
country  must  of  necessity  be  an  excessive  one.  So  much  for  building 
materials,  although  a good  deal  more  could  be  said  about  that  subject. 

The  next  topic  I desire  to  call  your  attention  to  is  an  interest  with 
which  no  one  is  more  familiar  than  the  president  of  this  Commission,  and 
1 ought  to  apologize  for  saying  anything  at  all  about  it  under  the  cir- 
cumstances. However,  I may  be  pardoned  for  saying  a few  words;  and 
first,  I understand  that  Mr.  Constable,  of  the  firm  of  Arnold,  Constable 
& Co.,  will  appear  before  you,  and  will  have  something  to  say  on  this 
subject.  Therefore  I will  not  go  into  details  in  regard  to  it,  but  I will 
say  this:  that  the  duty  on  manufactured  wool  is  evidently  arranged  so 
as  to  be  less  on  those  wools  which  we  do  not  produce  to  any  considera- 
ble extent  in  this  country  than  it  is  on  those  which  we  do.  That  certainly 
carries  out  the  general  suggestions  I have  made  in  regard  to  the  true 
theory  on  which  a tariff  should  be  made;  atid  I suggest,  respectfully,  to 
the  Commission  that  it  would  be  a great  relief  to  the  carpet  industry  of 
this  country  if  the  duty  on  the  third  class  of  wools,  known  as  carpet 
wools,  could  be  abolished  altogether.  I find  from  the  statistics  of  the 
census  (Bulletin  No.  289)  that  the  carpet  industry  of  this  country  used, 


E.  P.  WHEELER.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


229 


during  the  census  year,  $34,008,252  worth  of  foreign  wools,  and  only 
$2,023,318  worth  of  domestic  wools.  It  is  a matter  of  universal  knowl- 
edge that  the  heavy  or  carpet  wools  are  not  grown  in  this  country,  and 
there  is  no  particular  likelihood  that  they  ever  will  be  grown  in  this 
country.  The  conditions  of  our  agriculture  are  such  that  the  growth  of 
that  particular  kind  of  wool  has  not  been  attempted,  and  is  not  likely  to 
be.  Wli5r  should  not,  then,  the  third  class  of  wools,  the  heavy  wools,  be 
put  on  the  free  list'?  That  certainly  would  be  a great  benefit  to  the 
carpet  manufacturers  of  America;  and  if  this  other  suggestion  made 
by  Mr.  Campbell  to  you  should  be  carried  out,  and  these  aniline  dyes 
should  be  put  on  the  free  list  as  well,  the  production  of  American 
carpets  would  be  cheapened  to  such  a degree  that  they  could  compete 
with  great  success  in  the  South  American  market  and  in  other  markets. 
The  goods  we  make  are  good  in  quality  ; a great  deal  of  money  is  ex- 
pended in  designs  for  them,  and  I think  any  one  who  has  examined  the 
American  carpets  of  recent  make  has  been  astonished  at  the  amount  of 
taste  shown  in  the  designs. 

There  are  many  other  articles  of  woolen  manufacture  in  this  country 
into  which  foreign  wool  enters  to  a large  extent.  In  our  worsted  goods 
I find  that  the  value  of  foreign  wools  used  is  more  than  fifteen  million 
dollars,  while  the  value  of  domestic  wools  was  twenty-five  million  dol- 
lars. lint,  without  interfering  at  present  in  the  duty  on  other  classes 
of  wools  (for  I would  not  go  too  fastor  propose  to  make  haste  too  rapidly), 
I have  felt  very  stiongly  that  the  benefit  which  would  be  done  to  the 
industries  of  this  country  by  reducing  the  rates  of  duty  in  the  directions 
that  I have  suggested,  would  be  such  that  all  classes  of  industry  would 
be  benefited,  and  that  those  who  are  included  in  the  duties  which  are 
unchanged  would  find  in  many  respects  that  it  would  be  beneficial  for 
them  to  submit  to  a corresponding  reduction.  However,  I feel  the  im- 
portance $nd  the  complexity  of  the  whole  subject.  I would  not  make 
any  sudden  or  sweeping  change  if  I could.  All  I would  do  would  be  to 
make  changes  on  principle  in  the  direction  I have  indicated,  and  to 
make  them  to  such  an  extent  that  we  might  fairly  test  the  value  of  the 
principle,  and  see,  as  I am  sure  we  should,  that  it  was  sound,  and  that 
its  results  were  beneficial. 

Now,  another  illustration  in  this  connection,  to  show  that  the  sugges- 
tions I am  making  are  not  simply  theoretical,  but  are  based  on  practical 
experience  in  this  country.  Down  to  the  year  1872  there  was  a duty  on 
hides.  We  got  our  hides  from  South  America  to  a large  degree,  and 
made,  leather  of  them.  In  that  year  the  duty  was  taken  off  of  hides,  and 
the  result  was  that  our  manufacturing  industry  very  much  increased, 
and  that  our  exports  of  leather  goods  from  this  country,  particularly 
to  South  America,  have  trebled  in  the  ten  years  since  the  duty  was 
taken  off.  Could  there  be  a better  illustration  of  the  benefit  that  accrues 
to  manufacturing  industry,  and  indirectly  to  all  the  industries  of  the 
country  by  cheapness  of  production,  and  ability  to  compete  in  foreign 
markets,  to  increase  the  number  of  ships  to  be  engaged,  and  to  facilitate 
thetiafiic?  They  sell  to  us  because  we  sell  to  them.  I know  that  in 
commerce  the  direct  way  in  which  you  pay  for  foreign  goods  is  not  by 
a direct  exchange  of  commodities.  But,  take  a merchant  in  South 
America  who  wishes  to  buy  American  shoes  or  saddles.  He  may  draw 
a bill  of  exchange  in  payment  for  those  goods,  but  he  will  provide  for 
the  payment  of'  them  by  the  shipment  of  hides  or  something  to  this 
country.  In  its  ultimate  analysis  it  is  an  exchange  of  commodities,  as 
all  business  is.  The  money  that  a professional  man  receives  is  money 
that  lie  receives  for  his  brain  labor;  but  this  money  he  expends  in 
buying  the  commodities  of  his  clients  and  others.  So  that  even  there, 


230 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  P.  WHEELER. 


when  you  come  to  tlie  product  of  the  mind,  you  have  an  exchange.  And 
so  it  is  in  all  business,  and  I think  the  more  you  can  promote  the  expor- 
tation of  our  manufactured  goods,  the  more  we  shall  diminish  our  prices 
in  this  country,  and  the  more  benefit  it  will  be  to  them  as  well  as  to 
ourselves. 

There  is  one  other  point  in  regard  to  the  woolen  industry — the  spe- 
cific duty,  or  compound  dut\,  as  it  is  called,  on  many  kinds  of  woolen 
goods.  Take  clothing,  for  instance.  There  is  a specific  duty  of  50  cents 
a pound,  besides  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  45  per  cent.  What  is  the  re- 
sult*? You  take  a light  expensive  fabric  made  out  of  fine  wool,  and  the 
duty  is  comparatively  a moderate  one.  But  you  take  a heavy  article 
that  a laboring  man  would  wear,  such  as  a pea  jacket  or  a winter  over- 
coat, and  you  find  that  the  duty  on  that  is  100  per  cent,  or  more.  Take 
the  duty  on  blankets,  on  which  there  is  a sliding  scale  of  duty,  but 
which  does  not  sufficiently  slide  to  meet  the  difficulty  I am  speaking  of. 
The  practical  result  is  that  we  do  not  and  cannot  import  the  cheap  grades 
of  blankets,  and  we  consequently  have  a heavier  tax  on  the  articles 
that  are  of  prime  necessity  that  we  ought,  especially  in  a changeable 
climate  like  this,  than  we  have  upon  articles  which  are  really  articles 
of  luxury  used  by  the  rich  and  not  by  the  poor. 

I would  not  put  any  of  these  on  the  free  list,  but  I would  abolish  the 
compound  duty.  I would  make  the  whole  duty  a fair  ad  valorem  duty. 
Bor  my  own  part,  I would  suggest,  with  a great  deal  of  respect  to  the 
Commission,  that  a duty  of  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  would  be  a very 
beneficial  substitute  for  the  present  duty.  It  might  increase  the  duty 
on  some  kinds  of  woolen  goods;  some  of  the  finer  grades  would  un- 
doubtedly be  increased,  but  others  would  be  largely  diminished,  and  in 
regard  to  these  the  expense  of  the  American  product  would  be  dimin- 
ished. If  you  give  to  the  American  manufacturers  a cheapened  pro- 
duction through  a diminution  in  the  duty  on  dye-stuffs,  you  enable  them 
to  compete  in  foreign  markets,  and  at  the  same  time  to  manufacture 
with  just  as  much  advantage  as  they  do  now,  although  the  duty  should 
be  reduced  in  the  way  I have  suggested. 

Let  me  make  just  one  suggestion  on  the  question  of  dye-stuffs.  I 
want  to  call  attention  to  the  census  bulletin  in  regard  to  the  manufact- 
ure of  chemicals.  You  will  observe  in  regard  to  these  dye-stuffs  that 
they  have  almost  entirely  displaced  the  vegetable  dyes.  The  duty  in 
many  cases  amounts  to  more  than  100  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Even  if  it 
were  possible  for  us  in  this  country  io  prohibit  lor  the  next  ten  years 
the  importation  of  these  colors,  would  it  be  a wise  policy  for  us  to  do 
it,  considering  the  extent  to  which  you  have  been  shown  they 
enter  into  all  manufactured  goods'?  Would  it  be  a wise  policy  for 
us  to  build  up  a manufactory  of  aniline  dyes  in  this  country  when  they 
can  be  made  more  cheaply  abroad  because  the  raw  material  is  found  in 
a cheaper  condition  in  England  *?  The  English  coal,  as  everybody  knows, 
is  richer  in  the  hydro-carbons  or  inflammable  matter  than  our  American 
coal,  and  it  is  well  known  that  we  do  import  to  some  extent  English  coal 
to  make  gas,  although  the  duty  on  it  is  a high  one.  The  only  objection 
that  has  been  or  could  be  made  in  regard  to  that  would  be  that  it  we 
got  into  a war  with  some  of  the  European  countries  we  should  be  at  a 
disadvantage  in  regard  to  these  colors.  I suggest  that  that  is  a very 
com  in  gent  and  remote  disadvantage;  that  the  probabilities  of  such  a 
war  are  insignificant.  These  goods  are  made  not  only  in  England,  but 
in  Germany,  and  if  the  worst  came  to  the  worst,  and  we  were  cut  off 
from  our  European  supplies,  we  could  fall  back  on  the  vegetable  dyes 
that  came  from  South  and  Central  America  before  aniline  dyes  were 
invented. 


E.  P.  WHEELER.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


231 


July  27,  1882. 

When  I concluded  yesterday  the  subject  of  the  duty  on  building  mate- 
rial, I had  been  speaking  of  the  duty  on  paints.  I had  not  then  pre- 
pared  some  figures  which  I made  ux>  last  night  in  reference  to  one 
particular  grade  of  building  material  which  enters  so  largely  into 
plumbing;  that  is  this  matter  of  lead  pipe.  The  manufacture  of  that 
article  in  this  country  has  increased  very  largely,  and  did  under  the 
former  tariff.  In  I860  I find  that  the  value  of  the  product  of  manu- 
factured lead  and  of  lead  pipe  amounted  to  considerably  over  $3,000,000. 
In  1870,  for  the  first  time,  1 find  them  divided.  Under  the  former  tariff 
ot  1840  the  duty  on  all  manufactures  of  lead  was  20  per  cent.,  which  was 
reduced  to  15  xmr  cent,  in  1857.  Yet  we  find  a very  marked  increase  in 
that  period  in  the  growth  of  the  lead-mining  interest  and  lead-manufac- 
turing interest.  At  that  time  lead  ore  was  admitted  free  of  duty,  and 
it  was  not  discovered  that  the  mines  of  America  were  not  able,  even  on 
that  basis,  to  compete  with  the  mines  of  Europe.  In  1801  we  had  this 
duty  imposed  u})on  this  particular  article  of  lead  pipe  of  2J  cents  a pound. 
That  duty  is  practically  prohibitory.  The  entire  imports  of  all  sorts  of 
lead,  including  i>ii)e,  amounted  only  to  $L7,469  in  the  last  fiscal  year, 
and  our  exports  of  our  domestic  products  amounted  to  only  $39,710. 
But  the  entire  product  of  lead  x>ipe  in  this  country  ten  years  ago  was 
over  $12,000,000.  I have  not  the  figures  for  this  year,  but  they  are 
larger,  for  the  use  of  plumbing  has  increased  largely  in  building.  I find, 
on  figuring  on  the  caxntal  invested  in  the  business  at  that  time,  taking 
the  cost  ot  labor  and  material,  that  the  x>rofit  on  the  manufacture  of  lead 
j>ix>e  m 1870  was  about  50  x>er  cent,  on  the  capital  invested ; and  the 
cost  of  labor  in  the  manufacture  of  that  article,  as  I suggested  yester- 
day, forms  a very  insignificant  part  of  the  exx>ense  of  the  manufacture. 
The  product  of  $12,000,000  and  upwards  was  xnoduced  with  an  expense 
ot  labor  of  only  $115,020,  so  almost  exclusively  is  it  the  work  of  ma- 
chinery. 

There  would  not  seem  to  be  any  justice  in  maintaining  a x>rohibitory 
tariff  on  that  very  necessary  and  important  article  which  is  used,  not 
simply  in  houses,  but  in  conveying  water  from  springs  to  farms  and 
farm  buildings  in  the  country.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  justice  in 
maintaining  a prohibitory  duty  on  that  to  enable  the  manufacturers  of 
lead  pipe  to  keep  their  xnofit  over  50  per  cent,  per  annum.  The  duty 
under  the  old  tariff  was  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  I would  suggest 
respectfully  to  the  Commission  that,  unless  some  good  reason  should 
appear  that  has  not  suggested  itself  to  my  mind,  that  would  be  a 
very  fit  rate  of  duty  to  restore.  The  business  prospered  under  it,  and 
while  it  has  no  doubt  prospered  since,  yet  it  does  not  seem  just  to  tax 
the  entire  body  of  consumers  of  the  country  to  such  an  extent  for  the 
benefit  of  this  great  industry. 

That  brings  me  to  the  subject  of  paint.  In  regard  to  that,  there  is 
very  much  that  might  be  said.  I will  not  undertake  to  say7  it  all,  or 
even  a large  x>art  of  it.  There  are  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture who  ax)i)reciate  the  details  of  the  business  more  thoroughly 
than  I do,  and  who  will,  no  doubt,  know  in  regard  to  the  various  ways 
in  which  the  duty7  on  the  materials  they  use  enhances  the  expense  of 
their  production.  I only7  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  subject  of 
•paints  used  more  particularly  in  building;  that  is  to  say,  white  and  red 
lead,  in  order  to  xioint  an  argument  in  reference  to  the  duty  on  lead  ore 
and  pig  lead  which  now  exists,  and  which  is  also  a prohibitory  duty. 
The  duty  on  lead  ore  is  cents,  and  on  pig  lead,  2 cents  a pound. 
The  x>roduction  of  lead  and  zinc  x>aints  in  this  country",  in  1870,  amount 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  1\  WHEELER. 


232 

ed  to  $11,211,047.  In  1861  it  amounted  to  $2,574,955.  That  industry 
in  this  country  has  almost  entirely  sprung  up  since  1850.  The  entire 
production  of  paint  in  America  in  1850  was  only  $77,000.  There  were 
only  four  establishments  in  the  country,  and  their  entire  capital  was 
$i3,000.  But  during  those  years,  from  1850  to  1860,  when  lead  was 
substantially  on  the  free  list,  when  the  duty  on  pig  lead  was  only  20 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  reduced  to  15  per  cent,  in  1857,  the  business  in- 
creased, as  I have  suggested,  from  $77,000  per  annum  to  $2,574,000, 
an  enormous  growth.  It  has  kept  on  increasing  ever  since.  It  is  a 
profitable  business,  and  makes  an  article  of  universal  consumption, 
without  which  we  cannot  get  along  at  all.  1 would  suggest  in  reference 
to  that,  also,  that  if  the  dut3T  on  lead  were  reduced  in  the  way  I have 
suggested,  that  these  two  particular  articles  that  are  made  from  lead, 
and  are  made  by  comparatively  simple  processes,  that  is  to  say,  red  lead 
and  white  lead  (which  are  those  principally  used  in  house  painting), 
would  bear  a reduction  of  the  duty  of  3 cents  a pound  which  now  exists, 
and  which  is  in  itself  a prohibitory  duty.  All  these  lead  duties  are 
prohibitory.  The  importation  into  this  country  was  nothing  substan- 
tially. The  importation  of  white  lead  during  the  fiscal  year  was  only 
58,000  pounds,  and  of  red  lead  11,000  pounds.  That  was  worth  in  the 
foreign  market  about  5£  cents  a pound.  A duty  of  3 cents  a pound  is 
something  more  than  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  If  the  old  rate  were  re- 
stored, and  the  reduction  I suggest  made  in  the  crude  article  out  of 
which  this  red  paint  is  manufactured,  it  seems  to  me  there  would  be  a 
general  benefit  to  the  whole  country;  that  the  consumers  would  be 
benefited  and  the  manufacturers  would  not  be  injured. 

I next  come  to  the  subject  of  paper;  and  in  regard  to  that,  some  benefit 
has  already  been  done  by  the  putting  of  rags  which  are  to  be  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  paper  upon  the  free  list;  but  the  effect  of  that  is  shown 
in  a very  marked  and  extraordinary  increase  of  the  production  of  paper 
in  this  country.  It  is  one  of  our  verj’  prominent  and  leading  industries. 
But  there  are  two  articles  which  enter  very  largely  into  the  production 
and  manufacture  of  paper  that  are  taxed,  and  one  of  them  is  made 
largely  in  this  country;  the  other  is  made  here  to  a very  limited  extent. 
The  first  of  these  articles  is  wood  pulp.  I have  not  the  figures  in  regard 
to  that  article  for  1880.  It  is  well  known  that  the  manufacture  has 
increased  largely  since  1870.  You  will  no  doubt  get  the  exact  figures 
from  the  census  bulletins,  which  are  so  useful,  and  which  are  coming 
out  almost  every  day.  But  I find  in  1870  the  value  of  the  wood-pulp 
product  of  this  country  was  $4,959,191.  The  amount  expended  in 
wages  was  $260,419,  which  was  considerably  less  than  10  per  cent,  of 
the  product.  The  capital  invested  was  $2,751,544,  and  the  profit 
was  about  40  per  cent,  on  the  capital  invested.  The  duty  of  20  per 
cent,  on  wood  pulp  is  practically  and  in  effect  a prohibitory  duty.  It 
gives  to  the  few  manufacturers  in  this  country  a monopoly,  because 
they  have  every  advantage  in  themselves  over  the  foreign  product,  ex- 
cepting simply  in  the  article  of  wages,  which,  as  I have  shown  you, 
forms  so  small  a percentage  of  the  expense  of  their  business;  the  large 
part  of  the  expense  is  in  the  material.  The  price  of  wood  in  this  country 
is  less  than  it  is  in  any  civilized  country  in  the  world  except  Canada. 
In  Europe  their  forests  have  to  be  watched  because  they  are  limited; 
that  is  a necessity  of  their  situation.  With  us,  with  our  great  unset- 
tled districts  which  nature  has  covered  with  pine  trees  and  with  all 
the  trees  of  the  forest,  we  enjoy  the  benefit,  in  this  respect,  of  a very 
cheap  material.  There  would  not  seem  to  be  any  very  good  reason 
why,  in  regard  to  this  particular  manufacture,  there  should  be  a duty 


E.  P.  WHEELER.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


233 


which  should  shut  out  entirely  all  competition  of  the  foreign  article. 
I only  advert  to  that,  not  because  1 suppose  the  foreign  article,  if  you 
put  wood  pulp  on  the  free  list,  would  be  largely  exported  to  this  coun- 
try,  but  it  would  put  manufacturers  here  in  competition  with  them, 
and  would  unquestionably  reduce  the  price  of  the  article  made  here; 
and  with  such  profit  as  that  shown  by  the  census  returns,  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  injustice  in  that. 

The  other  article  which  is  very  largely  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
paper  is  one  which  our  chemical  friends  are  interested  in.  I refer  to 
caustic  soda.  That  is  largely  an  article  of  import;  we  import  a great 
deal  more  of  that  than  we  make.  The  imports  of  soda  and  its  salts 
during  the  last  fiscal  year  (and  I have  not  been  able  from  the  tables  that 
have  been  published  to  separate  them)  amounted  to  over  $5,000,000. 
The  entire  product  in  this  country,  as  shown  by  the  Census  Bulletin,  is 
only  $866,560,  which  is  worth  about  2^  cents  a pound  in  this  market  on 
the  average.  The  duty  on  caustic  soda  is  1J  cents  a pound,  which  you 
will  perceive  is  almost  100  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  it  is  more  than  50 
per  cent,  on  the  home  valuation.  When  you  consider  that  in  the  manu- 
facture of  paper  in  this  country  the  product  in  1870  had  reached  over 
$48,000,000,  and  has  very  largely  increased  since  then  (though  I am  not 
able  to  give  the  exact  figures,  but  feel  sure  that  it  must  amount  to  at 
least  $70,000,000),  it  would  seem  very  unjust  that  all  the  manufacturers 
of  paper  should  be  taxed  to  this  extent  on  the  caustic  soda  that  they 
use  in  order  to  encourage  the  manufacture  here,  winch,  with  all  that 
discriminating  duty  existing  for  twenty  years,  has  only  reached  the 
entire  figure  of  $866,000,  whereas  the  imports  amount  to  over  $5,000,000, 
and  the  industries  which  use  these  imports  amount  to  $70,000,000. 

There  is  one  other  subject  that  was  mentioned  in  the  listwdiich  I sent 
to  the  Commission  (and  you  will  observe  that  1 am  hastening  so  as  not 
to  take  up  more  of  your  time  than  is  desirable),  and  it  is  the  last  of  them 
I shall  call  your  attention  to.  It  is  the  article  of  salt.  This,  too,  is  an 
import  on  which  the  duty  has  been  somewhat  reduced.  Salt  was  on  the 
free  list  from  1846  to  1861.  The  duty  was  raised  in  the  first  year  of  the 
war,  and  raised  gradually  until  it  reached  18  cents  per  hundred  pounds 
on  salt  in  bulk  and  24  cents  per  hundred  pounds  on  salt  in  sacks  and 
barrels.  This  has  since  been  reduced  to  8 cents  a hundred  on  salt  in 
bulk  and  12  cents  a hundred  on  salt  in  sacks  and  barrels.  Our  Ameri- 
can product  for  1880  amounted  to  $4,817,636.  Our  imports  during  the 
last  fiscal  year  were  $2,000,578,  making  the  entire  amount  of  salt  used 
in  this  country  approximately  $7,000,000  during  that  year.  The  aver- 
age rate  of  duty,  taking  salt  in  bulk  and  in  bags  and  barrels,  as  im- 
ported, was  nearly  50  per  cent. — 48.20  per  cent. — so  that  the  govern- 
ment received  $1,000,447. 

Let  us  now  look  into  the  statistics  of  the  salt  industry.  The  first 
thing  that  strikes  one  is,  that  when  this  article  was  on  the  free  list,  our 
facilities  for  producing  the  salt  were  such  that  the  manufacture  was  done 
at  a profit.  I remember,  myself,  as  long  ago  as  1855,  visiting  the  great 
salt  works  in  the  neighborhood  of  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  and  these  manufac- 
tories were  then  thriving  and  vigorous,  and  making  money.  It  is  a fact 
which  deserves  to  be  considered  that  some  grades  of  salt  used  largely 
in  curing  meats  are  not  produced  in  this  country  at  all ; Turk’s  Island 
salt  and  other  grades  of  salt  of  that  description  are  required  lor  this 
purpose.  Therefore,  it  is  true  to  a considerable  degree  that  the  foreign 
article  in  any  case  would  not  compete  with  the  American  product,  be- 
cause it  is  used  for  different  purposes  and  has  a different  quality. 

On  the  other  hand,  having  considered  the  duty  and  the  product  of  this 


234 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  p.  wheeler. 


necessary  article,  let  us  consider  the  question  of  the  industry  in  which, 
to  a very  large  extent,  foreign  salt  is  used,  and  to  some  extent  domestic 
salt  as  well ; that  is,  the  meat-curing  industry,  of  this  country.  I did 
not  realize,  until  I footed  up  the  figures  in  the  Census  Bulletin,  the  enor- 
mous extent  the  meat-packing  industry  of  this  country  has  reached.  In 
twelve  cities  of  the  United  States  alone  the  value  of  the  product  of 
meat  packers  during  the  census  year  was  $191,920,345.  Chicago  leads 
the  list,  then  comes  New  York,  then  Jersey  City,  then  Cincinnati,  and 
the  others  with  lesser  numbers ; but  that  is  the  aggregate,  $191 ,920,345 
All  these  enormous  industries  are  compelled,  in  a large  degree,  to  rely 
upon  the  foreign  article  of  salt.  This  is  a raw  material  to  all  intents 
and  purposes;  why  not  restore  it  to  the  free  list?  If  we  look  to  the 
capital  invested  in  this  salt  business  we  find  that  the  amount  of  capi- 
tal in  1880  was  $8,225,740.  How  much  less  it  is  than  the  other  in- 
dustry which  employs  the  product.  The  cost  of  material  amounted  to 
$2,071,424  and  the  labor  to  $1,256,113,  making  an  aggregate  expense  of 
$3,327,537  and  the  value  of  the  product  $4,817,636.  So  that  we  have  a 
net  product  that  year  of  $1,500,000  on  an  invested  capital  of  $8,000,000 — 
a profit  of  about  16  per  cent.  While  that  profit  is  not  as  large  as  the 
lead-pipe  people  receive,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  duty  on  salt  is  more 
moderate  and  is  not  prohibitory,  yet  I would  suggest  it  is  an  ample  one 
and  gives  no  cause  for  complaint,  particularly  when  we  consider  the 
low  rate  of  interest  that  is  realized  from  invested  capital  now.  And  I 
suggest  that  putting  salt  on  the  free  list  would  not  deprive  the  manu- 
facturers of  this  country  of  the  market  which  they  enjoy,  nor  would  it 
throw  upon  our  market  foreign  salt  to  displace  theirs,  because  theirs  is 
a different  grade  and  quality  of  salt,  while  the  foreign  salt  is  used  chiefiy 
for  another  purpose. 

Having  gone  over  this  list  which  I suggested  in  my  letter  to  the 
Commission,  I desire  to  call  attention  for  one  moment,  especially  in  view 
of  the  very  forcible  suggestions  of  your  President,  to  the  other  indus- 
tries of  the  country.  I think  it  is  very  important  and  desirable  that 
while  the  manufacturing  interest  should  receive  its  full  share  of  atten- 
tion; while  the  skill,  ingenuity,  and  enterprise  of  the  American  manu- 
facturer deserve  all  possible  praise,  still  there  are  other  industries  of 
even  greater  importance,  and  to  them  some  attention  should  be  given. 

If  you  will  go  back  through  the  census  returns  from  the  beginning, 
especially  those  for  the  years  1850,  1860,  and  1870,  as  well  as  the  last 
census,  you  will  find  that  the  agricultural  products  of  this  country  are 
greatly  in  excess  of  the  products  of  its  manufactories.  For  example,  in 
1870  we  find  the  cash  value  of  the  farms  of  this  country  amounted  to 
over  $9,000,000,000.  The  capital  invested  in  manufactories  at  that 
time  amounted  to  $2,000,000,000.  I find  that  the  products  of  the  agri- 
cultural industry  have  gone  on  increasing,  and  that  the  product  during 
the  last  census  year  was  over  $1,000,600,000 — $1,677,813,410 — and  that 
the  number  of  acres  on  which  crops  were  raised  amounted  to  132,074,841. 
I find  that  the. average  product  of  the  nine  years  from  1870  down  to 
1879  was  $1,420,000,000,  and  it  is  a most  remarkable  fact  that  the  aver- 
age product  per  acre  during  that  decade  was  very  uniform  indeed.  The 
product  per  acre  last  year  amounted  to  $12.70,  and  the  average  for  the 
whole  ten  years  varied  from  that  only  26  cents.  While  the  percentage 
goes  up  or  down  a little,  yet  it  is,  perhaps,  as  uniform  and  stable  in  its 
results  as  it  is  in  any  business.  Of  course  the  persons  employed  on 
these  farms  and  engaged  in  producing  this  enormous  result  have  a 
claim  upon  the  attention  of  your  Commission.  Ninety  per  cent,  of  our 
exportation  to  foreign  countries  consists  of  agricultural  products,  aud 


E.  P WHEELER.  1 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


235 


it  is  with  the  results  of  these  shipments  that  we  paid  for  all  our  imports. 
Perhaps  one  of  the  most  useful  results  of  the  Commission  may  be  this: 
that  the  outcry  that  is  unquestionably  arising  from  those  engaged  in 
agricultural  pursuits  for  a modification  and  revision  of  the  tariff  will 
receive  an  intelligent  answer.  It  is  not  desirable  that  this  question  of 
the  revision  of  the  tariff*  should  come  as  a result  of  a great  popular 
outcry  and  uprising,  because  things  done  on  account  of  such  clamor 
often  result  in  hasty  and  rashly  advised  legislation,  and  do  more  harm 
than  good.  But  sitting  here  calmly,  to  hear  the  various  manufacturing 
and  other  industries  of  the  country  as  they  come  before  you,  you  have 
an  opportunity  of  going  into  the  details  and  of  arriving  at  results  never 
yet  obtained  in  this  country.  It  is  very  necessary  that  you  should  hear 
in  detail  these  manufacturers  and  others,  because  it  is  the  details  of  the 
tariff*,  as  Assistant  Secretary  French  explained  this  morning,  that  affect 
very  greatly  the  results  to  be  arrived  at,  and  the  effect  upon  business. 
But  I think  that  you  have  advantages  that  no  Commission  has  ever  had 
before,  and  that  you  will  be  able  to  revise  the  tariff*  and  so  adjust  it  that 
the  agricultural  interest  can  be  brought  in  accord  with  the  manufactur- 
ing interest.  While  it  was  a part  of  the  theory  of  the  law  creating  the 
Commission  that  the  general  tariff*  system  should  not  be  disturbed,  yet,  on 
the  other  hand,  I think  that  the  law  creating  the  Commission  was  the 
result  of  a general  feeling  that  there  were  inconsistencies  in  the  tariff*  that 
ought  to  be  corrected,  which  had  been  the  result  of  special  legislation, 
and  that  an  intelligent  and  impartial  commission  would  prune,  away 
these  inconsistencies  and  remove  these  defects  and  give  us  a more  fair 
and  impartial  system. 

There  have  been  several  things  said  since  I have  been  here,  by  other 
gentlemen  who  have  appeared  before  you,  and  I have  been  very  much 
interested  in  the  discussion  I have  heard,  and  while  I appreciate  the  la- 
bor before  the  Commission  and  do  not  desire  to  occupy  any  unnecessary 
time,  there  have  been  some  things  said  about  which  I wish  to  speak  be- 
fore I close.  Let  me  commence  writh  one  of  the  first  topics  I began  with 
yesterday ; the  subject  of  nickel.  We  were  all  very  much  interested 
in  what  Mr.  Wharton  told  you  yesterday  on  that  subject.  But  he  does 
not  admit  the  fact  that  I stated  yesterday,  that  the  immediate  effect  of 
the  increase  of  the  duty  was  to  increase  the  price  of  the  article  on  which 
it  was  imposed.  My  statement  was  based  upon  what  I had  been  told 
by  the  manufacturers  who  use  the  article,  and  I shall  endeavor  to  ar- 
range the  matter  so  that  at  least  one  of  these  gentlemen  can  come  be- 
fore you  and  be  heard  at  some  future  sitting.  I do  not  know  that  the 
fact  in  itself  is  a matter  of  very  great  importance,  because,  after  all,  the 
question  in  regard  to  the  duty  on  nickel  is  simply  this  : Is  it  possible,  if 
the  duty  on  nickel  were  reduced  to  20  cents  on  the  pure  article  as 
wTell  as  on  the  alloy,  to  do  the  business  in  this  country  at  a profit  ? 1 

think  that  statement  of  the  case  Mr.  Wharton  himself  would  not  object 
to.  He  told  us  yesterday  that  he  proposed  to  close  up  his  works  pend- 
ing the  agitation  of  this  question  for  a modification  of  the  tariff*  so  as  to 
increase  the  duty  on  the  alloy  and  make  it  the  same  as  on  the  pure  article. 
But  he  did  not  state  that  the  business  could  not  be  done  here  at  a profit; 
he  gave  you  no  figures  in  regard  to  it.  I suppose  it  is  a fact  that  when 
the  census  returns  on  nickel  appear  you  can  answer  all  these  questions, 
but  they  have  not  been  answered  yet. 

I could  not  help  being  interested  by  the  frankness  shown  by  the 
manufacturers  of  quinine  who  appeared  before  you  to-day.  They  recog- 
nize the  fact  that  gentlemen  who  apply  to  this  Commission  or  to  Con- 
gress for  a modification  of  the  tariff*  ought  to  show  what  their  business 


236 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  P.  WHEELER. 


is.  They  put  themselves  in  this  position : they  say  substantially  to 
you  or  to  Congress,  u Our  business  is  such  that  we  need  a change.  We 
ask  for  a benefit  to  be  derived  from  legislation,”  and  if  they  do  that  it 
is  no  more  than  just — it  is  not  at  all  interfering  with  their  private  af- 
fairs— that  they  should  state  distinctly  and  definitely  facts  in  regard 
to  their  business,  the  cost  of  production,  labor,  and,  material,  and  all 
those  facts  that  enter  into  the  management  of  their  business.  And  I 
think  if  Mr.  Wharton  had  gone  into  those  details  he  would  have  satis- 
fied you  that  if  he  could  not  make  as  much  money  out  of  the  business 
with  the  duty  at  20  cents  as  at  30  cents  per  pound  yet  he  could  continue 
it  profit  a bly. 

There  was  one  statement  that  Assistant  Secretary  French  made  this 
morning  to  which  I agree,  and  that  is  that  the  duty  on  alloy  of  nickel 
and  copper  ought  to  be  the  same  as  on  the  pure  article.  Whether  it 
was  the  right  thing  for  the  importers  to  evade  the  provisions  of  the 
statute  by  mixing  a little  copper  with  a good  deal  of  nickel  is  not  a 
question  perhaps  worth  while  to  consider  now.  But  it  is  no  more  than 
just  to  put  those  two  articles  on  the  same  basis,  as  I think  any  one 
would  concede  in  the  present  condition  of  that  manufacture. 

There  was  one  fact  in  regard  to  the  nickel  business  which  was  not 
contested,  which  settles  the  whole  question  satisfactorily  on  another 
branch  of  manufacture  ; that  is  the  fact  that  the  company  I mentioned 
yesterday,  the  Meriden  Britannia  Company,  established  a factory  in 
Canada  in  order  to  be  able  to  supply  the  foreign  market.  They  must 
have  done  that  because  they  could  manufacture  cheaper  there  than  here. 
There  is  no  great  difference  in  any  particular  between  the  conditions  in 
Canada  and  this  country  except  in  that  particular  thing.  Yet  the 
effect  of  that  difference  was  sufficient  to  induce  them  to  go  there  instead 
of  keeping  their  works  at  Meriden,  where  they  have  the  best  facilities 
for  manufacturing  that  could  possibly  be  obtained. 

Something  was  said  also  by  Mr.  Wharton  about  copper;  but  the  only 
copper  export  he  could  cite  was  cartridges,  and  I confess  I think  the 
argument  he  drew  was  rather  tenuous.  Copper  is  used  as  the  envelope 
of  cartridges,  but  cartridges  are  not  exported  because  they  are  made  of 
copper.  The  reason  they  are  exported  is  because,  in  the  first  place,  the 
American  fire-arms  are  the  best  in  the  world  and  they  are  the  only  cart- 
ridges that  can  be  used  with  American  fire-arms,  and  every  country  or 
individual  who  buys  the  fire-arms  must  buy  the  cartridges  to  go  with 
them.  I do  not  think  that  any  man  can  fairly  consider  cartridges  as  a 
manufacture  of  copper;  I do  not  think  any  one  would  claim  they  were. 
The  entire  amount  of  copper  exported  in  1880  amounted  only  to  838,000, 
so  that  it  cannot  be  said  there  is  any  export  business  done  in  copper. 

Then,  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  steel  rails,  which  is  undoubtedly  a 
matter  of  great  importance.  There  was  no  reason  suggested  by  our 
very  intelligent  friend  why  the  duty  on  steel  rails  should  be  more  than 
the  duty  on  iron  rails,  and  it  seems  io  me  that  that  is  a fair  iest  with 
regard  to  it.  The  duty  on  iron  rails  is  that  which  I pointed  out,  and  is 
for  the  present  a fair  standard.  As  I suggested,  there  is  no  reason  why 
one  should  be  put  at  a higher  rate  than  the  other.  It  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  price  of  steel  rails  has  very  much  diminished,  but  that  is  not 
owing  to  the  tariff*;  it  is  owing  to  improvement  in  methods  of  production. 
The  price  has  diminished  abroad  even  more  than  it  has  here,  and  the 
effect  of  the  large  duty  of  828  a ton  on  rails  has  simply  been  to  prevent 
that  reduction  in  the  cost  of  production  from  having  its  full  effect. 

In  regard  to  one  suggestion  which  was  made,  which  goes  to  the  whole 
root  of  the  matter,  that  it  was  the  object  of  the  government  to  lay  a tax 


E.  P.  WHEELER.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


237 


to  enable  people  to  do  a business  which  would  be  profitable,  which  other- 
wise would  not  be  profitable,  I will  say  this : Where  that  applies  to 
large  amounts  of  money  invested,  that  is  one  thing;  but  where  it  ap- 
plies to  a creating  of  a new  business  that  is  not  necessary  and  that  the 
country  can  do  without,  we  should  pause  before  committing  ourselves  to 
that  proposition.  If  there  were  an  embargo,  and  we  could  not  import 
anything,  I suppose  all  sorts  of  industries  would  spring  up  here  at  once. 
In  regard  to  the  aniline  dyes,  it  was  said  to  be  a poisonous  business, 
and  the  people  engaged  in  it  suffered  very  much  on  account  of  the  poi- 
sonous materials  used.  If  that  is  so,  why  should  we  desire  to  build  up 
a business  of  that  kind*?  The  gentleman  from  Albany,  Mr.  Hendrick, 
spoke  of  a 35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty.  Certainly,  in  the  present  con- 
dition of  that  business,  considering  the  existing  rate,  I should  not  con- 
test that  proposition,  so  far  as  the  aniline  reds  are  concerned  ; I should 
not  oppose,  but  consider  it  just  to  put  the  duty  at  that  figure.  But  I 
should  object  to  keeping  all  aniline  dyes  at  the  rate  of  35  per  cent,  so 
that  Mr.  Hendrick  might  be  enabled  to  build  up  a new  business  for  the 
purpose  of  increasing  the  cost  of  all  articles  that  are  made  with  those 
dyes. 

There  are  one  or  two  other  subjects  with  which  I have  had  practical 
familiarity  as  a lawyer.  In  the  first  place,  I would  like  to  say  that  I 
was  a good  deal  surprised  at  the  suggestion  made  yesterday,  that  our 
custom-house  officials  generally  sympathize  with  the  importers.  That 
is  not  an  impression  that  prevails  in  the  minds  of  the  importers  them- 
selves or  in  the  minds  of  their  counsel.  We  may  be  wrong.  The  general 
impression  I have  observed  is,  that  the  custom-house  officials  sympa- 
thize with  the  government,  and.  that  the  importers’  chances  of  success 
are  always  better  before  a judge  and  jury  than  when  the  result  depends 
upon  the  custom-house  officials.  I think  it  is  a mistake  to  say  that  the 
custom-house  officers  sympathize  with  the  importers.  If  there  is  any- 
thing in  the  suggestion  at  all  it  shows  as  a result  that  the  high  rate  of 
duty  creates  a suspicion  in  the  minds  of  all  parties;  the  importers  do 
not  feel  fairly  dealt  with,  and  the  manufacturers  have  a somewhat  simi- 
lar feeling. 

I had  thought  of  suggesting  something  to  the  commission  in  regard 
to  the  matter  of  home  valuation  that  Assistant  Secretary  French  spoke 
to  you  about,  but  I hardly  wanted  to  propose  so  radical  a change. 
However,  since  he  has  introduced  the  subject,  I would  say  that  as  the 
result  of  some  experience  in  regard  to  advising  with  clients,  I think  it 
would  greatly  simplify  the  whole  custom-house  business  and  put  it  on  a 
fair,  equitable  basis  with  all  parties,  if  we  were  to  adopt  the  home  valua- 
tion as  the  standard.  Of  course,  this  would  greatly  increase  the  labors 
of  the  commission.  It  would  require  the  reconstruction  of  the  whole 
tariff,  especially  in  reference  to  specific  duties,  because  they  bear  a 
different  ratio  to  the  foreign  valuation  from  what  they  would  to  the 
American  valuation.  It  would  require  a large  reduction  in  your  ad- 
valorem  duties  to  keep  them  at  the  present  rate.  Take  the  duty  on 
steel  rails,  which  is  a specific  duty.  It  is  about  100  per  cent,  on  the 
foreign  value  and  50  per  cent,  on  the  American  value.  You  would 
find  their  rate  on  the  list  would  have  to  be  changed,  if  you  adopt  that 
suggestion  ; but  if  you  were  to  undertake  the  labor  I think  you  would 
confer  a great  public  benefit.  If  the  duty  wTere  put  on  the  basis  of 
American  valuation  in  the  end  the  country  would  profit  by  the  change. 

There  is  one  suggestion  I have  often  heard  made  by  importers, 
ancl  I nave  seen  it  tested  in  cases  coming  up  in  the  courts,  aud  that  is, 
the  injustice  of  the  present  provision  in  regard  to  the  cost  of  merclian- 


238 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  P.  WHEELER. 


dise.  Mr.  French  read  you  a section  this  morning  which  requires  the 
appraisers  to  fix  the  dutiable  value  as  the  market  value  in  the  country 
from  which  the  goods  are  imported.  But  then  there  is  a provision  in 
two  other  sections  which  modifies  that.  Section  2854  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  requires  the  importer,  if  he  has  purchased  the  goods,  to  state 
in  his  invoice  the  cost.  But  section  2900  provides  that  the  duty  is  not 
to  be  assessed  on  a less  value  than  the  invoiced  figure.  The  effect  of 
that  is  that  if  a man  buys  goods  abroad  and  the  price  goes  down 
he  pays  still  not  on  the  market  value,  but  on  the  cost  to  him.  But  if 
the  price  goes  up  he  has  to  pay  on  the  increased  market  value.  I know 
of  a particular  instance  where  that  provision  in  regard  to  steel  rails 
operated  very  unjustly.  There  were  merchants  in  this  country  who  had 
bought  steel  rails  at  prices  they  had  to  pay  before  the  expiration  of  the 
Bessemer  patent,  when  the  royalty  entered  into  the  price  of  the  rails,  yet 
they  did  not  get  them  actually  entered  here  until  after  the  market  rate 
had  gone  doAvn  a pound  to  the  ton.  Notwithstanding  that  they  had  to  pay 
duty  on  the  cost  of  those  rails,  and  it  put  them  at  a great  disadvantage 
as  against  their  competitors  in  this  country  who  had  purchased  at  a 
lower  figure.  I would  suggest  that  no  harm  or  injustice  could  be  done 
to  anybody  if  the  provision  that  the  duty  should  not  be  assessed  at  less 
than  the  market  value  should  be  stricken  out  of  section  2900,  so  that 
in  all  cases  the  test  should  be  the  market  value,  and  if  the  importer 
lost  on  his  goods  he  would  get  at  least  a reduction  on  the  amount  he 
had  to  pay. 

In  regard  to  specific  and  ad-valorem  duties,  I would  like  to  say  this: 
I agree  with  Judge  French  that  you  ought  not  to  have  both  ad- valorem 
and  specific  duties.  Compound  duties  are  very  injurious  indeed.  One 
thing  has  occurred  to  me  as  meeting  the  objections  made  to  specific 
duties  in  cases  where  you  find  it  necessary  to  impose  them.  Suppose  a 
similar  provision  to  that  which  is  found  in  the  tariff  on  woolen  goods 
were  made  a general  provision,  but  with  somewhat  different  language. 
You  will  find  it  on  page  163  of  Heyl’s  Digest;  that  is  in  reference  to 
iron,  and  there  is  a similar  provision  in  regard  to  wool  also.  Suppose  it 
was  provided  in  regard  to  certain  specific  duties  that  no  article  should  pay 
a greater  rate  of  duty  than  50  per  cent,  ad- valorem  upon  the  market  value 
in  the  ports  of  the  country  from  which  it  was  exported.  1 mention  that 
as  a suggestion.  It  would  equalize  to  some  extent  the  injustice  which 
has  been  done  in  some  cases  by  the  continuance  of  a specific  duty  when 
there  was  a great  change  in  the  price  of  the  article,  and  when,  as  in 
two  of  the  instances  that  have  been  mentioned,  aniline  dyes  and  steel 
rails,  the  price  had  fallen  as  much  as  100  per  cent.,  owing  to  the  cheap- 
ening of  the  cost  of  production,  and  in  which  the  whole  intention  of  the 
original  act  was  perverted  and  changed  by  reason  of  the  changes  in  the 
condition  of  the  business  that  could  not  have  been  foreseen.  Nobody 
can  tell  to-day  how  production  can  be  cheapened.  Therefore  I say,  in 
cases  where  it  is  considered  expedient  and  necessary  to  fix  specific  du- 
ties, if  you  put  some  limit  on  the  percentage  of  those  duties  you  would 
remove  great  difficulties.  In  other  respects  they  are  desirable,  because 
they  are  simple,  easily  fixed  and  collected. 

In  conclusion,  I desire  to  make  this  suggestion,  and  I think  it  is  a 
matter  which  must  have  influenced  Congress  in  passing  the  law  for 
your  creation.  In  this  country  we  are  met  with  a great  surplus.  It  is 
very  important  for  the  country  that  that  surplus  should  not  continue. 
Our  whole  financial  system  now  rests  upon  our  bank  system.  It  is  a 
very  good  system.  It  has  given  us  a uniform  currency  all  over  the 
country.  We  can  all  probably  remember  when  a bill  of  a bank  in  the 


E.  P.  WHEELS ii.] 


CRUDE  MATERIALS. 


239 


city  of  New  York  would  uot  pass  current  in  Northern  New  England; 
you  could  not  pass  it  at  all,  much  less  could  you  pass  a Western  bank 
bill.  The  national  bank  system  has,  in  my  opinion,  had  the  elfect  of 
uniting  this  country  in  one  union  more  than  any  other  thing  that  can 
possibly  be  named,  in  the  facility  it  has  given  of  enabling  the  bills  issued 
by  any  one  portion  to  be  accepted  without  question  in  any  other  portion 
of  the  country.  This  system  of  national  banks  rests  entirely  on  the 
national  debt,  and  when  that  national  debt  will  be  extinguished,  as  in 
the  remote  future  it  will  be,  nobody  has  suggested  any  practical  or  uni 
form  basis  on  which  that  currency  can  rest.  Therefore  this  is  a fair 
subject  for  consideration  when  you  come  to  consider,  as  you  will  have 
to  consider,  the  effect  of  the  reduction  of  the  revenues  of  the  country, 
the  effect  of  putting  this  or  that  article  on  the  free  list.  I think  this 
subject  of  a surplus  is  a fair  subject  for  your  consideration.  I know  you 
are  not  a legislative  body,  yet  you  are  an  advisory  body  to  a legisla- 
ture, and  you  are  in  a position  where  you  can  give  advice  from  an  intel- 
ligent standpoint,  and  therefore  I think  it  is  a matter  that  can  fairly 
enter  into  your  deliberation  when  you  consider  that  every  article  you 
put  on  the  free  list  produces  to  that  extent  a diminution  of  the  reve- 
nues and  tends  to  postpone  the  time  when  our  children  will  be  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  question,  What  are  we  going  to  do  with  our  cur- 
rency and  our  national  bank  system  ? Do  not  let  us  bring  that  aboot 
too  soon.  But  it  is  very  important  to  be  considered  in  reference  to  this 
particular  matter  that  a reduction  of  duty  does  not  always  imply  a re- 
duction of  revenues.  Very  often  it  leads  to  an  increased  importation. 
But  every  article  that  is  put  on  the  free  list  is  a reduction  of  revenue 
and,  as  a consequence,  tends  to  a reduction  of  the  surplus. 

I am  much  obliged  to  the  Commission  for  the  attention  with  which 
they  have  listened  to  me. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  Have  you  estimated  the  amount  of  the  reduction  contem- 
plated in  your  argument  ? — Answer.  1 am  not  able  to  give  you  the  figures 
at  present,  but  whenever  I have  an  opportunity  to  prepare  them,  1 will 
take  pleasure  in  presenting  them  to  the  Commission.  I intend  to  pre- 
pare some  tables,  and  will  send  copies  of  them  to  the  Commiseion,  and 
will  show  in  them  approximately,  as  near  as  I can,  what  the  effect  on 
the  revenues  will  be  of  the  reductions  suggested. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Do  you  think  we  ought  to  retain  and  continue  the  internal-revenue 
system  ? — A.  I think  so. 

Q.  In  that  case  there  would  not  be  the  same  necessity  for  retaining 
the  jncsent  duties  on  imports. — A.  It  is  my  opinion  that  one  of  the  last 
things  that  the  country  will  consent  to  touch  in  the  way  of  taxation  is 
the  excise  duty  on  whisky  and  on  liquors  of  every  description. 

Q.  Have  you  taken  into  consideration  the  fact  that  two  thirds  of  all 
the  whisky  made  is  used  for  manufactuiing  purposes  l — A.  1 did  not 
suppose  the  percentage  was  as  large  as  that.  I think  a system  of  draw- 
backs, like  that,  for  instance,  in  regard  to  the  article  of  salt  for  the  curing 
of  fish,  ought  to  be  given,  and  that  would  meet  some  of  the  difficulties, 
perhaps,  of  the  quinine  manufacturers,  if  it  was  applied  to  their  industry. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  the  profits  in  the  lead  business  and 
the  paper  business  were  forty  to  fifty  per  cent,  on  the  capital  invested. 
Please  explain  to  the  commission  the  method  by  which  you  arrive  at 


240 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| E.  P.  WHEELER. 


that  result. — A.  The  method  I adopted  in  arriving  at  that  was  this:  I 
find  from  the  returns  that  there  was  a certain  amount  of  capital  invested 
in  the  manufacture  of  lead  pipe,  $2,054,000 ; and  I also  find  the  cost  of 
material  which  was  used  in  the  manufacture  during  the  given  year  was 
$9,300,000,  and  that  the  cost  of  labor  was  $115,000.  Adding  t he  cost 
of  material  to  the  cost  of  labor  it  gives,  as  the  expense  of  running  the 
business  during  that  time,  $9,000,000.  I find  that  the  valuation  of  the 
product  was  $12,500,000;  that  was  the  income. 

Q.  But  do  you  consider  that  a fair  way  to  estimate  the  profits? — A. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  difference  between  the  income  and  the  outgo 
gives  the  net  result  of  the  business.  Of  course,  there  is  an  invested 
capital  that  ought  to  have  a return. 

Commissioner  Porter.  That  is  the  very  thing  I refer  to. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  And  there  should  also  be  considered  the 
question  of  the  wear  and  tear,  and  the  destruction  of  the  plant. 

The  Witness.  Certainly,  all  those  things  are  to  be  considered.  If 
you  were,  for  example,  to  allow  ten  per  cent,  as  a fair  rate  of  interest  on 
the  money  invested  in  manufacturing  pursuits,  you  would  have  to  de- 
duct that  ten  per  cent,  from  the  net  returns  as  shown  in  the  table,  and 
whatever  amount  is  necessary  for  wear  and  tear  ought  to  be  deducted. 
But  where  the  income  shows  a gain  of  50  per  cent,  upon  the  the  capital 
as  compared  with  the  outgo,  there  is  a great  margin  to  cover  all  those 
items. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  state  that  the  interest  on  borrowed  capital  in 
this  country  at  the  present  time  was  about  thq  same  rate  as  paid  in 
England,  for  instance. — A.  It  is  in  our  commercial  centers  in  the  East, 
but  not  in  the  West. 

Q.  You  used  the  expression  “in  this  country.”  Commercial  paper  in 
England  rules  from  2J  to  3 per  cent.,  while  in  this  country  the  minimum 
rate  would  be  about  6 per  cent.,  taking  the  average  rate  throughout  the 
country.  The  published  rate  of  interest  in  New  York  is  not  the  real 
rate  of  interest.  I think  that  is  an  error,  which  I desire  to  call  your 
attention  to. — A.  Undoubtedly  that  particular  kind  of  interest  is  greater 
than  I have  stated.  But  still  the  time  has  been  within  a year,  I think 
it  is  so  to-day,  in  New  York,  when  good  prime  paper  has  been  discounted 
at  5 per  cent.  Money  can  be  borrowed  on  call  at  3 per  cent.,  and  time 
loans  can  be  made  at  5 per  cent.,  and  the  rate  of  interest  on  bond  and 
mortgage,  which  seems  to  me  to  be  the  fairest  basis  for  the  calculation, 
is  4 to  4^  per  cent.;  transactions  at  5 percent,  are  common.  I think 
there  has  been  a similar  reduction  in  the  West.  I am  trustee  for  prop- 
erty, and  have  put  out  considerable  money  in  the  West.  I used  to  get 
9 per  cent,  on  Chicago  loans,  but  you  cannot  get  more  than  G per  cent, 
there  now.  Going  further  west,  to  Minnesota,  for  instance,  on  good 
property  you  cannot  get  more  than  7 per  cent.  You  do  sometimes  get 
more  than  that,  but  you  have  to  take  less  valuable  property  for  security. 

Q.  Would  not  the  average  beG  percent.,  makingit  twice  theamount? — 
A.  Perhaps  so.  I ought  to  have  guarded  my  statement  a little  more  in 
that  respect.  I had  more  particularly  in  my  mind  the  rate  of  interest 
on  government  and  call  loans,  which,  I think,  is  about  the  same.  But  it 
does  not  approximate  so  closely  in  those  other  particulars  you  speak  of. 


PHILIP  A.  BOUR.j 


ALKALIES. 


241 


PHILIP  A.  BOUR. 

Lonh  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Philip  A.  Bour,  representing  the  Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufact- 
uring Company,  appeared  before  the  Commission  in  response  to  its  invi- 
tation and  made  the  following  statement : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  In  the  few 
moments  which  I shall  consume  in  addressing  the  Commission  I will  en- 
deavor to  state,  as  concisely  as  possible,  the  facts  bearing  upon  the 
industry  which  I have  the  honor  of  representing,  and  shall  afterwards 
be  happy  to  answer  any  question  that  any  member  of  the  Commission 
may  see  fit  to  put  to  me. 

The  vastness  of  the  chemical  industry  in  this  country  was  brought  to 
your  notice  a few  days  ago  by  the  secretary  of  the  Manufacturing  Chem- 
ists7 Association  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Henry  Bower,  of  Philadel- 
phia. The  alkali  and  alum  industries  are  among  the  largest  embraced 
in  the  account  given  you,  and  I propose  to  give  you  some  facts  and 
figures  connected  with  them.  I might  state  here  that  I am  associated 
with  probably  the  largest  alkali  works  in  America.  Their  output  of 
manufactured  goods  during  1881  amounted  to  nearly  70,060  tons,  and 
they  handled  something  like  90,000  tons  of  raw  material,  besides  directly 
and  indirectly  they  gave  support  to  nearly  5,000  people,  and  the  average 
wages  paid  amounted  to  $45  per  month.  The  working  people  all  have 
comfortable  h#mes,  many  owning  their  dwelling  houses.  Bents  average 
about  $5  per  month.  -Employment  is  given  the  year  round,  and  the 
factory  has  not  been  stopped  but  once  in  many  years,  and  is  constantly 
being  increased  in  size.  Nearly  three  millions  of  dollars  have  been  ex- 
pended, and  30  acres  of  buildings  have  been  erected,  it  being  found  that 
goods  would  cost  less,  the  greater  the  volume  of  out-turn.  The  com- 
bined capacity  of  the  alkali,  alum,  and  acid  works  of  the  United  States  I 
believe  amounts  to  upwards  of  600,000,000  of  pounds.  Twenty  years  ago, 
and  before  the  passage  of  the  present  tariff  act,  it  did  not  amount  to 
20,000,000  of  pounds,  the  supplies  almost  exclusively  coming  from  En- 
gland. Let  us  compare  the  prices  of  some  articles  extensively  used  by 
our  people  when  under  little  or  no  duty,  with  the  prices  prevailing  under 
a duty  equivalent  to  about  40  per  cent,  on  alum  and  60  per  cent,  on  sodas, 
bicarbonate  and  caustic,  and  about  20  per  cent,  on  soda  crystals.  The 
price  of  foreign  bicarb  of  soda  with  a duty  of  three-tenths  of  a cent  per 
pound  was  4.8  cents.  With  a duty  of  1J  cents  per  pound  the  selling 
price  of  American  bicarbonate  of  soda,  superior  in  quality  to  the  foreign, 
is  2J  to  2£  cents  per  pound.  Foreign  caustic  soda,  with  a duty  of  one- 
quarter  of  a cent  per  pound,  sold  at  an  average  of  7£  cents.  Now,  with  a 
duty  of  l\  cents  per  pound,  the  selling  price  is  3J  cents.  The  selling 
price  of  common  alum  with  no  duty  was  3J  cents  per  pound.  With  a 
duty  of  six  tenths  of  a cent  a pound  the  selling  price  is  1£  cents.  Soda 
crystals  sold  as  high  as  3 cents  with  no  duty,  and  sells  now  at  1tl  cents 
with  a duty  of  one-quarter  cent  per  pound.  America  was  the  best  cus- 
tomer England,  France,  and  Germany  had  in  the  alkali  trade,  and  those 
countries  reaped  a wonderful  harvest  prior  to  our  levying  duties  and 
pending  our  construction  of  works.  Desperate  efforts  have  been  made 
to  crush  the  industries  here,  but  it  is  believed  they  can  stand  under 
the  existing  tariff. 

The  sacrifices  of  the  English  alkali  works  especially  have  been  very 
great,  and  I was  informed  a few  days  since  by  a large  alkali-maker  there 
that  only  two  soda  factories  in  England  paid,  a profit  in  1881,  and  they 
H.  Mis.  6 16 


242 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


(PHILIP  A.  BOTIR. 


attribute  their  reverses  to  loss  of  their  American  trade  and  the  depre- 
ciation in  prices  consequent  on  large  surplus  production.  The  prices 
of  American  soda  and  alum  have  reached  very  low  figures,  however, 
and  a change  of  one-tenth  of  a cent  on  any  of  the  articles  named  would 
entail  loss  upon  the  manufacturers.  The  alkali  tariffis  all  specific,  and 
pays  the  government  annually  a million  and  a half  dollars.  Any  re- 
duction would  be  the  means  of  assisting  the  foreign  factories  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  American  factories  and  a loss  of  revenue  to  the  govern- 
ment. There  is  another  point  in  connection  with  caustic  soda  that  I 
would  like  to  call  your  attention  to.  When  the  tariff  laws  were  framed 
all  the  caustic  arriving  in  this  country  was  GO-  per  cent.,  or  standard, 
and  paid  14  cents  per  pound.  To  lessen  the  duty  and  sea  freight,  for- 
eign manufacturers  conceived  the  idea  of  concentrating  and  bringiugit 
up  to  75  per  cent.  This,  in  reality,  brought  the  duty  down  to  about  1.2 
cents  per  pound.  So  Avith  soda  ash.  The  bulk  of  the  importations 
formerly  tested  48  per  cent,  standard ; now  they  test  58  per  cent.  The 
real  duty,  therefore,  instead  of  one-fourth  of  a cent,  is  only  a fraction 
over  one-fifth  cent  per  pound.  Yet,  under  the  tariff  of  1872,  it  provides 
that  natron,  or  carbonate  of  soda,  should  pay  one-half  cent  per  pound. 
Yow,  as  pure  soda  ash,  or  58°  ash  is  natron,  it  should  pay  4 cent  in  place 
of  J cent  per  pound.  If  the  correct  interpretation  had  been  given  this 
by  the  Treasury  officials,  I firmly  believe  there  would  be  a dozen  soda- 
ash  factories  where  there  is  not  one  in  operation  to-day  in  this  country. 
Our  total  supply,  amounting  to  140,000  tons  annually,  is  now  received 
from  Europe.  In  case  of  war,  or  high  freight  rates,  or  short  supplies, 
the  price  could  be  run  up  to  high  figures,  as  in  the  yeai%!865,  owing  to 
short  shipments,  the  price  jumped  from  2.93  cents  to  12  cents  per  pound, 
a sudden  advance  of  3094  per  cent:  thus  showing  in  a striking  manner 
the  effect  of  an  entire  dependence  upon  a foreign  country  for  a manu- 
factured article  that  must  be  had  at  any  price. 

I desire  to  show  you  how  little  glass,  soap,  and  paper  would  be  affected 
if  the  duty  was  increased  from  a quarter  to  a half  cent  per  pound.  Those 
articles  take  the  principal  portion  of  the  soda  ash  imported.  It  would 
increase  the  cost  of  glass  about  one-sixteenth  of  a cent  per  pound';  or, 
in.  other  words,  an  ordinary  pane  of  glass  8 by  10  inches  would  be  in- 
creased only  one-fortieth  of  a cent. 

The  increase  of  one-fourth  of  a cent  on  soda  ash  would  increase  the 
cost  of  soap  one-twentieth  of  a cent  per  pound.  It  would  add  only^me- 
eighth  of  a cent  per  pound  to  the  cost  of  white  paper,  equivalent  to  an 
increase  of  not  more  than  one-eightieth  of  a cent  on  a sheet  of  paper  of 
the  size  and  weight  of  the  Yew  York  Times. 

How  lightly  the  tax  bears  on  these  articles  I have  fully  shown,  and  if 
the  consumer  wants  a continuance  of  low  prices,  which  are  lower  now 
than  ever  before,  in  my  opinion,  there  is  no  way  more  sure  to  accomplish 
it  than  by  fostering  home  industries.  We  invite  honorable  and  fair 
competition,  but  when  manufacturers  abroad  say,  as  oue  said  to  me  a 
short  time  ago,  “We  Avill  yet  make  you  American  manufacturers  gnaw 
your  finger  ends,”  it  is  quite  time  we  made  up  our  minds  to  remain  at 
least  as  independent  as  we  are,  and  see  to  it  that  no  backward  steps  are 
taken. 

In  conclusion,  I would  say  that  we  are  preparing  a schedule  of  duties 
on  alkali,  and  shall  ask  permission  to  submit  the  same  to  you  at  an  early 
day,  accompanied  by  the  necessary  reasons  we  bare  to  give. 

If  the  Commission  desires  to  question  me  on  any  branch  of  this  sub- 
ject, 1 shall  be  happy  to  respond  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  We  shall  probably  want  to  ask  you  some  ques- 
tions when  you  present  your  schedule. 


CHARLES  T.  WHITE. J 


QUININE. 


243 


CHARLES  T.  WHITE. 

Lono  Branch,  NT.  J.,  July  27,  1882. 

Mr.  Charles  T.  White,  of  New  York  City,  representing  the  chem- 
ical industry,  appeared  before  the  Commission  aud  made  the  following 
statement: 

Gentlemen:  I do  not  desire  to  occupy  much  of  your  time  in  speak- 
ing of  our  particular  industry,  as  there  are  other  representatives  present 
who  can  present  additional  facts  that  I may  overlook.  We  find  our- 
selves in  rather  a peculiar  position.  I am  not  quite  sure  that  any  other 
industry  will  come  before  you  under  exactly  the  same  conditions  as  those 
by  which  we  are  surrounded.  Ours  is  a business,  as  you  are  perhaps 
aware,  which  requires  a long  time  for  its  establishment,  and  peculiar 
fitness  in  its  prosecution,  most  of  the  articles  in  our  line  being,  as  is 
well  known,  used  for  medicinal  purposes,  and  therefore  the  business 
should  be  in  responsible  hands.  Consequently  we  feel  that  we  are  enti- 
tled to  a fair  share  of  the  privileges  and  advantages  that  the  country 
is  willing  to  allot  to  any  of  its  industries.  I think  that  the  records  of 
our  establishments,  some  of  them  dating  as  far  back  as  50  years,  will 
be  found  to  be  such  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  the  business  and  the 
articles  presented  to  the  public,  particularly  as  regards  this  article  of 
quinine,  as  should  gain  us  the  respect  and  confidence  of  every  one. 
We  find  ourselves  to-day  in  this  position.  In  July,  1879,  unexpectedly 
to  us  (except  that  we  knew  that  much  agitation  had  been  going  on  in 
regard  to  the  matter),  the  duty  upon  quinine  was  summarily  taken  off,  a 
duty  of  only  20  per  cent.  This  was  done  just  at  the  close  of  a session  of 
Congress,  when  those  who  were  familiar  with  the  facts  of  the  case  were 
not  present  to  explain  the  matter.  The  only  reason  we  could  ascertain 
for  this  was  the  idea  that  was  urged  upon  Congress  that  medicine  ought 
to  be  made  cheaply  and  furnished  cheaply  to  the  people,  which  was  cer- 
tainly a proper  conclusion  if  it  was  a just  one,  but  one  which  would 
affect  many  other  industries  of  importance  in  this  country,  as  few  peo- 
ple of  capital  and  intelligence  would  go  into  a business  unless  they  had 
an  idea  that  there  would  be  a fair  remuneration  for  the  work  they  were 
to  do. 

This  is  our  position  in  regard  to  foreign  competition,  which  has  been 
brought  upon  us  in  such  a way  as  to  greatly  injure  our  interests.  Eu- 
rope produces  a large  quantity  of  quinine,  a great  proportion  of  which 
now  comes  to  this  country.  The  wages  we  have  to  pay  here  are  one- 
third  more  than  the  wages  paid  in  Great  Britain,  and  one  half  more 
than  the  wages  paid  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  The  articles  we  use 
in  the  reduction  of  the  cinchona  barks  are  taxed  on  an  average  of  50  per 
cent.,  and  the  general  expenses  of  the  management  of  the  business,  as 
you  are  all  well  aware,  are  much  above  those  of  Europe. 

The  European  manufacturers  in  the  short  time  they  have  had  since 
the  repeal  of  the  duty  have  so  changed  our  position  that  from  being  the 
first  quinine-producing  country  in  the  world,  we  are  now  only  a third- 
rate  producing  country  in  that  article,  and  this  year  the  amount  of 
foreign  quinine  which  is  to  come  into  this  country  will  be  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  one-half  of  the  whole  amount  that  is  consumed  here. 


244 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHAULES  T.  WHITE. 


Then  there  is  another  disadvantage  under  which  we  labor,  and  a very 
important  one,  too.  Formerly  we  equaled  the  European  manufacturers 
in  the  receipt  of  Cinchona  bark.  In  1874-’75-’76  we  received  a&  many 
bales  of  the  bark  as  they  did  in  Europe.  In  1880,  following  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  duty,  we  received  only  one-third  of  the  amount  they  received 
there.  It  was  well  known  by  the  shippers  of  South  American  barks  that 
the  duty  was  taken  off  here,  and  that  we  could  not  compete,  and  they 
saw  the  advisability  of  diverting  their  shipments  of  bark  from  this 
country  to  foreign  countries,  so  that  in  the  year  following  they  only  sent 
us  one-third  of  the  amount  as  compared  with  the  amount  that  Europe 
received,  and  in  the  next  year  only  one  fourth  of  the  amount;  and  as 
the  production  of  quinine  depends  on  a careful  analysis  of  the  bark  and 
the  selection  from  a wide  range  of  barks,  we  are,  therefore,  at  a serious 
disadvantage.  They  have  been  sending  barks  of  a better  value  to  Eu- 
rope because  the  manufacturers  there,  owing  to  our  open  market,  were 
ready  to  use  the  higher- grade  barks  so  as  to  increase  their  product  without 
having  to  enlarge  their  apparatus.  Then  there  is  another  point  which 
is  worthy  of  notice.  These  barks  were  sold  here  by  commission-houses. 
They  received  a very  considerable  amount  for  themselves  and  the  coun- 
try in  the  way  of  commissions,  and  large  amounts  of  the  receipts  were 
returned  to  South  America  in  the  products  of  our  own  country  instead 
of  money.  A large  part  of  that  trade  is  n<3w  being  done  in  Europe.  I 
think  that  we  are  entitled  to  careful  consideration  at  your  hands.  We 
ask  for  nothing  but  simple  justice,  and  I am  happy  to  say  that  we  have 
with  us  to-day  such  well-known  chemical  manufacturers  as  Mr.  Rob- 
bins, of  New  York,  and  Mr.  Rosengarten,  of  Philadelphia,  both  princi- 
pals of  their  own  establishments  and  experts  in  their  line,  and  I hope 
you  will  question  them  in  regard  to  any  matter  on  which  you  desire  in- 
formation that  relates  to  the  business.  We  ask  protection  so  that  we 
may  at  least  stand  on  a par  with  European  manufacturers  and  not  be 
driven  out  of  the  business  entirely. 

By  Commissioner  M’Mahon  : 

Q.  What  rate  of  duty  do  you  recommend? — A.  One  of  the  gentlemen 
who  has  addressed  you  to-day  has  said  that  he  was  in  favor  of  letting 
well  enough  alone.  I differ  with  him,  as  he  represented  an  industry  well- 
protected,  and  ours  is  unprotected.  We  should  be  in  a position  where 
we  can  have  some  slight  protection.  If  we  can  have  all  the  duties  that 
now  exist  on  the  articles  we  use  removed,  a 10  p^r  cent,  protection 
would  be  helpful  to  us.  Without  the  removal  of  such  duties  we  should 
have  at  least  15  per  cent.*,  and  this,  1 think,  cannot  be  considered  as  an 
excessive  rate  of  protection. 


C.  A.  EOBBINS.] 


QUININE. 


245 


C.  A.  BOBBINS. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  27,  1882. 

Mr.  C.  A.  Bobbins,  of  the  firm  of  McKesson  & Bobbins,  of  New  York 
City,  druggists  and  quinine  manufacturers,  appeared  before  the  Com- 
mission and  made  the  following  statement: 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : Mr.  White 
has  stated  our  case  very  well,  but  I desire  to  say  that  Mr.  Bosengarten 
and  myself  are  both  here  as  manufacturers  of  chemicals,  to  answer  any 
questions  you  may  be  pleased  to  ask  in  regard  to  the  details  of  our  busi- 
ness. In  presenting  our  case  in  Washington  some  time  ago,  we  were  in- 
terrogated on  these  points,  and  it  has  occurred  to  me  that  perhaps  the 
Commission  would  like  to  put  some  questions  to  us  also,  on  points  it  is 
desired  to  have  developed. 

What  Mr.  White  has  said  is  entirely  correct.  Before  the  removal  of 
this  duty  we  had  one  factory  here  that  produced  more  quinine  than  any 
other  in  the  world.  It  must  be  taken  into  consideration  that  the  entire 
production  of  quinine  in  the  world  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  four  million 
ounces,  and  that  the  United  States  this  year  will  use  sixteen  hundred 
thousand  ounces.  Therefore  we  use  over  one-third  of  the  entire  produc- 
tion of  the  world.  We  have  five  factories  in  this  country,  some  of  them 
small.  There  are  about  thirteen  in  Europe.  At  the  time  of  the  removal 
of  the  duty  there  was  a factory  in  Milan  which  was  doing  a considera- 
ble business,  but  it  was  much  inferior  in  its  productive  capacity  to  one 
of  our  American  factories.  That  factory  has  consolidated  with  others 
now,  so  that  it  produces  more  than  one-half  of  the  quinine  used  in  the 
world^  and  practically  dictates  to  us  here  the  x>riee  at  which  we  shall 
sell  our  quinine,  and  tells  the  men  here  and  in  Europe  the  price  at  which 
they  shall  hold  their  barks.  Their  method  of  doing  business  is,  for 
many  reasons,  such  that  they  can  produce  tbeir  quinine  at  about  one- 
half  the  price  that  we  can  produce  ours  here. 

The  essentials  for  the  manufacture  of  quinine  are  practically  three. 
First,  the  cinchona  bark.  We  grind  that  bark,  and  treat  it  with  alkali, 
which  renders  the  alkaloid  soluble,  and  then  we  treat  it  with  a liquid 
to  extract  it.  At  present  we  use  South  American  and  East  Indian 
bark;  of  the  East  Indian  bark  we  use  very  little,  because  of  the  duty 
of  10  per  cent.  That  tax  comes  olf,  however,  on  the  1st  of  January 
next.  But  we  shall  be  very  much  hampered,  because  England  has  spent 
large  sums  of  money  in  the  establishment  of  plantations  in  Ceylon  and 
Jamaica  for  the  cultivation  of  the  cinchona  bark.  The  plantations  of 
Ceylon  are  estimated  to  contain  100,000,000  trees.  The  bark  ranges  in 
value  from  2 cents  to  $3.75,  and  from  its  external  appearance  jon  could 
not  tell  anything  more  about  it  than  you  could  about  the  gold  contained 
in  a piece  of  gold  ore.  All  that  bark  is  sent  to  England  to  be  sold  at  pub- 
lic auction,  necessarily,  it  being  owned  by  the  government.  Therefore,  if 
we  want  to  compete  with  those  barks,  we  have  to  send  our  private  analyst 
over  there  to  examine  them,  which  is  very  expensive,  while  these  men  in 
Europe  have  the  bark  sent  to  them,  and  they  return  their  analysis,  and 
buy  accordingly.  On  our  alkalies  the  tax  is  35  to  40  per  cent.  On  our 
solvents  we  are  taxed  also.  We  use  a solvent  called  fusel  oil,  which  is 


246 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[C.  A.  ROBBINS. 


an  alcohol.  That  is  subject  to  a duty,  if  we  import  it,  of  $2  per  gallon. 
If  we  do  not  import  it  we  use  the  fusel  oil  that  is  obtained  here.  We 
can  buy  it  in  Canada  at  18  cents  a gallon,  or  in  Europe  at  the  same 
price ; but  we  are  obliged  to  pay  35  to  40  cents  a gallon  for  it  on  account 
of  this  duty.  So  that  we  are  taxed  on  that  article  over  100  per  cent.; 
we  are  taxed  on  our  bark,  we  are  taxed  on  our  alkali,  and  then  we  are 
taxed  on  our  solvents.  Then  comes  the  machinery  to  make  it.  In  my 
own  factory,  using  200,000  ounces  of  quinine  a year,  we  have  32  boilers 
18  feet  high  and  4 feet  wide,  32  of  smaller  dimensions,  about  2 miles  of 
pipe,  and  three  engines.  These  things  all  go  to  waste  quickly  because 
of  the  acids  which  are  used  in  the  production,  and  those  are  all  more 
expensive  than  in  Europe.  We  cannot  compete  upon  equal  terms  with 
the  foreign  manufacturer  on  the  present  basis. 

The  manufacturer  in  Europe,  before  the  duty  was  taken  off,  had  more 
or  less  advantage  over  us,  but  now  that  consolidation  of  which  I spoke 
will  control  over  one-half  of  the  quinine  sold  in  the  world,  and  I think 
one-third  of  all  the  quinine  that  will  be  sold  to  the  United  States  this 
year  will  come  out  of  Europe. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  You  spoke  of  the  cost  of  production  being  doubled.  Do 
you  iuean  the  general  cost  of  production,  or  are  you  referring  only  to 
wages? — Answer.  I mean  the  general  cost  of  production.  If  it  costs 
$10  a bale  here  to  work  the  bark,  it  would  cost  only  $5  to  do  the  same 
thing  in  Europe.  It  is  very  much  like  reducing  gold  ores.  If  a bale 
of  the  bark  contains  three  per  cent,  of  quinine,  it  costs  no  more  to  get 
it  out  than  if  it  contains  one-half  or  one  per  cent,  of  quinine.  You  have 
got  to  work  so  much  of  the  crude  material. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  What  was  the  price  of  quinine  by  the  ounce  before  this  duty  was 
reduced? — A.  I have  the  figures  here.  In  round  numbers  it  was  be- 
tween three  and  four  dollars  an  ounce. 

Q.  What  was  the  price  after  the  reduction,  and  what  is  it  now*? — A. 
The  immediate  effect  of  the  reduction  of  the  duty  on  quinine  was  to  ad- 
vance the  price.  When  the  duty  was  reduced  in  1870,  the  price  was 
ranging  from  $3.60  to  $3.40,  and  in  1880  the  price  ranged  from  $3.25  to 
$2.25. 

Q.  What  is  the  price  now  ? — A.  The  price  of  quinine  is  now  $2. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  an  imposition  of  duty  on  quinine  of 
20  per  cent,  now  ? — A.  In  a general  way,  I do  not  think  a duty  on  or  off 
quinine  would  materially  change  the  price.  We  are  entirely  governed 
by  the  supply  of  bark,  which  is  our  crude  material. 

Q.  Does  not  the  bark  come  in  free  of  duty  now  ? — A.  The  bark  from 
South  America  comes  in  free.  On  the  bark  that  is  imported  from  the 
East  Indies  we  still  pay  a duty  of  10  per  cent.,  and  shall  continue  to 
until  the  1st  of  January  next. 

Q.  You  are  manufacturers  of  quinine,  and  you  still  continue  the  busi- 
ness?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  imposition  of  a duty  upon  quinine  would  reduce 
the  price  of  the  quinine  that  you  sell  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Would  it  increase  it  t — A.  1 say  that  I do  not  think  that  the  impo- 
sition of  a duty  would  have  any  material  effect  upon  the  price  to  the 
consumer. 

Q.  Then  why  do  you  want  it  ? — A.  Because  it  would  help  us  in  com- 
peting with  the  manufacturer  abroad.  The  tacts  are,  generally,  these : 


C.  A.  ROBBINS.] 


QUININE. 


247 


Tlie  foreign  manufacturer  makes  his  product  for  a year  at  a certain  price. 
He  finds  that  he  has  a surplus  of  quinine,  and  he  says,  UI  cannot  sell 
this  quinine  here,  because  I have  to  supply  my  customers  at  a certain 
price,  and  I want  to  send  it  as  far  away  as  I can  to  sell  it.”  And  he 
sends  it  to  America,  and,  as  a consequence,  we  have  the  surplusage  of 
the  quinine  manufacturers  of  all  Europe. 

Q.  Is  not  that  true  in  reference  to  any  other  article  that  is  manufac- 
tured abroad  when  they  get  an  oversupply  ? — A.  It  is  possible. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  is  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  manufacture  of 
quinine  in  the  United  States,  in  round  figures  ? — A.  It  would  be  very 
difficult  to  answer  that  question,  for  this  reason:  About  all  the  manu- 
facturers of  quinine  in  the  United  States  are  largely  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  other  materials  as  well ; they  manufacture  perhaps  three 
hundred  other  preparations.  For  the  production  of  200,000  ounces  of 
quinine  (our  present  stock)  our  present  investment,  including  the  bark 
we  have  on  hand,  is  probably  worth  $150,000. 

I would  like  to  make  one  statement  in  regard  to  the  low  prices  of  bark 
we  have  here.  Three  years  ago  there  was  a discovery  made  in  South 
America  of  a new  district  from  which  a large  supply  of  the  cinchona 
has  been  obtained.  If  that  new  supply  had  not  been  discovered,  I think 
that  the  price  of  quinine  this  year  would  have  been  between  $4  and  $5 
an  ounce.  The  supply  of  bark  was  becoming  very  low,  and,  as  I say, 
several  large  forests  were  discovered,  from  which  there  will  probably  be 
obtained  at  least  one  hundred  thousand  bales  of  bark,  which  is  of  a 
richer  variety  than  the  average  bark  we  have  known  for  years.  Of 
course  this  has  had  the  effect  of  reducing  the  price  of  the  bark,  because 
it  threw  such  a large  quantity  of  it  upon  the  market,  and  1 think  the 
low  price  of  quinine  at  present  is  due  more  to  that  fact  than  to  any 
other. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  give  us,  in  a general  way,  the  difference  in  the 
cost  of  the  bark  in  the  year  1879  and  the  present  time;  that  is,  the 
price  of  it  per  bale,  tor  instance? — A.  In  1879,  the  price  of  the  bark 
varied  so  much,  and  the  character  of  the  bark  was  so  different,  that  I 
could  not  say,  off-hand,  what  the  average  price  was,  but  I will  take 
pleasure  in  sending  a written  statement  which  will  give  you  that  infor- 
mation. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  What  number  of  operatives  do  you  suppose  are  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  ol  quinine  in  the  United  States  ? — A.  Boughly  estimated, 
I should  say  perhaps  500  persons. 

Q.  What  is  the  largest  quantity  of  quinine  ever  manufactured  in  the 
United  States? — A.  The  largest  quantity  manufactured  in  the  United 
States  was  probably  something  over  a million  ounces.  That  was  imme- 
diately preceding  the  reduction  of  the  duty.  The  world’s  consumption 
of  quinine  has  increased  very  rapidly  within  the  lust  live  years,  and  in 
the  United  States  its  consumption  has  probably  increased  at  least  one- 
third  within  the  last  two  years. 

Q.  If  you  could  manufacture  two  hundred  thousand  ounces  of  qui- 
nine upon  an  investment  of  $150,000,  would  it  be  fair  to  say  that  to 
manufacture  a million  ounces,  the  figures  would  be  in  about  the  same 
proportion? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  that  would  be  a fair  estimate. 

Beference  has  been  made  to  the  existing  condition  of  aff  airs  in  Europe 


248 


TAEIFF  COMMISSION. 


[C.  A.  ROBBIA'S. 


as  regards  qninine.  There  is  a very  complex  state  of  affairs  existing 
there  now.  This  Cnprea  district  that  has  been  spoken  of  is  now  prac- 
tically exhausted,  and  one  large  firm  in  London  (who  were  consignees), 
knowing  that  this  was  going  to  occur,  being  under  large  advances  for 
bark,  formed  a bark  syndicate,  whereby  they  have  entire  control  at 
present  of  40,000  bales  of  this  rich  Cuprea  bark.  This  forms  a large 
percentage  of  all  the  bark  existing  in  the  world.  There  is  also  what  is 
called  a quinine  syndicate,  but  which  is  really  a syndicate  of  one  man 
controlling  different  factories.  It  is  for  his  interest  to  get  all  that  bark 
into  his  own  hands.  Therefore  he  says  to  the  owners  of  the  bark : 44  You 
shall  not  sell  that  bark  to  am  body  else  but  to  me.  If  you  offer  that 
bark  to  anybody  else,  I shall  put  my  prices  down.”  Within  three  weeks 
there  came  a spurt  on  some  demand  from  the  West,  and  the  price  stiff- 
ened. This  gentleman  cabled  over  to  his  agent  here  : 44  Supply  freely 
at  2J  cents  below  the  market  price.”  And  that  is  the  way  he  is  keep- 
ing the  price  down,  so  that  they  shall  not  unload  until  they  unload  to 
bim.  Five  weeks  ago  when  I was  in  London,  the  very  appearance  of 
this  man  on  the  streets  led  some  people  to  the  conclusion  that  perhaps 
the  bark  and  qninine  syndicate  would  come  together,  and  that  was  suf- 
ficient to  put  up  the  price  of  quinine  one  shilling  an  ounce.  Yon  can 
see,  therefore,  the  position  that  we  who  are  on  the  outside  of  this  thing 
are  in. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  I would  like  to  ask  you  whether,  notwithstanding  these  disad- 
vantages of  which  you  have  spoken — this  European  combination  or 
syndicate,  &c. — the  price  of  quinine  has  not  continually  declined? — A. 
Yes,  sir ; it  has  declined ; but  about  the  time  the  duty  on  quinine  was 
taken  off,  this  district,  of  which  I have  spoken,  producing  100,000  bales 
and  over  of  the  richest  kind  of  bark  in  the  market,  was  discovered. 
Had  that  discovery  not  occurred  there  is  no  doubt  that  quinine  would 
have  been  very  high.  We  are  shorter  now  of  other  grades  of  bark,  ex- 
cept this,  than  ever  before.  This  was  a most  unusual  thing,  and  nobody 
expected  such  a discovery  would  be  made.  My  advices  are  that  large 
sections  of  the  country  in  South  America  have  been  explored  to  see  if 
there  are  similar  forests,  but  it  is  believed  that  none  exist.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  tree  which  produces  this  quality  of  bark,  is  not,  strictly  speak- 
ing, the  cinchona  tree.  This  accounts  for  the  present  low  price  of 
quinine. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  It  was  stated  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  appeared  before  us 
that  there  has  been  a large  number  of  trees  planted  in  the  island  of 
Jamaica.  Was  there  any  bounty  given  to  the  people  of  Jamaica  in 
order  to  induce  them  to  plant  these  trees,  or  was  there  any  preference 
given  to  them  to  induce  them  to  sell  the  bark  to  English  rather  than  to 
American  consumers  ? — A.  The  trees  were  planted  by  the  government 
at  its  own  expense,  and  the  plantations  are  being  maintained  by  the 
government.  The  bark  has  to  be  sent  to  London,  necessarily,  to  be 
sold.  Wheu  I was  in  Jamaica  I tried  to  make  some  arrangements  to 
secure  a portion  of  the  crop  for  this  country,  but  I found  that  it  was 
impossible  to  do  so. 

I desire  also  to  state  that  the  quinine  that  sells  for  82,  is  generally  in 
ounce  bottles.  It  costs  8 cents  to  put  it  iu  the  bottles,  which  makes  it 
$1.92  net.  In  the  present  condition  of  the  market,  barks  cannot  be 
bought  in  any  quantity,  except  a very  few  odd  lots  of  bales,  possibly,  to 
produce  quinine  at  that  price.  Bark  could  be  bought  four  weeks  ago 


QUININE. 


C.  A.  ROBBIA'S.] 


249 


which  would  make  the  cost  in  the  neighborhood  of  $1.81  to  manufacture 
quinine,  which  we  are  now  selling  at  $1.92. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  is  the  average  cost  per  grain ? — A.  It  runs  from  1 to  2 cents. 
The  general  price  is  1 J to  2 cents  a grain  for  it.  That  gives  the  retailer 
between  $8  and  $9  an  ounce  for  quinine  which  costs  $2. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Are  you,  then,  making  it  substantially  at  a loss,  at  this  time? — A. 
We  are  not  buying  bark  now.  If  I were  to  buy  the  bark  to-day,  I should 
make  it  at  a loss. 

Q.  Why  do  you  continue  to  make  it  at  a loss ; is  it  to  enable  you  to  carry 
out  your  arrangements  with  your  customers? — A.  We  are  manufactur- 
ing now  from  the  stock  of  bark  that  we  have  had  on  hand  for  some 
time.  I went  down  to  South  America  myself  and  bought  300,000  pounds 
of  bark,  took  the  risk  of  shipping  it,  paid  all  the  expenses  of  shipment, 
and  at  present  am  using  largely  that  baik.  But  at  present  it  cannot  be 
bought  and  manufactured  except  at  a loss.  Next  week  it  may  change. 
The  present  price  of  bark  in  New  York  is  caused  by  this  sudden  dis- 
covery of  which  I spoke. 

Q.  Taking  the  business  for  the  last  year  or  two,  have  you  been  making 
it  at  a profit ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I have  been  making  it  at  a profit,  for  the 
reasons  stated.  I cannot  say  what  the  other  manufacturers  are  doing. 
Some  say  that  they  are  not  manufacturing  it  at  a profit.  The  barks 
come  now  only  from  South  America  and  from  the  East  Indies  and 
Jamaica. 


250 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[S.  G.  kosengauten. 


S.  G.  ROSEYGARTEX. 

Long  Branch,  Y.  J.,  July  27, 1882. 

Mr.  S.  G.  Rosexgarten,  of  Philadelphia,  representing  the  manufact- 
urers of  quinine,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  follow- 
ing statement: 

I do  not  know  that  I can  say  anything  in  addition  to  what  has  been 
said  by  the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me.  I agree  with  all  that 
has  been  said  here  to  day  upon  the  subject,  and  would  be  glad  to  respond 
to  any  questions  which  the  Commission  may  see  fit  to  put  to  me.  There 
is  only  one  thing  in  which  I differ  from  Mr.  Bobbins,  and  that  is  in  re- 
gard to  the  tariff  not  making  the  article  any  higher.  As  I understand 
it,  the  object  of  the  tariff*  is  to  make  the  article  higher,  otherwise  there 
would  be  no  advantage  in  having  a tariff,  which  I can  see.  The  same 
principle  applies  to  everything.  Our  labor  is  higher,  and  we  cannot 
possibly  obtain  labor  at  the  same  rate  that  they  do  abroad.  When  I first 
went  into  the  business  nearly  the  whole  of  the  bark  came  to  Yew  York. 
The  Calisaya  bark  generally  came  to  the  house  of  Alsop  & Co.,  an 
American  house,  and  Yew  York  was  the  headquarters  of  the  bark  trade. 
What  we  did  not  buy  here  was  shipped  to  Europe.  Since  that  time  the 
whole  business  has  been  entirely  changed.  London  is  now  the  head- 
quarters, and  the  great  center  of  the  business,  and  dictates  to  the  rest  of 
the  world ; the  bark  business  is  concentrated  there.  The  principal  part 
of  the  bark  is  now  held  by  a bark  syndicate,  the  quiuine  is  held  and 
managed  by  the  European  manufacturers,  and  we  are  at  a great  disad- 
vantage. We  coutinue  the  business  because  we  have  been  in  it  for 
many  years  and  have  onr  regular  customers,  and  we  purpose  to  carry  it 
on  to  the  extent  that  suits  us. 

But  that  is  not  the  true  condition  for  a business  of  that  kind  to  be  in, 
especially  in  a great  country  like  ours.  In  case  of  a war  or  a sudden 
demand  we  have  no  reserve  upon  which  we  can  draw.  We  have  no 
quinine  ourselves  in  any  large  quantities,  and  Powers  & Weightman 
have  no  large  quantity  on  hand.  I do  not  see  how  a 10  per  cent,  duty 
would  be  of  much  benefit  to  us,  because  that  would  not  put  us  on  a 
footing  with  the  European  producer.  Ten  per  cent,  would  just  about 
counterbalance  our  other  disadvantages,  and  anything  beyond  that 
would  place  us,  I suppose,  where  other  industries  are.  Twenty  per  cent, 
seems  to  me  a pretty  moderate  duty  on  the  manufactured  article.  That 
the  manufacture  of  quiuine  is  essential  in  this  country,  I think  hardly 
anybody  can  deny.  Why  the  duty  was  taken  off  it  is  difficult  to  see. 
It  was  probably  done  as  a political  measure,  partly  because  the  manu- 
facturers were  the  weakest  and  were  attacked  first,  and  were  not  prop- 
erly supported  by  other  manufacturers  who  were  not  awake  to  the  rea- 
sons and  causes  of  such  action,  which  was  afterwards  plainly  stated  by 
the  free-traders. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  You  say  that  in  case  of  a war  there  would  be  no  surplus  stock 
on  hand  in  this  country  from  which  we  could  draw  our  own  supply.  In 


8.  G.  ROSEN G AIITEX . ] 


QUININE. 


251 


that  case  would  not  tlie  great  market  for  the  supply  be  in  London? — An- 
swer. Yes,  sir.  If  the  business  was  renewed  and  became  profitable,  we 
could  carry  large  stocks  of  bark,  and  of  quinine  too.  We  have  carried 
large  stocks  in  the  past,  and  the  most  of  the  money  that  has  been  made 
in  the  business  has  been  made  by  the  carrying  of  these  large  stocks, 
bought  at  prices  which  we  supposed  were  moderate  or  low,  and  then  by 
a change  of  circumstances  and  growing  scarcity  the  price  went  up  and 
we  availed  ourselves  of  it. 

Q.  Have  you  any  advantage  at  all  to  compensate  you  for  the  disad- 
vantages which  have  been  named? — A.  I am  glad  that  you  asked  me 
that  question,  because  I desire  to  state  that  I do  not  know  of  any  ad- 
vantage that  we  have  in  this  country  in  the  business. 

Q.  Is  it  not  one  great  advantage  that  you  have  a large  market  which 
is  contiguous? — A.  That  would  be  an  advantage,  of  course,  if  we  had  a 
large  trade  in  the  article ; but  it  is  not  enough  to  enable  us  to  compete 
with  the  foreign  manufacturers  on  the  present  basis.  These  foreign  pro- 
ducers have  appointed  an  agent  in  New  York  within  the  last  two  months 
to  represent  them  in  this  country. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  What  precise  meaning  do  you  attach  to  the  fact  that  you  stated 
that  the  bark  and  quinine  business  on  the  other  side  was  managed  by 
a syndicate?  Do  you  mean  there  is  an  understanding  among  the  man- 
ufacturers there  to  get  up  what  we  call  in  this  country  a u ring,”  so 
that  they  can  control  prices? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  it  is  more  than  that;  it 
is  a direct  combination.  The  Milan  house  is  directed  by  a gentleman 
named  Boehringer— a very  bold  and  enterprising  man — and  he  has  made 
combinations  with  other  houses  in  Europe,  and  they  have  bought  Pel- 
letier’s establishment  in  Paris  and  converted  the  business  into  a stock 
company,  so  that  the  three  largest  factories  in  Europe  act  under  one 
head — the  house  of  Alexander  Boehringer. 

Q.  I understand  30U  to  say  that  a moderate  tariff  on  quinine,  not  ex- 
ceeding 20  per  cent.,  and  certainly  equal  to  10  per  cent.,  is  necessary  for 
the  continued  manufacture  of  the  article  in  this  country? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
as  a business.  We  should  keep  on  manufacturing  it,  of  course,  under 
any  circumstances,  in  order  to  supply  our  customers;  but  to  make  a 
successful  business  we  must  have  some  protection.  You  can  see  from 
the  figures  which  have  been  presented  to  you  how  the  business  has  fal- 
len off. 

Q.  What  I am  trying  to  elucidate  is  this,  whether,  without  this  duty, 
you  would  be  disposed  to  quit  the  business,  or  might  be  compelled  to 
quit  it,  being  undersold  by  European  manufactories  which,  I under- 
stand you  to  say,  are  being  managed  and  controlled  by  one  party.  If 
3 011  were  compelled  to  quit  the  business,  would  that  not  be(  putting  the 
American  market  entirely  at  the  disposal  of  that  European  combina- 
tion f — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  would  they  not  then  charge  us  for  quinine  just  what  price 
they  thought  proper  ? — A.  I think  they  would.  There  might  be  other 
things  which  would  come  into  relation  with  the  business  that  would 
prevent  their  charging  too  much.  There  are  other  European  manufact- 
urers that  are  not  in  this  syndicate.  There  is  one  house  in  London  and 
another  in  Brunswick — a large  house  which  does  not  act  with  this  syn- 
dicate of  united  manufacturers.  But  they  practically  control  and  the3r 
keep  the  price  down  now  because  it  suits  them,  and  when  it  suits  them 
they  will  put  it  up.  That  is  their  business,  to  make  money  for  their 
stock  holders.  This  Milan  house  is  a stock  concern.  They  have  great 


252 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ S.  G.  ROSENGARTEN. 


advantages  in  Italy.  In  addition  to  liavmg  cheap  labor,  they  have  a 
good  domestic  market  and  are  protected.  The  Italian  tariff  is  a protect- 
ive tariff. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  claim,  of  course,  that  the  article  is  a prime  necessity  for  the 
people,  and  I suppose  we  all  admit  that.  Now  tell  me,  in  case  com- 
munication should  be  cut  off  between  this  country  and  Europe,  how 
long  it  would  be,  under  the  present  condition  of  affairs,  before  the  prices 
would  appreciate — how  quickly  would  they  appreciate '? — A.  In  our 
case  we  would  not  have  enough  to  get  along  from  day  to  day  hardly ; 
certainly  not  enough  to  last  two  weeks.  We  buy  bark  as  we  want  it; 
we  cannot  do  otherwise. 

Q.  How  long  would  it  be  until  you  could  get  a supply  of  bark  from 
South  America  in  the  event  of  such  an  interruption  of  communication 
between  this  country  and  Europe  ? — A.  We  could  get  it  to  New  Yrork 
in  two  or  three  weeks  from  the  northern  parts  of  South  America.  We 
have  in  the  past  carried  a supply  that  would  last  under  the  same  cir- 
cumstances four  months,  but  now  it  would  not  last  more  than  four  weeks 
at  the  utmost.  I have  no  hesitation  at  all  in  saying  that  there  is  no 
profit  in  the  business  under  the  present  existing  conditions.  One  great 
feature  which  causes  the  price  of  quinine  to  be  kept  down  is  that  the 
European  establishments,  especially  the  one  at  Milan,  are  selling  at  a 
low  price  for  a double  purpose.  One  of  their  purposes  is  to  drive  us  out 
of  the  business  if  they  can,  and  the  other  purpose  is  to  put  down  the 
price  of  bark.  They  are  acting  as  the  bear  element  now.  How  long 
they  will  act  in  that  way  it  is  impossible  to  say. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Does  your  statement  embrace  the  facts  as  they  have  existed  for  a 
year  or  two  past,  or  does  it  relate  only  to  the  present  time  ? — A.  It  re- 
lates to  the  past  two  years. 

Q.  Then  why  do  you  continue  the  manufacture  of  quinine  at  a loss  ? — 
A.  We  do  not  think  it  a sufficient  reason  to  give  up  the  business  because 
it  happens  to  be  bad  for  a year  or  two.  We  are  hoping  that  it  will  im- 
prove, and  that  we  may  get  the  duty  reimposed  on  the  imported  pro- 
duct. The  appointment  of  a tariff  commission  is  one  of  the  reasons  that 
leads  us  to  hope  that  the  business  will  be  better  in  the  future. 


JAMES  HENDRICK.  J 


ANILINE  DYES. 


253 


JAMES  HENJDBICK. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  27,  1882. 

Mr.  James  Hendrick,  president  of  the  Albany  Aniline  and  Chemical 
Works,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  appeared  before  the  Commission,  upon  its  invita- 
tion, and  made  the  following  statement: 

The  history  of  our  business  is  simply  this.  In  1866  my  attention 
was  called  to  the  manufacture  of  aniline  dyes,  and  I considered  it  a 
legitimate  manufacture  in  this  country  which  ought  to  be  developed. 
Some  gentlemen  associated  themselves  together  and  we  purchased  the 
establishment  of  T.  and  C.  Holliday,  the  only  establishment  of  that  kind 
then  in  this  country,  and  began  the  manufacture  in  Albany  of  this  article, 
putting  in  at  first  about  $25,000  and  subsequently  increasing  the  amount 
to  $100,000.  We  lost  that  amount  of  money  and  $50,000  additional  in 
the  business.  In  1872  I took  personal  charge  of  the  manufacture,  and, 
applying  to  it  practical  business  principles,  found  it  could  be  made  a 
success  in  certain  directions.  I emasculated  everything  from  the  manu- 
facture except  the  article  of  u aniline  red.”  We  continued  the  manufact- 
ure of  aniline  red  for  seven  or  eight  years  and  made  an  article,  ac- 
knowledged by  all  manufacturers  in  this  country  as  well  as  those  who 
know  of  it  in  Europe,  to  be  equal  to  anything  made  abroad.  The  price 
of  it  at  that  time  was  $6.50  in  gold.  We  are  selling  it  now  at  $2.25, 
and  are  supplying  the  manufacturers  of  New  England,  and  to-day  they 
are  giving  us  orders  for  more  than  we  can  make  of  it.  As  I presume 
you  are  all  aware,  all  these  aniline  colors  are  made  from  an  oil  procured 
from  coal  tar — the  benzole  made  from  coal  tar.  We  have  been  obliged 
to  import  that  because  of  the  difficulty  of  getting  it  in  this  country  in 
large  enough  quantities  to  distill  it.  We  have  been  importing  all  of  this 
oil  that  we  required,  but  now  we  are  manufacturing  it  a little.  I have  in 
my  pocket  a sample  of  analine  oil  manufacturd  from  benzole,  which  is, 
in  turn,  manufactured  from  the  residuum  of  petroleum.  I have  also  a 
sample  of  cloth  dyed  with  the  various  colors  that  we  make  ourselves. 
These  dyes  we  make  in  our  factory,  but  not  in  large  quantities  We  are 
putting  up  machinery  now  which  will  enable  us  to  manufacture  on  a 
larger  scale. 

The  Pacific  Mills  and  other  like  manufactories  in  this  country  ex- 
press the  strongest  hope  that  we  shall  receive  from  you  the  en- 
couragement we  are  entitled  to.  In  a letter  addressed  to  me  within 
a week  by  Mr.  Saltonstall,  the  treasurer,  he  said  there  were  some  im- 
porters, or  the  agents  of  foreign  color  companies  going  through  the 
mills  in  New  England,  expecting  to  get  a petition  signed  in  favor  of  the 
reduction  of  the  duty  on  aniline  colors,  and  he  said  they  would  have  no 
sympathy  from  them  and  cautioned  me  against  them.  I have  no  doubt 
you  will  have  an  application  to  this  effect.  I have  not  come  here  to  tell 
you  what  you  shall  do.  I can  only  point  you  to  the  evidence  we  have 
of  what  we  have  done  in  our  little  way  toward  reducing  the  price  from 
$6.50  to  $2.25,  and  we  purpose  continuing  that  warfare.  Wre  have  not 
made  a large  amount  of  money,  and  every  dollar  we  have  made,  we 
have  spent  in  improving  the  manufacture  of  these  colors,  so  that  the 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  HENDRICK. 


254 


investments  we  have  made  from  the  year  1SG6  up  to  the  present  time, 
have  not  yielded  us  1J  per  cent,  on  our  money.  But  we  are  developing 
the  business  we  have  helped  to  create  and  the  country  is  getting  a 
benefit.  I will  leave  you  samples  of  these  colors  I have  referred  to. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  As  I understand  the  matter,  this  is  the  product  you  obtain 
from  the  residuum  of  petroleum,  and  you  are  still  continuing  your  experi- 
ments endeavoring  to  extend  the  number  of  colors  to  be  made? — Answer. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I do  not  understand  that  you  now  make  a multitude  of  colors,  so  as 
to  be  able  to  put  them  on  the  market? — A.  Not  all  of  them.  We  are 
manufacturing  the  colors  I have  exhibited. 

Q.  From  these  experiments  which  you  have  made  you  think  you  can 
make  a variety  of  colors,  and  are  putting  in  the  machinery  now  for  that 
purpose? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  has  been  suggested  here  that  the  raw  material  for  making  these 
colors  is  not  obtainable  in  the  United  States.  Is  that  the  fact,  and,  if  so, 
what  is  the  cause  of  it?— A.  It  is  a fact,  for  this  reason : That,  as  I en- 
deavored to  explain,  the  gas-tar  was  not  gathered  in  sufficient  quantities 
in  this  country  to  make  the  benzole,  and  the  expense  of  distilling  benzole 
into  aniline  oil  has  been  too  large  for  any  party  to  engage  in  it.  But 
there  are  two  parties  now  making  benzole,  the  Yew  York  Coal  Tar  Com- 
pany and  one  other,  and  they  are’exporting  benzole,  and  we  are  import- 
ing the  oil.  If  we  get  the  oil  industry  started,  as  we  expect  to  do,  we 
shall  not  be  dependent  on  foreigners  for  our  oil,  but  they  will  be  depend- 
ent on  us. 

Q.  Have  you  taken  any  steps  towards  producing  this  aniline  oil  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir ; contracts  are  out  for  $35,000  worth  of  apparatus  with  which 
to  manufacture  it,  and  I have  a chemist  here  from  France  to  superintend 
the  work. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  making  these  other  colors ; I do  not  mean 
the  aniline  red  ? — A.  Not  more  than  about  two  years. 

Q.  Are  there  any  other  firms  in  the  United  States  engaged  in. the 
manufacture  of  these  aniline  colors? — A.  There  are  three  or  four,  I think. 
There  is  the  firm  of  T.  & C.  Holliday,  in  Williamsburg,  N.  Y.,  another 
one  in  West  Virginia,  and  one  in  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  Tiiose  are  the  only 
three  I know  of;  I have  heard  of  others. 

Q.  Up  to  this  time,  as  I understand  you,  this  has  been  an  unprofitable 
experiment? — A.  I cannot  say  that;  but  we  have  been  spending  a large 
amount  of  money. 

Q.  Have  you  been  able  to  make  aniline  red  at  a profit? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
we  have  been  making  it  at  a profit,  but  all  the  profit  we  have  reinvested. 
We  have  upwards  of  $250,000  invested  in  the  business  in  buildings  and 
machinery,  and  this  will  be  the  result  of  the  profits  for  the  last  ten  or 
twelve  years. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Are  these  colors  fast  colors? — A.  They  are  as  fast  as  colors  can  be 
made.  All  aniline  colors  are  a little  fugitive ; that  is  to  say,  the  sun  will 
fade  them  somewhat.  All  the  red  garments  you  wear  are  made  from 
them,  every  one  of  them.  We  have  everything  in  this  country  that  is 
necessary  to  manufacture  aniline  dyes.  We  have  brains  enough  to  do 
t ; and  I think  we  are  as  able  to  make  them  as  any  foreigner  is. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  I am  requested  to  inquire  of  you  (and  your  answer  can  be  given 


JAMES  HENDRICK.] 


ANILINE  DYES. 


255 


now,  or  hereafter,  in  writing)  what  you  would  regard  as  a sufficient 
duty  for  the  protection  of  your  manufacture  ? — A.  My  individual  opinion 
would  perhaps  be  of  no  more  value  than  the  opinion  of  any  other  person. 
We  do  not  want  to  make  a great  fortune  by  large  protection.  1 think, 
perhaps,  that  a fixed  duty  of  $1  per  pound  would  be  preferable  to  the 
duty  of  50  cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Q.  Would  not  that  operate  very  unequally  in  this  respect,  that  some 
of  these  colors  are  very  much  more  expensive  to  produce  than  others  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  remedy  to  propose  as  to  that;  that  is,  can  you  sug- 
gest any  mode  of  making  the  rates  equal  ? — A.  No,  sir ; if  I were  to 
suggest  a plan  I should  say  let  well  enough  alone ; let  the  business  go 
along  until  it  is  better  developed,  and  it  will  regulate  itself  by  and  by. 
I believe  the  great  curse  of  the  country  to-day  is  change  in  these  laws; 
and  I think  the  less  we  change  the  tariff,  as  it  affects  commercial  and 
manufacturing  interests,  the  better.  It  is  a trite  saying,  attributed  to 
President  Lincoln,  that  you  should  never  swap  your  horses  when  cross- 
ing a stream.  I think  that  principle  should  apply  in  this  case,  and 
that  when  we  are  trying  to  develop  a business  it  is  n<^  well  to  change 
the  laws  affecting  it  too  often. 

Q.  It  is  complained  that  this  is  an  unequal  duty.  The  only  purpose  I 
had  in  asking  the  question  was  to  ascertain  whether  you  had  anything 
to  suggest  which  would  make  it  an  equal  duty;  and  I now  ask  you  spe- 
cifically, would  an  ad  valorem  duty,  at  a proper  percentage,  be  a fair 
duty  ? — A.  It  would  if  you  could  get  at  the  ad  valorem ; that  is  the 
great  difficulty.  The  manufacturers  on  the  other  side  of  the  water  are 
exceedingly  smart,  and  they  will  tamper  with  colors,  and  represent  one 
color  to  be  a different  color;  and  the  difficulty  is  in  getting  competent 
men  wrho  know  the  value  of  an  article,  and  will  place  the  true  ad  valorem 
on  it.  I have  heard  of  expensive  colors  being  introduced  under  a new 
name  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  duty.  Therefore,  I say  the  other  way  is 
the  more  equitable  method. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  1 understood  you  to  say,  in  regard  to  the  supply  of  the  raw  material, 
that  you  were  importing  it  from  abroad? — A.  We  have  imported  all 
the  raw  material  of  which  we  make  these  colors,  and  are  doing  so  to- 
day. 

Q.  Is  there  not  enough  material  in  this  country,  if  it  was  collected 
properly,  to  furnish  the  supply,  or  what  is  the  difficulty? — A.  The  diffi- 
culty bas  been  that  it  was  not  profitable  to  go  into  that  branch  of  the 
business.  The  tar  yields  f to  1 per  cent,  of  benzole,  both  the  American 
and  the  English  tar. 

Q.  Is  the  English  tar  better  adapted  to  the  purpose? — A.  It  is  one- 
eighth  of  1 per  cent,  richer,  that  is  all.  But  we  think  the  American  tar 
would  be  quite  as  good,  the  only  difficulty  is  in  getting  it  together  and 
carrying  it  from  one  place  to  another,  which  would  add  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation. 

Q.  Then  I understand  there  is  enough  of  that  material  in  this  country, 
but  the  difficulty  is  in  getting  it  together? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Even  if  this 
product  of  petroleum  fails,  which  I think  it  will  not  do,  there  would  be 
an  abundance  for  our  own  use  and  that  of  Europe  besides;  I mean  of 
the  benzole  extracted  from  tar. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  If  it  should  be  decided  to  apply  an  exclusively  ad  valorem  duty, 
what  rate  would  you  recommend? — A.  I think  about  35  per  cent,  would 


256 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  HENDRICK. 


be  fair;  that  is  my  impression  about  it.  I should  make  as  few  changes 
as  I could. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Would  it  be  possible  for  you  to  furnish  the  Commission  with  a 
schedule  of  duties  on  these  different  articles  which  would  enable  the 
government  to  collect  duties  without  ambiguity  and  the  commission  of 
fraud  ? — A.  Not  unless  you  can  make  men  perfectly  honest.  If  we  had 
honest  men  everywhere,  there  would  be  no  trouble.  There  would  be 
no  difficulty  in  enforcing  such  a schedule  in  case  men  did  not  resort  to 
dishonest  practices.  In  that  case  I think  35  per  cent,  would  be  about 
a fair  rate.  I think  we  could  live  if  it  were  fixed  at  that  figure. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  think  specific  duties  are  better  for  the  government  and  for 
the  parties  concerned  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Specific  duties  I believe  in,  be- 
cause they  are  easily  collectible,  and  men  have  no  disposition  to  be  dis- 
honest; but  with  ad  valorem  duties  the  temptation  to  fraud  is  greater. 
That  is  my  view  of  that  matter.  I will  leave  you  these  samples  that  I 
have  referred  tj  in  my  statement,  and,  if  you  desire,  I will  give  you 
any  further  information  I possess,  from  our  books  or  in  any  other  way. 


ALEX.  E.  KURSHEEDT.] 


EMBROIDERIES. 


257 


ALEXANDER  E.  KURSHEEDT. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  27,  1882. 

Mr.  Alexander  E.  Kursheedt,  of  New  York,  representing  the 
manufacture  of  neck- wear,  laces,  embroideries,  &c.,  appeared  before  the 
Commission  and  made  the  following  statement : 

I desire  to  make  a few  personal  explanations  before  proceeding  with 
my  statement,  in  order  that  the  Commission  may  understand  the  nature 
of  our  business,  which  is  a somewhat  special  one  in  this  country,  although 
there  are  many  in  our  line  of  manufacture,  it  was  stated  in  the  morn- 
ing papers  that  we  had  requested  a hearing  in  behalf  of  the  silk  associ- 
ation. The  Silk  Association  of  America  is  an  organized  body,  and  they 
expect  to  be  heard  themselves  in  due  course  of  time.  We  expect  that 
we  shall  harmonize  with  the  views  laid  before  yon  by  the  silk  associa- 
tion in  reference  to  any  proposed  changes  asked  by  the  silk  manufact- 
urers, although  there  will  be,  of  course,  many  anomalies  arising  in  regard 
to  several  features  which  will  then  be  presented.  I desire  also  to  dis- 
tinguish in  my  remarks  between  the  importers,  who  are  the  distributing 
houses  as  well,  and  those  foreign  houses  who  import,  having  a house  in 
some  city  in  Europe,  and  a commission  agent  representing  them  here. 
In  speaking  of  the  importers  I do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  referring 
at  all  to  the  distributing  houses  in  this  country,  because  they  are  mer- 
chants and  traders,  and  are  forced  to  buy  where  they  can  buy  the 
cheapest.  They  will  buy  foreign  or  domestic  manufactures,  and  they 
will  give  their  orders  to  foreign  commission  houses  if  we  are  unable  to 
compete  with  them.  I only  refer,  therefore,  when  I speak  of  importers, 
to  those  houses  wtiich  are  doing  business  in  that  way,  and  desire  to  say 
that  we  are  seriously  injured  by  their  method  of  doing  business.  Of 
course,  in  speaking  of  commission  houses  and  the  importers  and  dealers 
generally,  I refer  only  to  the  dry  goods  and  fancy  goods  trade,  and 
those  trades  that  distribute  manufactures  of  woolen,  silk,  and  cotton 
goods,  and  the  like.  I also  wish  to  speak  of  raw  materials.  Articles 
which  are  regarded  as  raw  materials  by  the  spinners  and  weavers,  ot 
course  do  not  include  what  we  consider  as  raw  materials,  because  we 
use  many  articles  which  have  passed  through  several  processes  before 
they  reach  us,  and  before  they  are  of  any  use  to  us  to  make  the  goods 
which  we  produce  as  the  finished  article. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Is  this  a preliminary  statement  that  you  are  going  to  make, 
or  areyou  ready  to  submit  a full  statement  % — Answer.  It  is  a preliminary 
statement.  To  illustrate  this  matter  I will  first  speak  in  regard  to  em- 
broideries. The  term  embroidery  implies  that  there  must  be  a founda- 
tion fabric,  and  also  a thread  used  by  hand  or  by  machine  to  do  the 
embroidery  work.  If  a fabric  pays  a duty  of  100  per  cent.,  and  the 
embroidery  thread  pays  a duty  of  60  per  cent.,  and  owing  to  some  am- 
biguity in  the  wording  of  the  duty,  the  imported  article  is  put  at  35  per 
cent.,  we  are  entirely  shut  out  from  competition.  This  is  an  anomaly  I 
wish  to  speak  of  hereafter.  I desire  to  exhibit  to  you  now  a few  sam- 
ples. Here  is  an  article  of  ruches. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Are  you  manufacturing  these  goods  in  this  country  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

H.  Mis.  6 17 


258 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEX.  E.  KURSHEEDT. 


Q.  Where  is  your  factory?— A.  We  have  several  factories  in  New 
York  City.  I represent  not  only  our  own  concern,  but  other  houses  in 
this  business  as  well.  This  is  a material  [exhibiting]  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  these  ruches.  It  is  of  French  manufacture,  and  is  made  in 
Lyons.  It  is  all  silk,  and  it  comes  in  paying  60  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
duty.  It  is  an  article  which  has  never  been  made,  and  cannot  be  made, 
in  this  country.  I have  seen  and  conferred  with  the  principal  manu- 
facturers of  silk  goods  in  this  country,  and  they  do  not  intend  or  desire 
to  make  it.  It  is  called  crepe  lisse.  Crepe  is  one  of  the  principal  manu- 
factures of  Lyons,  and  it  is  made  to  the  extent  of  several  hundred  thou- 
sand pieces  annually.  We  have  to  pay  a 60  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty 
upon  it,  and  can  only  make  these  ruches  for  consumption  within  this 
country.  We  cannot  do  any  business  with  Canada,  Mexico,  or  any  of 
the  South  American  States.  The  European  manufacturers  at  Notting- 
ham, in  England,  and  Paris,  in  France,  and  other  cities  monopolize  this 
business,  notwithstanding  that  we  have  the  best  machinery  in  the  world 
with  which  to  manufacture  these  ruches,  because  of  the  fact  that  we 
have  to  pay  60  per  cent,  duty  on  the  material.  The  result  is  that  we 
are  limited  in  selling  ruches  to  our  own  territory.  It  is  quite  a large 
business  in  America,  there  being  probably  100  manufacturers  or  more. 
Many  of  our  leading  dry-goods  houses,  such  as  Arnold,  Constable  & 
Co.,  have  a manufactory  of  neck  ruches.  But,  as  I say,  the  distribu- 
tion is  entirely  within  our  own  country;  whereas,  if  crepe  lisse  could  be 
put  on  the  free  list,  we  could  make  ruchings  and  other  similar  articles 
and  export  them  to  every  civilized  country. 

I also  wish  to  state  that  we  expect  that  the  silk  industry  will  unite 
with  us  in  recommending  the  introduction  of  crepe  lisse,  free  of  duty, 
the  article  to  be  so  defined  that  no  other  silk  material  as  made,  or  con- 
templated to  be  made,  can  be  included.  The  details  on  this  point  will 
be  embodied  in  a report  of  the  silk  association,  which  will  be  presented 
to  you.  • 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  import  this  article ; that 
you  pay  60  per  cent,  duty  upon  it,  and  that  you  manufacture  a certain 
completed,  finished  article  out  of  that  material  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Also,  that  you  wish  to  have  a foreign  trade  in  it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  do  you  not  avail  yourselves  of  the  benefit  of  the  drawback  ? 
What  is  to  prevent  your  exporting  and  having  a drawback  on  this 
material  that  you  import  ? — A.  I think  the  law  only  provides  for  such 
articles  as  are  made  entirely  of  imported  material.  This  article  is  not 
wholly  manufactured  of  imported  material,  because  we  use  American 
silk  in  the  composition  of  it. 

We  are  also  extensive  manufacturers  of  this  article  [exhibiting],  which 
is  known  in  the  trade  as  u tucking.”  The  Manchester  people  take  a 
cloth,  which  pays  5J  cents  a square  yard  duty,  or  5*cents  unbleached, 
and  make  this  article,  and  it  is  imported  at  about  35  per  cent.  duty.  Of 
course,  if  we  use  the  imported  cloth,  we  have  to  pay  a duty  equal  to  about 
100  per  cent.  Here  is  a sample  of  the  cloth  such  as  tucking  is  made  out 
of,  which  costs  in  Manchester  threepence  farthing  per  yard.  If  that 
cloth  is  45  inches  wide,  it  costs  threepence  farthing,  which  is  equal  to 
about  6J  cents  of  our  money.  The  duty  on  it  is  5 cents  a square  yard, 
and  you  have  to  add  which  makes  the  duty  6|  cents  or  nearly  100 
per  cent.  That  enables  the  Manchester  people  to  make  thousands  of 
pieces  of  their  cloth  with  tucking  and  sell  them  to  our  market,  and 
thereby  interfere  with  the  cotton  interest  here  as  well  as  our  own  busi- 
ness. I think  that  the  duty  on  the  finished  article  of  tucking,  instead 


ALEX.  E.  KURSHEEDT.] 


EMBROIDERIES. 


259 


of  coming  in  as  cotton  goods  not  otherwise  provided  for,  at  a duty  of  35 
per  cent.,  should  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  100  per  cent.,  or  the  duty  on 
cotton  goods  should  be  greatly  lessened.  If  the  duties  on  cotton  goods 
are  to  remain  as  they  are,  we  contend  that  the  duty  on  tuckings  should 
be  at  least  100  per  cent. 

In  this  connection  I desire  to  offer  the  following  suggestion:  The  rate 
of  duty  on  any  finished  article  imported  for  sale  to  the  consumer,  must 
not  be  lower  than  the  rate  of  duty  imposed  on  the  several  materials  of 
which  such  goods  are  manufactured.  I could  illustrate  this  further  by 
showing  you  samples  of  other  goods  that  we  have  attempted  to  make  in 
this  country,  and  which  we  are  fairly  entitled  to  make  for  many  reasons. 
I might  speak  of  these  now.  1 desire  to  say  that  the  United  States  is  the 
great  market  of  the  world  lor  white  goods,  embroideries  and  laces;  and 
statistics  can  be  gathered  and  brought  before  the  Commission  to  confirm 
this  statement.  Switzerland  is  the  ceuter  of  our  white  embroidery  trade. 
About  two  thirds  of  the  Hamburg  embroideries  made  in  Switzerland 
come  to  this  country ; and  in  Nottingham  and  Calais,  the  two  centers 
of  the  lace  manufacture,  were  it  not  for  the  American  trade  they  could  do 
very  little  business  whatever.  In  the  last  two  months,  when  the  trade 
in  laces  fell  off,  you  can  see  by  the  Nottingham  papers  that  there  has 
been  a perfect  stagnation  in  their  trade.  This  is  accounted  for  very 
easily  when  we  remember  that  the  American  women  are  tasty,  neat,  and 
cleanly,  more  so  than  those  of  any  other  country  in  the  world,  and  there 
is  also  a gradual  distribution  of  wealth  here  among  the  masses,  and 
woman  occupies  a higher  position  under  our  civilization,  which  puts  her 
above  the  women  of  any  other  country.  As  a consequence  she  is  able 
to  dress  better  and  to  use  more  material,  particularly  white  material.  I 
wish  to  say,  too,  that  we  have  established  a great  many  recognized  in- 
dustries in  this  country,  which  are  almost  unknown  in  Europe.  I have 
visited  different  manufacturing  centres  in  Europe,  and  have  often  been 
asked  the  question,  what  we  do  in  America  with  certain  goods  that  are 
manufactured  there  especially  for  us.  There  are  many  kinds  of  goods 
that  are  now  manufactured  abroad  that  would  never  have  been  made 
there  if  we  had  not  started  the  idea  in  this  country,  and  yet  we  are 
crowded  out  from  the  manufacturing  of  them  here  because  of  these  de- 
fects in  our  tariff*  system. 

We  are  also  manufacturers  of  silk  laces  to  some  extent,  but  we  can- 
not manufacture  them  on  the  scale  that  we  would  like,  because  of  the 
duty.  Personally,  we  are  satisfied  with  the  duty  of  00  per  cent,  as  it  is, 
but  would  deprecate  any  reduction.  The  amount  of  silk  laces  consumed 
is  very  small  compared  with  cotton  laces.  The  silk  laces  are  matter.*?  of 
fashion,  but  cotton  laces  which  can  be  washed  are  perfectly  staple ; and 
I believe  there  are  some  kinds  now  used  that  will  be  in  vogue  as  long  as 
women  wear  laces.  These  are  samples  of  silk  laces  such  as  we  manu- 
facture [exhibiting].  I have  also  here  some  samples  of  cotton  laces  which, 
are  made  by  the  same  machinery  that  we  use  at  Nottingham  and  Calais, 
but  which  we  cannot  manufacture  profitably  owing  to  the  tariff*. 

A great  business  is  done  in  what  is  known  as  Nottingham  lace  curtains. 
The  principal  yarn  used  in  their  manufacture  is  a two-ply,  30-cord  yarn. 
It  costs  ten  pence  halfpenny  in  Manchester,  which  is  equal  to  21  cents 
of  our  money.  To  it,  should  be  added  10  cents  per  pound  and  the  20 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty.  The  yarns  pay  GG§  per  cent.  duty.  This 
article  [exhibiting]  is  a finished  article  which  comes  in  at  35  per  cent, 
duty.  Of  course  you  see  how  we  are  placed,  and  how  unjust  the  dis- 
crimination is.  The  staple  American  cotton  costs  equally  here  and  in 
Liverpool — say  12.]  cents  a pound.  Taking  the  difference  between  this 
price  and  the  price  of  the  finished  product,  it  allows  only  8J  cents  for  all 


260 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEX.  E.  KUB8HEEDT. 


the  labor.  Now,  in  America  the  cost  of  the  two-ply  30-cord  yarn  is  about 
30  cents.  That  allows  17  cents  for  the  same  process  that  costs  there  8J 
cents,  making  the  cost  of  labor  in  this  countiy  exactly  double.  I have 
been  among  the  operatives  and  working  classes  in  Manchester,  and  hav- 
ing seen  the  effect  of  the  low  wages  there,  I think  that  the  present  rate 
of  wages  in  this  country  is  perfectly  fair,  and  that  it  would  be  a calamity 
to  the  whole  country  if  the  rate  should  be  lowered.  So  we  cannot  advise 
in  equity  that  the  duty  on  yarns,  such  as  they  are  spinning  in  this  coun- 
try, should  be  lessened.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  make  any 
fine  yarns  in  this  country,  such  as  are  used  in  the  manufacture  of  these 
specimens  of  tine  cotton  laces  which  I have  here  exhibited  to  the  Commis 
sion,  and  of  course,  the  duty  on  them  varies  from  55  to  75  per  cent.  We 
would  recommend  that  all  cotton  yarns  above  “ 120”  should  be  admitted 
free.  In  recommending  that  measure  we  prefer  that  the  Commission 
should  take  the  testimony  of  experts ; that  is,  of  our  manufacturers. 
But,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain  ourselves  (and  we  buy 
yarns  both  here  and  abroad  and  import  them  for  this  market),  we  have 
never  found  a concern  that  spun  anything  higher  than  “100,”  and  that 
number  only  to  a limited  extent. 

In  regard  to  the  importance  of  the  lace  manufacture  as  an  industry, 
without  going  into  any  details  about  it.  I must  say  it  is  an  enormous 
industry  in  Europe,  both  in  England  and  in  France.  In  this  country 
to-day  there  are  only  three  establishments — two  besides  ourselves — mak- 
ing silk  laces,  and  of  course,  as  long  as  we  are  restricted  to  silk  laces,  we 
can  only  do  a small  business  and  are  not  able  to  develop  it.  We  want 
to  manufacture  cotton  laces,  because  then  there  is  no  end  to  the  devel- 
opment of  the  business.  To-day  we  are  forced  to  import  machines  from 
England,  where  they  are  made  on  old  patterns,  and  there  is  no  stimulus 
to  improving  them.  We  ought  to  make  our  own  machinery  here,  and 
we  want  the  duty  on  machinery  kept  up  so  that  we  can  make  it  in  this 
country,  and  in  that  way  improve  upon  the  European  machines,  and 
make  a better  quality  of  goods,  for  we  want  to  make  a better  quality, 
and  can  make  a better  quality  than  the  European  manufacturer  now 
makes. 

The  subject  of  embroidery  is  a pretty  large  one.  Here  is  a sample  of 
the  embroidery  made  by  the  Kursheedt  Manufacturing  Company  [ex- 
hibiting]. This  is  all  silk;  of  course  we  cannot  touch  cotton.  I have 
here  also  a piece  of  cotton  embroidery. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Is  that  made  by  machinery  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir ; the  same 
machinery,  exactly,  makes  both  of  these  articles.  I have  here  also  some 
embroidered  flannel.  We  use  American  flannel  because,  owing  to  some 
difficulty  in  the  tariff,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  we  have  protection, 
they  import  some  article  that  comes  in  direct  competition.  How  it  is 
done,  we  do  not  know.  We  use  the  Ballard-Vale  American  flannel 
almost  exclusively. 

I will  only  show  you  one  or  two  more  samples,  and  then  will  close.  I 
have  here  some  slipper  patterns  that  came  in  under  a duty  of  35  per 
cent,  notwithstanding  they  should  come  in  at  a duty  of  00  per  cent. 
IIow  that  matter  is  arranged  I do  not  know.  These  are  of  our  own 
manufacture.  We  commenced  making  silk-embroidered  ties  in  this 
country,  but  the  agents  of  importers  saw  them  and  sent  our  patterns  to 
Europe,  and  had  them  imitated  there,  making  them  on  very  tine  mulls, 
and  brought  them  in  at  35  per  cent.  duty.  Mull  is  not  made  in  this 
country,  and  the  duty  it  pays  is  about  100  per  cent. 


ALEXANDER  O.  JONES. j 


QUININE* 


261 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  27,  1882. 

Mr.  Alexander  H.  Jones,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  appeared  before  the 
Commission  and  made  the  following  statement  : 

I desire  to  state  that  from  conversation  with  members  of  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  and  members  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the 
Senate,  in  Washington,  and  from  what  I have  seen  in  newspaper  arti- 
cles, I think  it  is  a general  impression  that  the  present  low  price  of 
quinine  is  due  to  the  removal  of  the  duty  upon  that  article.  Almost 
every  one  immediately  asks  the  question,  What  was  the  price  of  quinine 
at  the  time  of  the  removal  of  the  duty?  The  answer  is,  it  was  $3.40  an 
ounce.  Then  the  question  is  asked,  What  is  the  price  ot  quinine  now? 
The  answer  is  $2  an  ounce.  That  is  a difference  of  $1.40  an  ounce,  and 
it  is  immediately  assumed  that  it  is  the  result  of  the  abolition  of  the 
duty  on  quinine.  Assuming  there  is  a lowering  of  price  by  reason  of 
the  taking  off  of  the  duty,  the  removal  of  the  duty  itself  by  no  means 
accounts  for  that  great  lowering  of  price.  I have  seen  quinine  selling 
at  a net  price  of  $1.18  an  ounce  when  there  was  a duty  both  on  the  bark 
and  on  the  quinine,  and  I have  also  seen  quinine  range  from  six  shillings 
an  ounce  in  London  to  fifteen  or  sixteen  shillings  an  ounce  when  there 
was  no  question  of  duty.  The  cost  of  the  bark  has  a great  deal  to  do 
in  regulating  the  price  of  quinine,  just  as  the  price  of  wool  and  cotton 
regulates  the  price  of  woolen  and  cotton  goods.  The  figures  can  easily 
be  ascertained. 

Everybody  knows  what  the  price  of  quinine  is  to-day,  and  you  can 
ascertain  what  it  was  at  the  time  of  the  removal  of  the. duty,  it  is  not 
a question  of  argument  ; it  is  a simple  matter  of  fact.  The  price  is 
lower  to-day  than  it  was  then.  But  at  the  same  time  I claim  that  the 
price  would  be  lower  to-day  than  it  was  then,  leaving  the  question  of 
duty  out  of  view,  by  reason  of  the  reduced  price  of  the  barks;  and  Dr. 
Robbins  has  explained  to  you  one  reason  why  the  price  of  the  bark  is 
lower  to-day  than  it  w as  some  years  ago.  The  reason  is  the  discovery 
of  this  large  quantity  of  cinchona  bark  in  the  Cuprea  district.  1 think 
it  only  right  and  proper  that  that  fact  should  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion. Fifty  years  ago  quinine  w as  sold  at  $1.50,  and  I remember  myself 
of  quinine  selling  at  $1.18  w hen  there  was  a duty  both  on  the  bark  and 
on  quinine. 

Now  in  relation  to  the  stock  of  bark  and  the  stock  of  quinine  in  this 
country,  in  former  years  we  would  start  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  y ear 
with  a very  large  amount  of  quinine,  and  go  on  steadily  working  all 
through  the  early  winter  and  spring  months,  keeping  up  a good  supply 
with  reference  to  the  active  demand  that  always  comes  on  during  the  sum- 
mer and  fall  months.  At  present,  instead  of  having  a large  quantity  of 
quinine  on  hand,  and  a large  amount  of  the  bark  every  day  while  the 
active  demand  is  coming  in,  we  have  to  take  up  our  letters  and  examine 
every  one  to  see  what  quantity  has  been  ordered,  and  then  we  examine 
and  see  how  much  quinine  the  party  has  had  recently  from  us  (for  we 
cannot  supply  him  with  all  he  asks  for),  and  some  days  we  find  we  can 
only  fill  one  fifth  of  each  customer’s  order;  sometimes  it  is  one-fourth  and 


262 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALEXANDER  H.  JONES. 


sometimes  one  half,  according  to  the  amount  we  have  on  hand  ready  for 
shipping,  and  so  we  divide  it  up  among  our  customers  in  that  way.  We 
are  not  able  even  to  supply  all  of  them  with  a portion  of  their  orders, 
but  are  obliged  to  drop  many  of  the  orders  because  we  cannot  till  them. 
This  goes  on  day  after  day.  Instead  of  having  a large  supply  of  qui- 
nine manufactured  and  a large  supply  of  bark  on  hand,  we  are  working 
from  hand  to  mouth,  so  to  speak,  and  every  day  we  divide  up  among 
our  customers  what  we  have  to  send  them.  As  fast  as  we  make  it  we 
put  it  up  for  shipment,  and  it  goes  out  and  has  to  be  apportioned  among 
our  customers  in  that  way. 

By  the  President: 

Question.  Under  these  circumstances,  why  is  it  that  these  orders  are 
given  you  for  your  quinine;  why  do  these  parties  not  buy  in  the  open 
market? — Answer.  We  have  been  in  the  business  for  many  years,  and 
have  a large  trade,  and  I think  we  have  satisfied  our  customers  in  our 
business  dealings  and  they  continue  to  apply  to  us.  Our  firm  used  to 
handle  a great  deal  of  quinine,  and  the  article  of  American  quinine  we 
supplied  stood  very  high  indeed.  I may  say  that  the  American  qui- 
nine always  has  a preference  in  this  market  over  the  foreign,  and  when 
the  price  is  the  same  sells  right  along,  and  at  present  commands  a pre- 
mium. Formerly  we  made  contracts  with  our  customers  to  supply  them 
with  what  they  wanted,  and  were  always  able  to  do  it.  We  made  our 
contracts  in  this  way  with  large  houses  in  the  Wost,  in  the  South,  and 
elsewhere.  There  would  be  a large  house  in  Saint  Louis  that  might 
want  from  10,000  to  20,000  ounces  of  quinine  within  three  or  four  months. 
Suppose  the  price  was  $2  an  ounce  and  they  wanted  5,000  ounces  a 
month.  If  we  sent  them  the  first  installment  the  price  would  be  $2  an 
ounce,  and  so  if  the  price  went  up  to  $2.50  an  ounce  they  got  their  next 
installment  at  $2;  but  if  the  price  went  down  to  $1.50  they  got  the 
benefit  from  the  decline.  We  have  been  in  business  since  1821,  and 
have  tried  to  conduct  our  business  in  a fair  and  honorable  way,  charg- 
ing our  customers  only  a fair  profit,  and  of  course  they  are  attached  to 
us  and  have  a kindly  feeling  toward  us,  besides  having  the  preference 
for  American  quinine. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  How  did  the  price  of  quinine  range  during  the  twelve  months 
succeeding  the  taking  off  of  the  duty? — A.  Immediately  after  the  tak- 
ing off  of  the  duty  the  price  went  up  10  cents  an  ounce.  It  went  up 
from  $2.40  to  $2.50,  and  then  it  worked  down  again.  There  is  a point 
I should  like  to  speak  of  in  this  connection,  and  that  is,  that  we  are  all 
accustomed  to  talk  about  hundred  weight  and  tons,  and  so  on,  so  that 
when  we  speak  of  the  duty  on  an  article  sold  by  the  ounce  it  seems  like 
a large  matter,  because  it  is  sold  by  the  ounce. 

But,  as  I said  to  you  the  other  day,  the  average  price  of  quinine,  tak- 
ing the  English  quinine  as  the  criterion,  would  be  about  eight  shillings, 
or  $2.  Twenty  per  cent,  on  $2  is  40  cents;  10  per  cent,  is  20  cents. 
There  are  437£  grains  to  an  ounce,  and  the  prescriptions  run  up  to,  per- 
haps, 10  grains,  or  something  like  that;  that  is  what  the  consumer  buys 
as  a rule.  A man  might,  of  course,  buy  an  ounce  of  quinine  at  a time 
the  same  as  he  might  buy  a hogshead  of  molasses  to  use,  but  the  fact 
is  he  does  not  buy  for  consumption  in  any  such  quantities.  He  goes  to 
the  retail  druggist  and  he  buys  a few  grains  at  a time. 

Now,  putting  the  worst  possible  construction  upon  it,  that  the  manu- 
facturers avail  themselves  of  this  10  or  20  per  cent.,  here  is  a matter  of 


ALEXANDER  H.  JONES.] 


QUININE. 


263 


20  or  40  cents  on  437J  grains,  so  that  the  consumer  is  not  and  cannot 
be  appreciably  benefited  by  the  removal  or  the  imposition  of  a duty  on 
the  article.  Besides,  the  government  is  not  benefited  at  all,  while  under 
the  old  duty  it  certainly  derived  more  or  less  of  a revenue;  but  now  that 
the  article  is  on  the  free-list,  there  is,  of  course,  no  revenue  from  it. 
The  American  manufacturers  are  producing  much  less  quinine  than 
they  did  prior  to  the  removal  of  the  duty,  and  that  has  tended  largely 
to  build  up  this  extensive  foreign  manufactory  in  Milan,  which  is  able 
to  supply  a very  large  proportion  of  the  whole  product  of  the  world. 

I think  a very  important  matter  to  take  into  consideration  is  the 
large  quantity  of  quinine  consumed  in  this  country.  We  are  one  of  the 
largest  consumers  of  quinine  in  the  world,  and  I think  it  is  very  im- 
portant that  we  should  be  able  to  produce  the  necessary  supply  for  our 
own  use,  that  we  should  be  self-reliant  and  independent,  and  if  there 
was  a duty  imposed  upon  quinine  we  would  resume  our  former  practice 
of  keeping  on  hand  large  stocks  of  the  bark  and  of  the  manufactured 
article,  and  it  would  last  us  for  a considerable  length  of  time,  even  if 
we  were  cut  off  from  our  foreign  supply  by  a war,  or  any  other  cause. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  average  wholesale  market 
price  of  quinine  in  this  country  may  be  stated  in  general  as  $2  an 
ounce? — A.  That  is  the  fair  average  price;  the  manufacturers’  price. 

Q.  What  is  the  fair  average  cost  to  the  manufacturer  here  of  pro- 
ducing an  ounce  of  quinine? — A.  The  manufacturers  would  have  to  tell 
you  that;  very  likely  Dr.  Bobbins  could  tell  you.  I am  simply  giving 
you  the  commercial  statistics.  1 can  simply  repeat  what  I said  the  other 
day,  that  the  wholesale  dealer  sells  it  at  a very  small  advance  of  5 to 
10  cents  an  ounce. 


264 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  8.  HAKKISON. 


THOMAS.  S.  HARRISON. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 

Mr.  Thomas  S.  Harrison,  of  Philadelphia,  President  of  the  Manu- 
facturing Chemists’  Association  and  manufacturer  of  chemicals  and  white 
lead,  appeared  before  the  Commission,  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and 
made  the  following  statement: 

I do  not  propose  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Commission  for  any 
great  length  of  time.  You  have  already  very  kindly  heard  two  or 
three  members  of  my  association:  Mr.  Bower,  who  is  secretary  of  the 
association ; Mr.  Alexander  H.  Jones,  who  is  chairman  of  the  tariff 
committee;  and  one  of  its  members,  Mr.  Bour.  I am  here  more  particu- 
larly, as  the  official  head  of  that  association,  to  say  to  you  that  what  those 
gentlemen  have  told  you  I can  confirm,  and  also  to  state  to  you  that  as 
soon  as  it  became  known  to  our  association  that  this  Commission  was  to 
be  organized  we  took  immediate  steps  to  put  in  shape  such  informa- 
tion concerning  our  particular  business  as  might  be  valuable  to  you. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Will  you  please  state  what  the  general  character  of  your 
association  is? — Answer.  Our  association  embraces  within  its  member- 
ship the  manufacturers  of  almost  all  kinds  of  chemicals  ; chemicals  used 
in  textile  fabrics;  chemicals  used  for  fertilizing  purposes;  chemicals 
used  for  the  manufacturing  of  articles  in  the  arts,  such  as  colors,  paints, 
&c.  It  embraces  under  the  general  title  of  chemicals,  the  whole  field. 
We  have  a large  and  influential  association,  embracing  in  its  member- 
ship almost  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  representing,  I suppose,  in 
capital,  some  $30,000,000  or  $40,000,000.  This  association  appointed  a 
committee  which  was  representative  in  its  character,  not  only  so  far  as 
the  country  was  concerned,  but  so  far  as  the  different  shades  of  opin- 
ion on  the  subject  ot  protection  and  free  trade  were  concerned.  This 
committee  is  comjiosed  of  gentlemen  from  the  cities  of  New  York,  Bos- 
ton, Baltimore,  and  the  West,  and  they  are  now  busily  engaged  in  pre- 
paring a schedule,  which  they  hope  to  make  exhaustive,  and  will  pre- 
sent such  facts  as  we  hope  will  be  convincing  to  you.  Therefore,  1 will 
not  at  present  enter  upon  the  general  subject  of  the  tariff  on  chemicals, 
but  will  leave  the  matter  to  be  carefully  prepared  and  presented  to  you 
by  this  committee  at  some  subsequent  date. 

I have  been  requested,  however,  to  call  your  attention  to  one  or  two 
matters  of  interest  in  this  connection,  and  one  is  in  regard  to  the  soda 
interest  of  the  United  States.  You  may,  perhaps,  be  surprised  to  learn 
that  that  branch  of  business,  in  the  United  States,  is  reduced  to  almost 
nothing.  It  is  true  there  is  one  large  concern,  the  Pennsylvania  Salt 
Company,  that  manufacture  largely,  but  I do  not  think  at  any  great 
profit ; but  that  is  the  only  company  or  firm  which  may  be  called  manu- 
facturers of  soda  in  the  United  States  to  any  extent,  and  their  pros- 
perity, or  whatever  you  may  term  it,  is  due  in  a measure  to  the  fact  that 
they  possess  in  the  raw  material  an  article  (kryolite)  which  is  admitted 
free;  they  have  a monopoly  of  it  in  the  United  States.  The  other  manu- 
facturers are  dependent  on  salt  as  a raw  material,  and  while  we  do  not 


THOMAS  S.  HARRISON.] 


CHEMICALS. 


2 65 


advocate  the  abolition  of  the  duty  on  salt,  still  we  think  there  might  be 
some  relief  given  to  us,  the  manufacturers  of  soda  products,  the  same  as 
is  given  to  curers  of  fish  ; in  other  words,  that  we  may  have  a rebate. 
This  country  imports  soda  products  by  the  hundred  thousand  tons.  The 
amount  of  soda  used  may  be  regarded  almost  as  an  index  of  the  civiliza- 
tion of  a country.  It  is  consumed  by  the  glass  manufacturers,  and  in 
dozens  of  the  most  important  trades  they  use  it,  and  they  are  too  influ- 
ential and  important  now  to  be  asked  to  consent  to  be  taxed  largely 
by  an  increase  of  the  duty.  But  if  some  relief  could  be  afforded  that 
would  enable  the  manufacturers  of  soda  in  the  United  States  to  do 
something,  and  not  make  us  utterly  and  entirely  dependent,  as  we  are 
now,  on  foreigners  for  our  supply,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  an  act  of 
wisdom  to  give  us  that  relief.  I cannot  see  how  such  relief  can  be 
afforded  in  a better  way  than  by  giving  us  a rebate  on  salt  for  the 
amount  that  is  consumed  by  our  industries.  The  duty  on  salt  now  is, 
60  to  70  per  cent.  The  duty  on  soda-ash  is  aspecific  duty.  Its  ad  valo- 
rem duty  is  about  15  to  20  ])er  cent.  It  takes  two  tons  of  salt  to  make 
one  ton  of  soda-ash ; so  that  it  is  impossible  to  manufacture  at  the 
present  rate  of  duty.  The  English  take  the  salt  to  make  sulphate  of 
soda;  we  mix  the  salt  with  sulphuric  acid,  and  the  result  is  muriatic 
acid;  so  that  it  is  used  for  an  entirely  different  purpose.  In  England 
they  use  what  here  is  pur  waste.  The  manufacturers  here,£tore  the  sul- 
phate of  soda  away  in  thousands  of  tons,  while  in  England  they  use  it 
to  make  soda  to  advantage. 

There  is  another  matter  toVhich  I wish  to  call  your  attention,  and 
that  is  the  duty  on  white  and  pig  lead.  While  we  do  not  think  the  duties 
on  pig  lead  are  relatively  too  high,  and  do  not  ask  a reduction  of  them, 
yet  they  are  such  that  some  of  the  articles  manufactured  from  j)ig  lead, 
owing  to  the  instructions  of  the  Treasury  Department,  are  admitted  at  a 
less  duty  than  is  paid  on  the  raw  material.  Take  orange  mineral  that  is 
a manufacture  of  white  lead.  Under  the  construction  of  the  Treasury 
Department  the  duty  on  that  is  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  while  the  duty 
on  pig  lead  is  50  per  cent.  Consequently  that  industry  is  dead;  there 
is  nothing  of  it. 

As  I have  said,  our  association  will  present  to  the  Commission  a most 
carefully-digested  schedule  of  duties,  and  we  ask  that  you  will  receive 
it  and  give  it  the  consideration  which  it  deserves. 

The  President.  Will  you  please  put  in  a specific  form  such  recom- 
mendations as  you  have  to  make  ? 

The  Witness.  We  will  do  so. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  How  does  the  Pennsylvania  Company  get  the  monopoly  of  the 
kryolite? — A.  All  the  kryolite  deposits  belong  to  the  Danish  Govern- 
ment, and  they  have  made  a contract  with  the  Pennsylvania  Company 
for  a period  of  years,  and  have  taken  in  South  America  as  well  as  this 
country  in  that  arrangement. 

The  President.  I believe  that  article  is  found  in  Greenland. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  This  company,  through  its  foresight  and 
energy,  has  built  up  an  industry  which  is  a great  credit  to  the  country, 
and  I should  be  exceedingly  sorry  to  say  anything  which  would  in  any 
way  detract  from  the  credit  they  deserve  in  this  respect.  But  I think 
the  need  of  the  United  States  in  the  possession  of*  the  industry  is  as 
great  or  greater  than  that  of  any  individual.  While  the  Pennsylvania 
Company  has  this  business,  they  make  at  the  same  time  soda-ash  and 
some  of  the  higher  products,  on  which  there  is  a higher  duty,  which 


266 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ THOMAS  S.  HARRISON. 


enables  them  to  live.  Let  me  mention  another  industry,  and  speak  of 
its  success  due  to  protection.  In  1855  a Scotch  manufacturer  sent  a 
foreman  to  the  United  States  to  construct  a factory  for  the  production  of 
acetate  of  lime,  which  is  a very  crude  product,  and  is  the  result  of  the 
destructive  distillation  of  wood.  You  take  a cord  of  wood  and  put  it 
into  a cylinder,  and  close  up  both  ends,  except,  in  one  end,  have  a small 
opening  for  a pipe  connected  with  a worm  in  a condensing  tub ; put  a fire 
underneath,  and  as  a result  the  fumes  of  gas  are  condensed  into  a liquid 
called  pyroligneous  acid.  That  acid  is  mixed  with  lime  and  dried  into 
a condition  to  be  shipped.  A cord  of  wood  produces  1G0  pounds  of 
this  material.  Wood  is  worth  $12  to  $14  a cord  in  England,  while  in 
this  country  it  is  worth  only  from  $1.50  to  $6  or  $7  a cord,  depending 
upon  the  location.  Foreign  manufacturers  understand  that  if  they  can 
make  it  in  this  country,  where  wood  is  so  cheap,  it  will  be  a very  great 
advantage  to  them.  Until  lately  they  possessed  that  industry  almost 
exclusively,  and  my  firm  was  a large  consumer  of  that  article.  We 
bought,  until  very  lately,  all  our  product  abroad.  JSow  just  look  at  the 
condition  of  the  industry  to-day.  Six  years  ago  I do  not  believe  there 
were  produced  in  the  United  States  500  tons  of  the  acetate  of  lime.  This 
year  there  will  be  made  over  7,500  tons,  of  which  amount  over  2,000 
tons  are  shipped  to  the  other  side  of  the  water.  That  industry  now  con- 
trols the  foreigner,  instead  of  the  foreigner  controlling  it,  and  that  re- 
sult is  due  to  the  steadfast  holding  up  of  the  duty  on  the  acetate  of 
lime  and  the  great  natural  advantage  this  country  possesses  in  the 
manufacture  of  that  article. 

I could  mention  another  article  where  the  duty  by  mistake  was  put 
at  20  cents  a pound,  when  the  article  itself  sold  for  9 cents  a pound. 
The  law  makers  probably  intended  to  make  the  duty  20  per  cent.,  and 
not  20  cents  a pound.  The  immediate  effect  of  that  was  to  put  up  the 
price  of  the  article  to  45  cents  a pound,  and  several  manufacturers 
started  in  this  country  to  produce  it,  until  finally,  owing  to  competition, 
to-day  it  sells  at  a lower  price  than  the  English  manufacturer  is  paying 
for  it,  if  you  take  into  consideration  the  duty  which  is  paid  by  the 
American  manufacturer  on  a part  of  the  goods  that  go  into  this  manu- 
facture. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  What  is  that  article  that  you  have  just  referred  to  ? — A.  Pyro- 
lignate  of  lead.  According  to  my  experience,  articles  that  are  over- 
protected,  when  there  is  no  necessity  to  protect  them  so  far  as  the  exist- 
ence of  the  manufacture  is  concerned,  may  be  in  the  nature  of  a mo- 
nopoly for  a time,  until  attention  is  called  to  the  excessive  profits  that 
are  made,  and  then  competitors  spring  up,  which  brings  the  price  down 
materially,  and  the  result  is  simply  to  increase  the  manufacture,  and 
in  the  end  to  materially  decrease  the  price  to  the  consumer. 


JOHN  W.  BRITTON.] 


CARRIAGES. 


267 


JOHN  W.  BRITTON. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 

John  W.  Britton,  representing  tlie  carriage- manufacturing  interest, 
appeared  before  the  Commission  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and  made 
the  following  statement: 

I appear  before  the  Commission  to-day  to  represent  simply  my  own 
business,  and  not  that  of  any  association  or  corporation,  and  1 shall  be 
happy  to  give  such  information  as  it  may  be  in  my  power  to  afford  to 
the  Commission.  1 am  the  president  of  the  National  Carriage  Builders’ 
Association,  but  I am  not  authorized  to  appear  on  their  behalf  before 
you.  I think,  perhaps,  there  may  be  members  of  that  association  who 
would  not  agree  with  me  in  all  the  views  which  I entertain ; so  that  I 
will  simply  give  you  my  own  views  upon  the  matter,  as  an  individual; 
and  I shall  endeavor  to  be  brief. 

I sent  to  New  York  a day  or  two  ago,  after  I was  notified  by  your 
president  to  appear  before  you,  for  a list  or  schedule  of  the  articles  en- 
tering into  the  manufacture  of  carriages,  and  the  duties  they  pay,  in 
order  that  you  might  understand  what  I ask  for,  and  the  reasons  there- 
for. I have  received  in  reply  a list  of  these  articles,  which  1 will  read 
with  your  permission. 

Schedule  of  materials  used  in  the  construction  of  carriages,  and  the  import  duty  thereon. 


Materials. 

Specific  duty. 

Ad  valorem. 

Total  ad 
valorem. 

Lamp  metal,  mouldings,  and  articles  of  brass 

Per  cent. 

45 

Per  cent. 

45 

Steel  springs,  tires,  pole  fixtures ..... ...... 

45 

45 

Varnish  and  japan 

50  cents  per  gal . . . 

25 

45 

Silks  and  satins - - 

60 

60 

Laces,  worsted 

50  cents  per  lb 

70  cents  per  sq.  yd. 
50  cents  per  lb 

50 

63 

W ilton  carpets 

35 

65 

W oolen  cloths 

30 

60  to  70 

I assume  that  the  commission  will  not  recommend  much  of  a reduc- 
tion on  these  articles,  and  therefore  I would  say  that  the  carriage  man- 
ufacturers only  want  to  be  placed  on  an  equality  with  their  brethren 
abroad,  who  have  a protection  of  45  per  cent.  We  are  shut  out  from 
foreign  markets  under  fhe  present  condition  of  our  business.  Previous 
to  the  enactment  of  the  Morrill  tariff,  which  practically  allows  carriages 
to  come  in  free  of  duty,  we  had  a market  for  our  goods  in  Cuba  and 
South  America;  in  fact,  quite  a large  one;  but  to-day  we  have  no  de- 
mand irom  those  countries,  as  the  French  manufacturers  can  place  their 
goods  there  for  a little  more  than  half  of  our  prices.  And,  having  lost 
the  foreign  market,  we  think  that  something  should  be  done  in  order  to 
enable  us  to  supply  our  own  home  market. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I think  that  you  are  mistaken  if  you  state 
as  a fact  that  carriages  come  in  free  under  the  present  tariff. 

The  Witness.  In  my  establishment  we  receive  and  put  together  a 
great  many  foreign  carriages.  Some  of  them  are  n$w,  and  they  are 


268 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  W.  Bl’ITTOX. 


sent  to  our  place  by  the  custom-house  authorities,  and  we  put  them  to- 
gether, so  that  they  may  have  an  examination  of  them  ; we  take  them 
out  of  the  boxes  and  put  them  together,  and  the  examiner  comes  to  our 
place  and  examines  them.  Many  o the  carriages  that  we  import  are 
second-hand  carriages  that  have  been  used  within  a year,  and  we  are 
asked  to  place  a value  on  them.  I was  a member  of  the  committee  who 
went  to  Washington  to  see  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  seven  years  ago 
on  this  very  business.  We  found  that  many  of  our  customers  would 
buy  carriages  in  London  or  Paris  and  use  them  a few  times,  and  then 
bring  them  over  to  this  country  as  personal  effects ; and,  as  a result, 
there  was  very  severe  competition.  I believe  there  was  no  law  to  gov- 
ern that  matter,  but  it  grew  simply  to  be  the  custom. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  was  decided  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  on  the  23d  of  September,  1868,  and  reaffirmed  on  the  19th  of 
July,  1871,  that  carriages  could  come  in  free  when  in  use  as  persoual 
effects.  O11  the  31st  of  August,  1872,  a decision  was  made  by  the  Treas- 
ury Department  that  such  carriages  must  have  been  in  use  abroad  for 
more  than  one  year  in  order  to  come  in  free.  Then,  in  1876,  on  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Attorney-General,  they  were  declared  not  to  be  household  ef- 
fects, and  since  that  time  they  have  paid  a duty.  I would  like  to  ask 
you  if  the  list  to  which  you  have  referred  was  not  made  up  a long  time 
ago  ? 

The  Witness.  I think  it  was  made  up  a short  time  ago.  I do  not 
dispute  the  fact  that  carriages  are  brought  in  here  now  and  pay  a duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  you  stated  that  they  were  admitted 
free  of  duty  just  now. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  when  they  have  been  used  one  year. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  is  not  so,  as  a matter  of  fact. 

The  Witness.  Then  I stand  corrected.  But  I believe  second  hand 
carriages  can  come  in  here  free  of  duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Any  second-hand  article — carriages,  or  any- 
thing that  has  been  in  use — is  supposed  to  be  subject  to  a diminution 
in  value,  according  to  the  amount  of  use;  but  anything  that  is  dutiable 
and  is  valued  at  more  than  $100  requires  to  be  invoiced. 

The  Witness.  I know  there  has  been  a commission  appointed  by  the 
Treasury  Department  to  fix  the  value  of  second-hand  carriages  where 
they  have  been  in  use  only  a short  time.  Of  course,  such  carriages  are 
worth  more  than  $100.  What  we  ask  is  that  you  shall  give  us  45  per 
cent,  protection. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Would  you  prefer  that  the  duty  on  the  foreign  articles  which 
you  consume  be  reduced  ? — Answer.  No,  sir;  I do  not  ask  for  that. 

Q.  You  prefer,  then,  that  the  duty  should  be  increased  on  the  article 
of  carriages  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  would  be  satisfactory.  1 desire  to  add 
that  I was  very  much  interested  in  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  who 
preceded  me  (Mr.  Thomas  S.  Harrison),  and  especially  in  what  he  said 
in  regard  to  the  effect  of  protection.  I11  1858,  1859,  and  1860  we  im- 
ported steel  tires  from  Sheffield  and  paid  16  cents  a pound  in  gold.  The 
price  of  gold  made  it  so  expensive  that  we  had  to  abandon  their  use. 
The  Morrill  tariff  invited  the  steel  makers  into  competition,  and  when 
gold  sold  for  _'80  we  bought  a better  steel  ti~e  for  21  cents,  and  to-day, 
under  protection,  we  can  buy  a steel  tire  for  7 cents  a pound  which  we 
used  to  pay  16  cents  a pound  for  in  1858. 


JOHN  Sr  OANE.] 


JUTE. 


269 


JOHN  SLOANE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 

Mr.  John  Sloane,  of  the  Dolphin  Manufacturing  Company,  Paterson, 
N.  J.,  appeared  before  the  Commission,  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and. 
made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  I have  come  before  you,  and  am 
willing  to  answer  any  questions  that  you  may  desire  to  put  to  me,  or  I 
will  make  a statement  on  the  subject  of  the  jute  manufacturing  indus- 
try, if  it  is  desired.  I would  suggest,  however,  that  you  may  be  able  to 
elicit  the  information  you  want  in  a shorter  way  by  asking  me  questions. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  You  are  familiar,  we  understand,  with  the  culture  and  man- 
ufacture of  jute? — Answer.  I am  somewhat  familiar  with  its  culture  and 
manufacture. 

Q.  How  many  jute  manufacturing  establishments  are  there  in  the 
United  States? — A.  Not  more  than  about  six  or  eight,  and  some  of  them 
are  very  small. 

Q.  Where  are  they  located? — A.  One  in  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ; one  in  New 
York  City;  one  in  Paterson,  N.  J.;  and  one  or  two  in  Pennsylvania. 

Q.  What  amount  of  capital  is  supposed  to  be  invested  in  those  facto- 
ries?— A.  Probably  in  the  neighborhood  of  two  million  dollars. 

Q.  If  raw  jute  could  be  furnished  by  domestic  growers  in  the  United 
States  would  not  the  demand  for  jute  be  unlimited,  so  to  speak,  for  cot- 
ton bagging,  &c.? — A.  The  demand  now  for  jute  goods  is  almost  unlim- 
ited, and  the  whole  question  is  who  shall  supply  that  demand;  whether 
we  shall  make  a portion  of  these  goods  or  whether  they  shall  all  be  im- 
ported. The  present  duty  on  the  raw  material  is  $15  a ton,  which  is  on 
the  finer  grades  24  per  cent.,  and  on  the  commoner  grades  35  per  cent. 

Q.  Where  is  the  jute  culture  in  the  United  States  carried  on  most 
extensively? — A.  There  have  thus  far  only  been  experiments  made.  1 
understand  from  a friend,  who  has  a plantation  in  Mississippi,  that  he 
has  this  year  planted  some  12  or  15  acres  as  an  experiment.  Hereto- 
fore, for  a year  or  two  past,  there  have  been  only  small  patches  of  a 
quarter  of  an  acre  or  so  planted  to  see  if  it  would  grow.  They  have 
demonstrated  the  fact  that  the  plant  can  grow,  and  grow  well,  and  that 
the  climate  and  soil  of  America  are  more  favorable  for  its  growth  than 
the  climate  and  soil  of  India.  The  whole  question,  however,  arises  after 
the  plant  is  grown.  So  far  there  has  been  no  mechanical  device  sug- 
gested to  cheapen  the  process  of  getting  the  fiber.  Jute  is  a cane,  with 
w ood  inside,  and  the  fiber  is  the  inside  of  the  bark.  The  wdiole  question 
is  a question  of  labor  to  get  that  fiber  separated  and  put  in  merchant- 
able condition.  By  hand  labor  they  all  confess  in  this  country,  wherever 
it  has  been  tried,  that  it  cannot  be  done.  The  lowest-priced  labor  in  the 
South  will  not  compete  with  the  low-priced  labor  of  India,  where  from 
10  to  15  cents  is  a fair  day?s  wages. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  one  who  is  experimenting  and  devoting  at- 
tention to  the  preparation  of  machinery  which  would  hackle  it  or  sepa- 
rate the  fiber? — A.  I have  heard  of  one  or  more  machines  that  are  either 
invented  or  in  process  of  invention  by  which  they  hope  to  overcome 
that  difficulty,  and  I sincerely  hope  they  will  be  able  to  do  it. 

Q.  The  only  difficulty,  then,  is  in  preparing  it  for  the  manufacture 
after  it  is  grown?— A.  Wholly. 


270 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


(JOHN  SLOAJfE. 


Q.  And  it  can  be  grown  in  large  quantities  and  cheaply  in  this  coun- 
try"?— A.  Yes,  sir;  the  cost  of  the  growth  or  culture  of  the  plant  is  very 
much  less  than  that  of  cotton.  This  gentleman  I spoke  of,  who  lives  at 
Brook  Haven,  Miss.,  seems  to  feel  very  sanguine  of  the  ultimate  success 
of  the  growth  of  the  fiber  in  this  country,  and  I understand  that  he  has 
engaged  some  mechanic  to  test  the  practicability  of  a machine  that  is 
made,  or  making,  to  separate  the  fiber  from  the  wood. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  parties  in  Louisiana  who  are  cultivating 
jute? — A.  I do  not  know  of  any  one  there  who  is  cultivating  more  than 
a small  patch  or  so  for  experiment.  We  received  from  New  Orleans 
two  or  three  bales  of  jute  this  last  winter  from  a Mr.  Jumel,  I think, 
and  I presume  he  is  either  the  cultivator  or  the  agent  of  the  cultivator; 
he  sent  it  on  here  to  show  the  quality  to  us,  and  we  remitted  to  him  the 
full  amount  of  the  value  of  the  same  fiber  of  India  growth,  and  he  re- 
marked that  unless  some  mechanical  contrivance  was  devised,  that  they 
could  never,  at  the  prices  of  labor  paid,  produce  jute  in  ftiis  country. 

Q.  How  did  the  sample  of  jute  that  he  sent  you  compare  with  the 
India  jute;  favorably  or  not? — A.  One  bale  was  quite  as  good  and  fully 
up  to  the  average  quality  of  the  best  grade  of  India  jute;  the  others 
were  only  medium. 

Q.  Would  a duty  upon  the  raw  material  have  a tendency  to  develop 
the  culture  of  jute,  or  would  it  simply  increase  the  price  of  bagging? — 
A.  The  duty  we  have  now  upon  the  raw  materials  I think  essential  to 
the  possible  cultivation  of  it  in  this  country,  lor  the  time  being  at  least. 
If  the  duty  is  taken  off  jute  entirely,  I think  no  one  would  make  any 
effort  to  grow  it  in  this  country. 

Q.  The  duty  is  now  29  per  cent.,  I understand. — A.  The  duty  is  now 
$15  per  ton,  which  makes  it  29  per  cent.  To  the  manufacturer,  how- 
ever, it  is  considerably  more  than  that,  because  we  pay  duty  on  the 
waste,  which  is  some  10  per  cent,  as  well. 

Q.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  jute  that  you  re- 
ceive and  the  quality  of  it,  would  you  advise  that  the  duty  remain  as 
it  is,  or  be  increased  or  diminished  ? — A.  If  it  is  a practical  thing  to 
develop  the  growth  of  jute  in  this  country,  we  do  not  wish  to  be  antag- 
onistic to  that  interest.  If  they  succeed  in  raising  the  fiber  in  this 
country  and  preparing  it  for  use  by  such  mechanical  contrivances  as 
seem  to  be  essential  to  that  end,  then  we  certainly  do  not  wish  to  throw 
a straw  in  the  way  of  that  industry,  because  it  will  be  very  large.  To 
give  you  an  instance  of  the  growth  of  the  jute  industry  throughout  the 
world,  I will  state  that  it  is  not  more  than  sixty  years  since  the  first  jute 
was  imported  into  India,  and  I talked  with  a man  some  eight  or  ten 
years  ago  who  worked  some  of  the  first  jute  that  was  ever  brought  there. 
Twelve  years  ago  1,000,000  to  1,200,000  bales  was  considered  a good 
average  crop ; now  2,000,000  to  2,200,000  bales  is  the  crop  of  India.  You 
can  see  by  that  how  the  industry  has  developed,  and  there  is  hardly  a 
limit  to  it. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  those  two  million  bales  comes  to  the  United 
States  ? — A.  About  50,000  bales. 

Q.  Not  more  than  50,000  bales  out  of  the  2,000,000? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  other  portion  is  manufactured  in  Scotland  ? — A.  Yes,  in 
Scotland,  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe. 

Q.  The  portion  that  is  brought  to  the  United  States  is  made  into  cot- 
ton bagging  ? — A.  No,  sir;  that  is  a different  thing  altogether : that  is 
jute  butts,  which  is  a small  piece  cut  irom  the  bottom  of  the  cane  that 
is  much  harder  and  higher  colored  than  the  cane.  The  jute  then  begins 
and  goes  to  the  top  of  the  cane.  The  jute-butt  question  is  another  large 


JUTE. 


JOHN  SLOANE.] 


271 


question.  The  most  of  that  crop  finds  its  way  to  this  market;  but  of 
jute  proper  there  is  only  about  50,000  bales  used  in  this  country. 

Q.  What  is  the  duty  on  jute  butts  ? — A.  Six  dollars  a ton. 

Q.  Would  you  advise  any  change  in  that  rate  of  duty? — A.  I have 
no  special  interest  in  that  matter  myself. 

Q.  It  is  not  a question  of  interest — neither  have  I ; but  we  are  try- 
ing to  get  facts  and  knowledge  on  the  subject,  and  as  you  have  practical 
experience  we  ask  you  for  your  opinion  whether  the  duty  should  be  in- 
creased or  decreased? — A.  I can  state  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  matter 
which  will  enable  you  to  decide  that  question.  There  is  now  a con- 
sumption of  over  200,000  bales,  of  400  pounds  each,  in  this  country,  and 
fully  one  half  of  that  is  put  into  paper.  The  refuse,  ora  portion  of  this 
refuse  fiber  from  flax,  may  possibly  be  utilized  for  paper-making.  Were 
it  not  for  that  consideration  I should  recommend  that  the  duty  on  jute 
should  be  taken  off.  At  the  same  time  we  have  to  consider  that  the 
jute  butt  is  an  interest,  and  if  jute  was  raised  in  this  country,  that  is 
relatively  important.  Formerly,  ten  years  ago,  in  Calcutta  it  was  a pos- 
itive expense  to  the  dealer  in  jute  to  get  rid  ot  his  butts,  and  he  used 
to  put  them  away  and  burn  them.  Whereas  now  they  get  14  or  15  rupees 
per  bale  of  400  pounds. 

Q.  That  would  increase  the  cost  of  bagging  used  for  baling  cotton? — 
A.  No,  it  would  not  increase  it.  We  have  got  to  have  so  many  yards 
for  every  bale  of  cotton. 

Q.  If  we  admit  jute  butts  free  of  duty  would  it  increase  or  decrease 
the  cost  of  bagging  for  baliug  cotton? — A.  I do  not  believe  it  would 
have  any  effect  at  all.  The  price  of  gunny  bagging  is  regulated  more 
by  the  question  of  supply  and  demand  than  cost. 

Q.  If  we  increase  that  duty,  and  it  increases  the  cultivation  of  jute  in 
this  country,  could  we  do  that  without  any  increased  expense  to  the 
cotton  interest  ? — A.  It  is  very  important  that  the  cotton  baggiug  should 
be  at  a low  figure,  and  to  day,  and  for  the  last  three  or  four  years  (I  can 
speak  within  my  own  personal  knowledge  of  that  period)  cotton  bag- 
ging has  never  been  so  low  in  cost  to  the  dealer  as  it  has  been  since 
bagging  has  been  made  in  this  country.  Some  ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty 
years  ago  this  bagging  was  wholly  imported  from  Calcutta,  and  then 
the  price  was  nearly  double  what  it  has  been  since,  or  within  six  or 
seven  years,  so  that  the  duty  upon  the  butt  does  not  seem  to  cost  the 
planter  or  the  baler  of  cotton  in  the  South  one  penny.  Competition  in 
the  manufacture  of  that  article  has  reduced  the  price  very  much  below 
what  it  was  before  ever  a yard  of  any  bagging  was  made  in  this  coun- 
try. 

Q.  Dave  you  seen  the  bagging  made  in  the  manufactory  at  New  Or- 
leans?— A.  I have  never  seen  the  manufactory  of  bagging,  but  I know 
there  is  such  a mill  there.  There  are  several  gunny-bag  manufacturers 
in  the  South;  one  at  Augusta  and  Columbus,  Ga.,  one  at  Charleston, 
S.  C.,  and  one  at  Richmond,  Va. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  I would  like  to  ask  one  question  on  the  subject  of  jute  butts.  The 
duty  has  been  often  changed.  In  1861  they  paid  $5  a ton ; in  1862  they 
paid  $6  a ton  ; in  1870  it  was  enumerated  again  at  $6  a ton;  in  1872  it 
was  made  free;  in  1874  the  revised  tariff' continued  it  free;  in  1875  the 
duty  of  $6  a ton  was  put  on  again.  Do  you  know  the  reason  why  Con- 
gress has  backed  and  filled  so  much  on  that  jute-butt  question? — A.  No, 
sir;  I do  not  know.  There  were  certain  interests,  I presume,  which 
brought  influences  to  bear  where  they  would  do  the  most  good. 


272 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ K.  A.  HARTSHORN. 


E.  A.  HARTSHORN. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 

Mr.  E.  A.  Hartshorn,  of  Troy,  N.  Y.,  representing  the  hemp  inter- 
est, appeared  before  the  Commission,  upon  its  invitation,  and  made  the 
following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission*:  For  seventy  years  flax 
has  been  produced  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in  considerable  quanti- 
ties and  of  quality  quite  suitable  for  nearly  all  kinds  of  yarns,  threads, 
and  linens.  In  many  sections  of  nearly  all  the  Northern  States  flax  has 
been  grown  and  good  fiber  produced,  and  we  appear  before  you  to  day 
to  contradict  the  statement  being  publicly  made  that  no  flax  is  being 
raised  in  our  country  except  for  the  seed.  One  member  of  our  com- 
mittee, David  Kirk,  esq.,  who,  on  account  of  ill-health,  is  not  with  us 
to-day,  has  been  a flax  merchant  in  the  city  of  Troy,  N.  Y.,  for  the  past 
forty-nine  years,  handling  as  much  as  500  tons  of  domestic  flax  annually. 
The  chairman  of  our  committee,  Hon.  Hiram  Sisson,  of  Eagle  Bridge, 
N.  Y.,  has  handled  460,000  pounds  of  North  River  flax  during  the  pres- 
ent season,  which  represents  about  half  the  crop  of  1881  grown  in  the 
counties  of  Washington  and  Rensselaer,  State  of  New  York.  As  a far- 
mer’s boy,  the  speaker  can  assure  the  Commission  that  he  has  a very 
keen  remembrance  that  flax  was  one  of  his  father’s  staple  crops,  for  he 
assisted  in  preparing  the  soil,  sowing  the  seed,  “ pulling”  the  flax, 
“whipping”  otf  the  seed,  “ spreading  ” the  flax  upon  the  green  meadows, 
to  be  retted  by  the  rains  and  dews,  and  drawing  the  flax  away  to  the 
scutchiug-mill  to  be  cleaned  or  dressed.  I describe  the  process  in 
detail  to  convince  the  Commission  that  the  cultivation  of  flax  involves 
more  labor  than  any  other  crop,  and,  by  reason  of  excessive  labor-cost, 
the  American  farmer  finds  it  unprofitable  to  grow  flax  unless  protected 
by  a duty  upon  imported  flax  grown  where  labor  is  much  cheaper.  In 
the  East  we  secure  both  fiber  and  seed,  but  in  doing  so  we  may  compro- 
mise the  full  possibilities  of  each,  but  in  the  West,  where  flax  is  grown 
for  the  seed,  the  500,000  tons  of  fiber  annually  wasted  could  certainly  be 
utilized  for  paper  stock,  gunny-cloth,  twines,  cordage,  crash  toweling, 
&c.,  if  a sufficient  duty  would  be  placed  on  foreign  stock  and  foreign 
goods  competing  therewith. 

We  therefore  earnestly  recommend  that  the  duty  be  increased  upon 
flax  not  hackled,  flax  hackled,  and  flax-tow.  Most  excellent  hemp  is 
being  grown  in  Kentucky  and  Missouri,  and  it  would  be  a national  ca- 
lamity to  p t a stop  to  the  cultivation  of  this  important  fiber;  but  unless 
protected  by  a duty  upon  foreign  hemp,  we  are  certain  that,  its  cultiva- 
tion would  soon  cease,  and  hence  we  ask  that  the  present  duty  be  main- 
tained upon  hemp  and  hemp  tow.  Jute  can  be  grown  in  the  Southern 
States  to  advantage,  and  with  the  perfection  of  machinery  for  cleaning 
the  fiber  after  it  is  steeped  or  retted,  the  cultivation  of  jute  will  become 
a very  large  industry  in  the  South.  We  confidently  expect  that 
American  genius  will  soon  produce  a jute-cleaning  machine  which  will 
do  for  jute  what  the  “gin”  has  done  for  cotton,  and  we  therefore  ask 
that  the  present  duty  upon  jute  be  maintained. 


E.  A.  HARTSHORN. J 


FLAX  AND  HEMP. 


273 


We  regret  to  inform  you  that  by  reason  of  an  insufficient  duty  upon 
flax,  hemp,  and  jute,  yarns,  twines,  threads,  and  cloths,  and  especially  the 
finer  sorts,  the  spinning  and  weaving  thereof  in  our  country  has  as  yet 
hardly  commenced.  We  are  sending  abroad  fully  $30,000,000  annually 
to  pay  for  these  goods  and  enrich  foreign  nations,  which  ought  to  swell 
the  income  of  our  agricultural  community,  our  working  classes,  and  our 
capitalists,  in  connection  with  the  production  and  manufacture  of  these 
textiles.  Large  capitals  have  been  sunk  and  utterly  lost  in  praise- 
worthy attempts  to  weave  linens  in  this  country,  not  because  of  failure 
to  produce  the  goods,  but  because  when  manufactured  the  goods  could 
not  be  sold  at  cost  and  profit  against  goods  made  abroad  by  cheaper 
labor,  and  entered  at  a duty  insufficient  to  compensate  for  the  higher 
labor  costs  here. 

We  most  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  all  other 
fabrics,  such  as  cottons,  woolens,  silks,  &c.,  which  have  received  due 
protection,  and  which  thereby  our  people  have  been  able  to  manufact- 
ure, have  been  steadily  cheapened  in  price ; and  even  such  coarser  flax, 
hemp,  and  jute  goods  as  we  have  been  able  to  produce  here  under  our 
present  tariff  have  been  greatly  reduced  in  price,  while  the  finer  sorts, 
which  we  cannot  make  here  on  account  of  insufficient  duty  to  protect 
our  higher  cost  labor,  are  not  materially  cheaper  (on  a gold  basis)  than 
10  or  15  years  ago. 

We  therefore  desire  the  duty  to  be  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  upon  all 
manufactures  of  flax,  hemp,  and  jute.  We  confidently  believe  that  the 
country  at  large  will  scarcely  feel  the  effect  of  such  increase  of  duty, 
and  we  predict  that,  so  soon  as  the  manufacture  of  these  goods  shall  be 
fairly  established  in  our  country,  their  cost  to  the  people  will  be  steadily 
cheapened,  and  reduced  to  a much  lower  price  than  at  present. 

For  seventy  years  flax-spinning  has  been  carried  on  in  the  village  of 
Schaghticoke.  People  are  still  living  there  who  worked  more  than 
fifty  years  ago  in  the  old  Joy  linen  mill,  occupying  the  site  on  which 
the  present  cable  flax  mill  now  stands.  Previous  to  1861  skilled  hack- 
lers  (men)  received  $1  per  hundred  for  dressing  flax;  skilled  spinners 
(women)  worked  for  50  cents  per  day,  and  children  (boys  and  girls)  were 
paid  50  cents  per  week,  boarding  themselves.  Strong,  unskilled  men 
could  be  obtained  at  from  50  to  62£  cents  per  day.  But  even  while  pay- 
ing these  low  wages  the  Schaghticoke  mill  could  not  compete  success- 
fully with  Scotch  manufacturers,  and  actually  lost  government  con- 
tracts for  navy  sail-cloth  (duck),  which  they  had  held  many  years,  be- 
cause the  compensation  of  the  foreign  operatives  was  less  than  that  of 
Americans  in  the  same  line  of  labor.  Flax  could  then  be  bought  at 
eight  to  nine  cents  per  pound,  and  unbleached  shoe  and  harness  threads 
sold  at  50  cents  per  pound.  Since  1861  the  wages  of  hacklers  have  ad- 
vanced to  about  $2  x>er  hundred,  those  of  spinners  to  $1  per  day,  and 
those  of  children  to  $2.40  per  week.  Flax  now  costs  12  to  13  cents  per 
pound.  Brown  shoe  and  harness  threads,  however,  have  fallen  to  30 
cents  per  pound. 

These  facts  show  that  twenty  years  of  tariff  protection  have  resulted  in 
doubling  the  wages  of  operatives  in  the  special  branches  of  manufact- 
ure pursued  in  the  mill  at  Schaghticoke,  added  25  to  30  per  cent,  to  the 
prices  secured  by  farmers  for  flax,  and  cheapened  the  cost  of  goods  to 
consumers  fully  60  per  cent.  Suppose  protection  by  tariff  were  ex- 
tended to  attempts  in  the  direction  of  producing  fine  domestic  linens, 
what  would  be  the  effect1?  One  of  our  correspondents  would  probably 
say  the  prices  of  such  goods  would  instantly  bound  upward.  The  other 
might  reply  that  the  increase  would  be  temporary,  and  followed  by  a 

H.  Mis.  6 18 


274 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


l«.  A.  HAUTSHORN. 


reduction  to  figures  below  those  now  obtaining,  as  soon  as  the  new  man- 
ufacture had  secured  a foothold. 

Doubtless  it  will  be  represented  to  your  honorable  Commission  that 
our  climate,  soil,  water  (and  possibly  our  intelligence),  are  unfavorable 
for  the  manufacture  of  linen  cloths,  but  we  can  assure  you  that  such  is 
not  true  in  fact,  and  we  can  fully  assure  you  that  labor  cost  alone  pre- 
vents our  people  from  supplying  themselves  with  domestic  flax  and  hemp, 
and  the  products  therefrom,  home  spun,  home  woven,  home  bleached, 
and  home  dyed. 

We  beg  to  remind  the  Commission  that  flax-growing,  spinning,  weav- 
ing, bleaching,  &c.,  in  the  north  of  Ireland,  from  whence  comes  nearly 
all  our  fine  linens,  was  developed  under  the  fostering  care  of  the  gov- 
ernment. Numerous  acts  of  Parliament  were  passed  to  encourage  this 
industry.  A duty  was  imposed  upon  foreign  linens,  a bounty  was  paid 
to  the  Irish  manufacturer  for  all  linen  cloth  produced,  and  an  additional 
bounty  for  all  that  was  exported,  and  a fine  was  imposed  on  all  subjects 
wearing  foreign  fine  linen  goods  in  any  part  of  a garment,  and  upon 
manufacturers  of  flax  machinery  selling  the  same  for  exportation. 

We  have  greater  confidence  in  the  future  possibilities  of  the  linen  in- 
dustry in  our  country,  and  only  ask  for  such  duty  as  will  enable  us  to 
manufacture  flax,  hemp,  and  jute  goods,  and  pay  for  the  labor  thereon 
upon  an  American  basis  of  at  least  double  the  wages  paid  by  our  com- 
petitors abroad,  which  we  humbly  trust  your  Commission  will  recom- 
mend, and  Congress  will  promptly  ratify,  confirm,  and  enact. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  In  what  do  you  differ  from  Mr.  Barbour,  who  has  appeared 
before  us  in  regard  to  the  flax  interest  ? — Answer.  He  has  stated  to  the 
Commission  that  the  finer  grade  of  linens  cannot  be  made  in  this  country 
for  some  time  to  come. 

Mr.  Barbour.  Whenever  we  can  grow  corn  in  Ireland,  you  can  make 
fine  linens  here. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  You  differ  on  the  question  of  climate,  then,  is 
that  it? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  My  assurance  is  that  the  finest  linen  goods 
made  in  the  wide  world  can  be  fabricated  in  our  country. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  It  having  been  asserted  that  on  account  of  climatic  conditions  only 
the  north  of  Ireland  was  peculiarly  fitted  for  the  manufacture  of  fine 
linens,  I would  like  to  inquire  of  you  whether  there  are  any  large  quanti- 
ties of  lineus  made  in  France  of  extra  good  quality? — A.  Yes,  sir.  So  far 
as  my  information  extends,  I can  say  to  the  Commission  that  when  these 
fine  linens  began  to  be  made  in  Ireland,  the  Irish  spinners  themselves 
did  not  think  that  they  could  bleach  them  and  they  were  sent  to  Hol- 
land to  be  bleached.  But  later  on  they  found  that  they  could  bleach 
them  in  Ireland  as  well  as  they  could  in  Holland,  and  now,  of  course, 
they  are  bleached  in  Ireland,  in  the  north  of  France,  and  in  Holland. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  And  in  Italy,  too,  I believe. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I may  say  (and  I believe  my  information  is  correct)  that 
they  are  now  grass-bleaching  fine  linens  in  Ireland  in  as  few  weeks  as 
it  formerly  took  months  to  bleach  them  in.  That  is  to  say,  there  were 
no  chemicals  applied  originally,  and  the  dews  and  the  rains  really  did 
it  all.  But  now  it  is  largely  done  by  the  use  of  chemicals,  without  any 
injury  to  the  fabric,  and  the  goods  are  out  perhaps  three  or  four  weeks, 
or  five  weeks,  instead  of  as  many  months,  as  formerly,  and  that  is  my 


E.  A.  HARTSHORN.] 


FLAX  AND  HEMP. 


275 


reason  for  saying  that  I believe  we  can  make  and  bleach  them  in  this 
country.  I could  show  samples  of  flax  yarns  spun  by  my  factory  and 
bleached  quite  white  in  one  day,  made  very  white  in  two  days,  and  in 
four  days  I could  show  you  a sample  quite  as  white  as  you  would  de- 
sire, and  yet  the  fiber  is  not  injured  particularly  thereby,  and  you  could 
not  detect  any  trace  of  chemicals.  The  thread  makers  are  making 
bleached  goods — half  bleached,  not  full  white — all  the  time  in  this 
country,  and  therefore  I believe  we  can  make  the  fine  white  linens. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  I understand  your  committee  to  say  that  the  silk  interest  has  a pro- 
tection of  60  per  centum,  the  cotton  interest  an  average  of  about  65  per 
centum,  while  you  ask  for  the  manufacturers  of  flax,  jute,  and  hemp 
further  protection,  and  that  jute  is  not  produced  in  any  considerable 
quantities  in  this  country.  I also  understand  it  to  be  the  admitted  fact 
that  raw  silk  is  not  produced  in  this  country  in  any  considerable  quan- 
tity. Are  not  those  conditions  parallel  so  far  as  regards  jute,  and  are 
not  the  conditions  the  same  as  between  flax  and  hemp  and  cotton,  in 
a degree,  cotton,  flax,  and  hemp  being  produced  from  the  raw  product? 
Taking  this  question  as  the  hypothesis,  what  is  the  objection  to  putting 
flax,  jute,  and  hemp  on  the  free  li^t  as  raw  silk  and  raw  cotton  are  now 
on  the  free  list? — A.  My  answer  is  that  it  would  spoil  a magnificent 
possibility  for  the  American  people;  that  we  do  not  now  feel  the  duty 
of  15  dollars  a ton  upon  the  raw  jute,  and  that  we  confidently  believe 
that  in  the  near  future  the  culture  of  jute  will  be  like  the  cotton  culture, 
a great  industry  of  our  country,  and  that  it  will  be  as  profi table  in  the 
southern  tier  of  States  as  cotton  is. 

Q.  Then  you  would  put  a duty  on  raw  cotton,  of  course  ? — A.  I would 
put  a duty  on  raw  cotton  as  it  was  once  put  upon  it,  if  we  did  not  grow 
it  now,  and  if  thereby  we  could  make  it  a grand  success  in  this  country; 
and  so,  if  we  can  produce  the  silk  in  this  country,  as  we  are  finding  out 
we  can,  I would  put  a sufficient  duty  on  it  to  encourage  its  culture. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  culture  of  jute? — A.  I have  never  been 
in  India,  where  it  is  grown,  but  I have  made  it  a matter  of  reading  and 
study  for  many  years,  being  interested  in  it. 

Q.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  culture,  or  have  you  seen  hemp  grow? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  jute  grow  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I have  not.  I could 
not  speak  with  reference  to  the  cultivation  of  jute  as  I could  with  refer- 
ence to  the  cultivation  of  flax  or  hemp,  because  I am  perfectly  familiar 
with  the  latter. 

Q.  If  we  were  to  take  the  duty  oft*  hemp,  would  the  effect  be  to  drive 
the  home  culture  out  of  the  market,  as  some  gentlemen  assert  ? — A.  I 
do  not  believe  the  cultivation  of  hemp  would  go  on  for  three  years 
under  those  circumstances.  I do  not  think  there  would  be  any  hemp 
raised  if  you  took  the  $25  a ton  duty  off  of  it.  In  fact,  in  Missouri  it  is 
now  almost  an  extinct  industry,  and  they  used  to  raise  thousands  of 
tons  of  hemp  there. 

Q.  What  do  you  predicate  that  opinion  upon  ? — A.  From  the  fact 
that  the  farmer,  paying  his  hands  the  wages  that  obtain  in  this  country, 
could  not  get  a new  dollar  for  the  old  one  invested.  The  cultivation  of 
hemp  in  this  country  could  not  exist  in  competition  with  the  hemp  grown 
in  Russia  and  sent  here  free  of  duty. 

Q.  The  same  reasoning  would  lead  to  the  same  conclusion  in  regard 


276 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


ftf.  A.  HARTSHORN. 


to  jute? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I tliink  if  you  put  jute  on  the  free  list,  that  the 
people  who  are  working  away  with  their  brains  and  money  on  the  ma- 
chinery to  manufacture  it,  or  making  experiments  in  the  South,  would 
stop  at  once  and  say  it  was  of  no  use,  for  we  cannot  compete  with  Indian 
labor  at  the  rate  of  10  or  15  cents  a day. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I do  not  like  to  proffer  information,  because 
we  are  seeking  it,  but  I would  state  as  a fact  that  in  the  State  of  Louis- 
iana I found  a gentleman  had  grown  jute  to  the  extent  of  25  or  30 
acres,  equal  in  appearance  and  as  heavy  in  weight  as  any  hemp  ever 
grown  in  the  United  States.  It  is  ascertained  as  a fact  that  the  soil 
and  the  climate  are  particularly  adapted  to  the  culture  of  the  jute  we 
use.  These  facts  I state  unhesitatingly,  for  they  are  the  actual  truth . 

The  Witness.  As  purchasing  agent  for  our  company  I have  received 
by  mail  on  different  occasions  five  or  six  samples  of  jute — small  pieces — 
grown,  some  in  Florida  and  in  Louisiana,  and  in  other  sections  of  the 
South,  and  I can  say  that  uniformly  the  fiber  has  pleased  me  immensely. 
It  has  been  of  a bluish  color,  and  really  has  the  solider  qualities  of  flax 
or  hemp  and  not  the  frailty  of  the  Indian  jute.  The  samples  that  have 
been  shown  me  look  better  every  way  than  the  Indian  jute. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  The  only  trouble  is  the  expense  of  preparing 
it;  there  is  no  trouble  in  growing  it. 


WILLIAM  LYBLL.J 


SPINNING  MACHINERY 


277 


WILLIAM  LYELL. 

Long  Branch,  X.  J.,  July  28, 1882. 

Mr.  William  Lyell,  of  the  firm  of  James  & William  Lyell,  of  New 
York  city,  representing  the  manufacture  of  spinning  machinery,  ap- 
peared before  the  Commission  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and  made 
the  following  statement: 

I will  state  to  the  Commission  that  our  business  is  directly  the  manu- 
facturing of  weaving  machinery,  but  we  are  also  interested  in  several 
enterprises  looking  to  the  production  of  jute  and  cotton  fabrics.  So  far 
as  the  duty  is  concerned,  I agree  with  Mr.  Hinde  in  advocating  free 
lute.  We  are  tariff  men  all  the  way  through,  and  our  interests  are  that 
way.  But  we  are  consuming  large  quantities  of  jute,  probably  the  most 
that  is  spun  and  woven  in  this  country,  and  the  facts  are  that  on  the 
raw  material  we  are  paying  a duty  of  25  to  30  per  cent.,  while  the  pro- 
tection on  manufactured  articles  is  only  25  per  cent.  So  that  there  is 
a discrimination  against  our  industry  here,  and  we  are  not  only  com- 
peting against  the  cheap  labor  of  Europe,  but  the  government  duties 
are  against  us  also. 

I think,  if  there  is  a possibility  of  raising  jute  in  this  country,  in  order 
to  protect  the  farmer  and  the  manufacturer,  there  should  be  a compen- 
sating tariff.  Many  persons  who  are  trying  to  perfect  machines  for  the 
preparation  of  jute  have  been  to  our  manufactory,  and  have  shown  us 
the  results  of  their  experiments.  Those  who  have  tried  to  raise  jute 
say  that  it  will  be  absolutely  necessary  to  have  a machine  invented  for 
its  preparation,  in  order  to  make  its  production  profitable.  But  as  yet 
there  has  been  no  device  suggested  that  can  prepare  the  jute  after  it  is 
grown,  to  enable  us  to  compete  with  the  cheap  hand  labor  of  India. 
It  may  be  possible  to  invent  such  a machine;  and  if  it  is  possible,  then 
no  doubt  the  product  will  be  raised  largely  in  this  country.  But  in  the 
meantime  you  will  kill  the  manufacture  if  you  don’t  have  some  protec- 
tion. I think  if  the  duty  on  jute  was  about  three-fourths  of  a cent  a pound 
ou  a specific  tariff  it  would  be  well.  Our  firm  has  made,  I believe,  all  the 
machinery  that  has  been  used  in  this  country  for  the  manufacture  of  this 
article.  If  Congress  will  fix  the  tariff  at  a proper  rate,  we  will  have 
many  more  mills  in  this  country,  giving  employment  to  large  numbers 
of  people.  There  are  large  manufacturers  of  this  article  in  Dundee, 
Scotland,  and  they  have  grown  rich  on  the  profits  of  the  manufacture. 
Of  course  we  have  the  cheap  labor  of  Europe  to  compete  with,  as  we  do 
in  all  other  manufactures;  but  I think  with  the  proper  tariff  that  we  could 
even  overcome  that  disadvantage. 

With  regard  to  flax,  I know  very  little  about  it,  although  we  are,  at 
present,  furnishing  the  machinery  for  a mill  in  Wisconsin.  I was  there 
last  month  and  found  a manufacturer  there  who  gathers  his  flax  and 
scutches  it,  and  is  weaving  it.  It  is  a new  industry,  and  I do  not  know 
whether  it  will  be  able  to  live  or  not  under  the  present  condition  of 
things.  But  this  manufacturer  is  going  on  in  an  enterprising  way,  and 
he  assures  me  that  any  quantity  of  the  flax  can  be  raised  there  and 
gathered  in  cheaply.  I f we  had  protection,  it  would  improve  the  quality 


278 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  LYELL. 


of  the  flax,  and  the  farmers  would  protect  the  straw  as  well  as  look 
after  the  seed  only.  Heretofore  they  have  thrown  the  straw  away  as 
valueless.  This  same  manufacturer  showed  me  some  hundreds  of  tons 
of  it  that  he  had  already  gathered  and  was  putting  through  his  process 
of  manufacture. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  Has  any  machine  beeu  invented  looking  to  the  preparing 
of  jute  for  manufacture,  that  is  to  say,  separating  the  wood  from  the 
fiber  ? — Answer.  My  brother,  who  is  a practical  man,  and  who  has  a 
general  acquaintance  with  that  matter,  can  perhaps  inform  you  better 
than  I can. 


o 


JOHN  H1NDE.] 


FLAX. 


279 


s> 

JOHN  ltiNDE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 

Mr.  John  Hinde,  of  New  York  City,  representing  the  flax  and  twine 
interest,  appeared  before  the  Commission,  in  response  to  its  invitation, 
and  made  the  following  statement: 

I do  not  know  that  I can  make  any  statement  to  the  Commission 
which  would  give  any  facts  in  addition  to  those  which  have  been  pre- 
sented by  the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me.  I indorse  the  views 
contained  in  the  statement  presented  to  yon  by  Mr.  Barbour,  and  the 
views  which  other  gentlemen  have  expressed  to  you  orally  in  regard  to 
this  matter.  Our  company  has  found  great  difficulty  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  carpet  yarns,  of  which  we  are  large  manufacturers.  Schedule 
C,  paragraph  50,  says  that  hemp  yarn  shall  pay  a duty  of  5 cents  a 
pound ; and  under  that  same  section,  paragraph  41,  it  says  that  linen 
yarns  for  carpets  not  exceeding  No.  8 Lea,  and  valued  at  24  cents  or 
less  per  pound,  shall  pay  30  per  centum  ad  valorem.  The  construction 
given  by  the  department  at  Washington  has  been,  that  hemp  yarns 
come  under  the  designation  of  flax  or  linen  yarns,  and  instead  of  paying 
5 cents  a pound  duty,  as  it  seems  to  us  the  law  was  originally  intended 
to  provide,  it  comes  in  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  paying  only  really  a 
duty  of  about  2 cents  a pound.  It  has  been  so  deleterious  to  our  inter- 
ests that  about  one-half  of  our  employes  are  now  idle,  placing  us  in 
about  the  same  relation  as  the  manufacturers  who  had  to  abandon  the 
business  in  consequence  of  the  lowness  of  the  tariff,  and  the  high  price 
of  labor  which  they  have  to  pay,  in  comparison  with  the  price  paid  for 
European  labor.  We  are  paying  at  present  in  New  York  City  from  $6 
to  $8  a week  for  spinners,  while  abroad  the  Irish  and  Scotch  spinners  are 
paying  only  6 to  8 shillings  a week  for  precisely  the  same  labor.  So  that 
we  are  paying  as  many  dollars  a week  for  wages  as  on  the  other  side 
they  are  paying  sterling  shillings;  and,  unless  we  have  a protective 
tariff,  something  akin  to  50  per  cent,  in  place  of  35  or  40  in  the  present 
tariff,  it  is  almost  impossible  to  compete  with  foreign  importations. 

It  does  not  seem  strange,  with  this  large  discrepancy  in  the  price  of 
labor,  that  the  manufacturers  who  first  started  the  Willim antic  Linen 
Company,  at  Willimantic,  Conn.,  who  went  in  with  new  machinery  and 
imported  skilled  labor  to  do  the  work,  had  to  abandon  the  business.  It 
is  true  they  still  retain  the  name  of  the  Willimantic  Linen  Company. 
They  make  very  good  crash  goods,  but  their  machinery  mostly  was 
broken  up  and  abandoned.  The  same  was  true  with  the  Sprague  Man- 
ufacturing Company.  The  present  tariff  was  framed  so  that  they  should 
have  their  goods  almost  free  of  duty,  and  yet  under  those  favorable 
conditions  the  mill  was  abandoned,  and  broken  up  and  sold.  Such 
was  the  case  also  with  the  United  States  Linen  Company.  But  without 
such  a protective  tariff  as  we  have  advocated  here  of  50  per  cent.,  I see 
no  hope  for  the  future  for  the  linen  industry  in  this  country. 

Something  has  been  said  relative  to  jute,  and  I do  not  know  but  what 
my  friend,  Mr.  Lyell,  will  advocate  free  jute.  And  really,  looking  at  it, 
I do  not  see  why  jute  should  not  come  in  free.  There  is  none  being 


280 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  HINDE. 


raised  in  this  country;  and  yet  there  is  a glorious  possibility  of  it,  as 
Mr.  Hartshorn  has  said.  The  future  may  loom  up  so  that  the  jute  may 
be  raised  in  Louisiana  and  Florida  to  a considerable  extent,  if  only 
American  ingenuity  would  invent  a machine  to  break  it  up,  scutch  it, 
and  dress  it,  the  same  as  they  do  by  manual"  labor  in  India.  But  that 
is  a long  distance  ahead,  the  sambas  the  line  linen  industry  trade  is, 
for  this  country.  We  cannot  hope  to  manufacture  fine  linens  for  shirt- 
ings and  collars  in  this  country  for  many  years  to  come.  Yet  there  is 
a possibility  that  in  Oregon,  flax  can  be  raised  equal  to  the  Irish  flax; 
and  in  Minnesota  some  flax  can  be  raised  almost  as  good  as  the  Dutch 
flax;  so  that  in  the  distant  future,  linen  may  be  produced  here.  To  do 
it,  however,  we  shall  need  protection.  Without  protection  it  is  utterly 
impossible  to  produce  these  things,  and  to  manufacture  these  various 
grades  of  goods.  I do  not  know  that  I have  any  further  remarks  to 
make. 

By  Commissioner  Botel*er  : 

Question.  I understand  that  the  experiments  that  have  already  been 
made  in  the  South  show  that  our  lands  are  very  well  adapted  for  the 
production  of  j ute  in  fine  quality  and  large  quantities  to  the  acre.  W ould 
it  be  good  policy  to  admit  the  article  free  of  duty,  and  thus,  in  the  infancy 
of  that  production,  crush  out  all  attempts  to  raise  it  hereafter1? — Answer. 
That  is  a question  which  I am  hardly  prepared  to  answer.  As  I say, 
there  is  a possibility  of  its  being  successfully  produced  in  this  country, 
and  I have  seen  some  samples  of  jute  raised  in  this  country  much  superior 
to  any  jute  I ever  saw  that  came  from  India. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  there  is  a probability  (taking  into  considera- 
tion the  ingenuity  of  our  people,  who  have  been  equal  to  almost  any 
emergency  in  devising  machines  for  certain  processes)  that  in  the  near 
future  some  machine  maybe  devised  to  prepare  this  product?— A.  Yes, 
sir;  and  I think  it  would  be  unwise  to  leave  out  of  view  the  possibility 
of  the  construction  of  machinery  adapted  for  the  cleaning  of  jute.  1 
think  it  is  quite  possible  that  such  machinery  may  be  devised;  there 
seems  to  be  almost  no  limit  to  the  possibilities  of  machinery.  The-man 
who  says  the  construction  of  a machine  to  prepare  jute  is  an  impossibility, 
is  behind  the  age.  It  does  not  seem  more  impossible  now  to  have  a 
machine  constructed  for  the  preparation  of  jute  than  it  did  to  have  a 
machine  constructed  for  the  ginning  of  cotton  before  Whitney  invented 
the  cotton  gin.  I think  we  may  calculate  upon  having  a machine  as 
certainly  now  as  they  could  in  the  past  time  anticipate  the  invention 
of  the  cotton  gin.  Therefore,  I say  that  I do  not  think  it  is  unreason- 
able to  expect  that  in  the  near  future  we  may  have  such  a machine. 


-HIRAM  SISSON.] 


FLAX. 


281 


# HIRAM  SISSON. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 

Mr.  Hiram  Sisson,  of  Eagle  Bridge,  N.  Y.,  representing  the  flax- 
growing  industry,  appeared  before  the  Commission  upon  its  invitation, 
and  made  the  following  statement : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  At  a conven- 
tion held  in  Saratoga  on  the  19th  of  July,  by  the  flax,  hemp,  and  jute 
manufacturers  and  the  flax-growers  of  the  United  States,  we  agreed 
upon  a paper  which  I ask  may  be  read  to  you.  With  your  permission 
it  will  be  read  by  Mr.  Thomas  Barbour.  (See  testimony  of  Thomas 
Barbour.) 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  What  is  considered  an  average  good  crop  of  flax  to  the 
acre  ! — Answer.  In  New  York  State  300  pounds  to  the  acre  is  considered 
to  be  a good  crop  ; perhaps  250  pounds  to  the  acre  would  be  the  aver- 
age. 

Q.  What  would  that  represent  in  a crude  state;  what  percentage 
would  you  throw  away  ! — A.  I think  if  the  straw  has  been  properly 
retted,  it  is  calculated  that  a pound  of  flax  can  be  obtained  from  every 
five  or  six  pounds  of  straw. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  What  amount  of  seed  per  acre  is  the  usual  yield! — A.  Eight 
bushels  per  acre  is  considered  a fair  yield. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Can  the  seed  and  flax  both  be  preserved! — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  can. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  Without  injury  to  either! — A.  Perhaps  the  fiber  is  not  quite  as 
good  as  it  would  be  if  it  was  harvested  before  the  seed  is  matured. 
But  then  it  is  good,  so  that  we  consider  them  both  worth  saving. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  is  the  comparative  quality  of  American  flax  ! — A.  It  is  very 
good,  iudeed.  They  raise  some  flax  in  Ireland  that  is  superior  to  any 
that  we  have  in  this  country.  I sell  a great  deal  of  flax,  and  am  ac- 
quainted with  many  buyers,  and  I know  that  they  pay  a pretty  fair 
price  for  our  flax;  that  is  to  say,  compared  with  the  cheaper  grades  of 
flax  raised  in  Russia  and  other  places.  I will  tell  you  what  I know 
about  flax  in  Illinois  and  Iowa.  There  they  sow  their  flax  for  the  seed 
wholly.  All  they  do  is  to  plow  the  ground,  sow  their  seed  and  mow 
the  flax  with  a machine,  dry  it  and  put  it  through  a machine  that  is 
propelled  by  horse-power,  to  knock  the  seed  off,  leaving  the  straw  on  the 
field.  That  would  cost  to  pull  the  flax  and  prepare  it  for  market  about 
nine  dollars  per  acre,  and  then  it  would  cost  about  five  dollars  per  acre 
to  put  the  flax  (which  would  have  to  be  done  by  the  hand,  separating 
it  carefully)  upon  the  grass  and  bleach  it  with  the  rains  or  dew.  Then 
they  gather  it  up  and  bind  it  in  sheaves  and  take  it  to  the  mill.  This 
latter  process  would  cost  about  five  dollars  to  the  acre.  It  costs  three 


282 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HIRAM  SISSON* 


dollars  to  the  hundred  pounds  to  scutch  the  flax.  The  people  of  the 
West  cannot  sell  their  flax  at  a high  enough  price,  labor  being  so  higlq 
to  make  it  any  object  for  them  to  cultivate  it  5 the  price  they  receive  for 
the  flax  being:  so  low  after  it  is  scutched. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  You  think  the  average  yield,  then,  would  be  about  250  pounds  to 
the  acre? — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  New  York  State,  where  I live.  I think  there 
is  more  flax  raised — that  is,  scutched — in  New  York  than  in  any  other 
State  in  the  Union. 

Q.  Is  the  yield  per  acre  as  great  or  less  in  the  West  than  it  is  in  New 
York  State? — A.  I think  it  is  as  great. 

Q.  You  have  given,  us  in  a general  way,  the  cost  of  getting  this  flax 
ready  for  market.  What  is  the  product  of  250  pounds  per  acre;  that  i& 
to  say,  what  is  it  worth  at  the  present  price,  or  its  market  value  in  the 
State  of  New  York  ? — A.  That  would  depend  something  upon  the  quality 
of  it.  The  larger  the  growth  of  the  flax  the  more  it  will  bring  per 
pound.  Flax  that  would  yield  250  pounds  to  the  acre  might  be  worth 
10  or  11  cents  a pound  at  this  time. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  I understand  that  a very  large  proportion  of  the  flax  fiber  is  burnt 
or  used  for  other  purposes  than  for  manufacturing? — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  the 
Western  States,  but  not  in  New  York  State. 

Q.  How  much  capital,  in  round  numbers,  is  invested  in  the  manufact- 
uring of  flax,  jute,  and  hemp  fiber  to  be  used  in  textile  fabrics  in  thi& 
country? — A.  I am  not  prepared  to  state. 

Q.  Is  there  a very  considerable  amount  of  capital  invested? — A.  They 
are  raising  a great  deal  of  flax  in  the  West  at  present,  but  that  is  for 
the  seed  only. 

Q.  I am  not  talking  about  that;  but  I understand  from  the  paper  sub- 
mitted by  your  association  that  you  recommend  an  additional  duty  on 
the  raw  material,  rather  in  the  hope  of  encouraging  the  growth  of  the- 
raw  product  in  this  country  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  hereafter 
than  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  an  agricultural  industry,  if  I may  so 
call  it,  which  has  not  attained  any  considerable  magnitude. — A.  We  are 
in  hopes,  if  we  could  get  more  protection,  that  this  business  would  in- 
crease and  enlarge. 

Q.  But  is  it  very  large  now? — A.  It  is  quite  large  in  some  sections  of 
the  country. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  practical  effect  if  Congress  should  put  flaxr 
jute,  hemp,  tow -flax,  &c.,  on  the  free  list  and  leave  the  rates  of  duty  on 
the  manufactured  articles  from  these  products  about  where  they  are? — 
A.  I think  it  would  drive  the  growing  of  flax  out  of  the  States;  that 
we  could  not  compete  with  foreign  labor  in  raising  it. 

Q.  I understand  that  it  is  grown  now  principally  for  the  seed,  except 
in  New  York  State? — A.  They  do  that,  but  they  cannot  afford  to  raiso 
the  flax  and  prepare  it  for  market,  because  there  is  no  money  in  it. 

Q.  And  it  is  not  raised  now*  for  market  except  in  New  York  State  ? — 
A.  But  a duty  might  help  them  to  do  that. 

Q.  That  is  exactly  what  I wanted  to  get  at.  Now,  can  you  tell  me 
about  how  much  capital  is  invested  in  New  York  State  in  the  produc- 
tion of  the  fiber  exclusive  of  the  seed  for  oil? — A.  1 do  not  know  that 
I could  answer  that  except  by  saying  that  within  the  past  year  I have 
handled  between  four  and  five  hundred  thousand  pounds  of  dressed 
flax.  I have  sold  it  to  these  manufacturers. 


HIBAM  SISSON.] 


FLAX. 


28a 


Q.  And  that  flax  was  produced  in  the  State  of  New  York  ? — A.  Yes* 
sir ; produced  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

Q.  What  is  the  value  of  that  flax  ? — A.  Perhaps  that  amount  would 
be  worth  $60,000. 

Q.  And  the  capital  invested  in  producing  that  amount  of  material  is 
how  much  ? — A.  I could  not  say.  The  farmer  sows  it,  and  then  it  goes 
to  market,  and  he  gets  what  he  can  out  of  it. 

Q.  But  are  there  not  firms  exclusively  devoted  to  this  industry  ? — A. 
No,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Is  there  any  mechanical  process  or  invention  by  which  flax  is 
hackled  and  prepared  for  the  manufacturer  ? — A.  Mr.  Barbour  and  other 
members  of  the  committee,  I think,  could  answer  that  question. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  there  not  some  gentleman  here  to-day  who  is  familiar  with  the 
subject  of  jute? — A.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  John  Sloan  is,  I think. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  WThat  kind  of  soil  and  climate  is  best  suited  for  the  raising  of 
flax  ? — A.  I think  a rich  heavy  loam  is  the  best  soil,  and  a cold  moist 
season  is  very  favorable  to  its  development. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Blue  Ridge  country  of  the  United 
States  ? — A.  I am  not. 

Q.  If  the  Blue  Ridge  region  abounds  in  very  rich  soil  and  the  seasons 
there  are  moist,  would  that  not  be  a suitable  country  for  the  raising  of 
flax  ? — A.  I do  not  see  why  it  should  not  be. 

Q.  Humidity  is  one  of  the  elements  of  its  successful  culture? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  is  the  advantage  of  growing  flax  in  case  of  the  failure  of 
other  crops 5 is  there  any  advantage  in  growing  flax  on  account  of  being 
able  to  grow  it  after  another  crop  has  failed  ? — A.  No,  sir  ; not  in  the 
same  season. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  The  gentleman  who  preceded  you  [Mr.  Thomas  Barbour]  men- 
tioned the  fact  that  some  500,000  tons  of  this  straw  was  burnt  in  the 
Western  States.  That  I presume  is  burnt  because  the  price  does  not 
justify  them  in  sending  it  to  market;  is  that  the  case? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I 
suppose  it  is. 

Q.  How  much  enhancement  of  the  imce  would  be  necessary  to  in- 
duce the  farmers  to  bring  it  to  market  ? — A.  That  I cannot  state.  There 
may  be  other  gentlemen  before  you  who  can  give  you  that  information. 

Q.  As  I understand,  the  reason  it  is  not  used  by  the  manufacturers 
is,  that  they  can  buy  the  material  in  other  quarters  cheaper  than  they 
can  get  it  of  the  farmers  of  the  West. — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  how  much  cheaper  they  can  buy  it  in  that  way  ? — A. 
I cannot  say,  because  there  are  so  many  different  grades  of  flax.  I am 
not  very  well  informed  in  regard  to  American  flax. 

Q.  How  much  duty  are  you  asking  to  be  put  on  imported  flax  ? — A. 
The  duty  is  $20  a ton  now.  We  only  ask  to  increase  it  to  $30  a ton. 
On  what  is  called  hackled  flax  it  is  now  $40  a ton,  and  we  want  that 
increased  to  $50  a ton.  This  is  a kind  of  a compromise  between  the  man- 
ufacturers and  the  growers  of  flax.  We  have  already  agreed  to  this 
arrangement,  so  that  it  will  give  them  a little  protection  and  us  a little^ 


284 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HIRAM  SISSON. 


Q.  This  increase  of  duty,  $10  a ton,  which  yon  ask,  you  assume  would 
bring  this  flax  that  is  now  burned,  to  the  manufacturers  ? — A.  It  would 
be  a help  in  that  direction,  although  it  would  not  be  very  much  help. 
All  the  flax  that  comes  in  here  from  foreign  countries  would,  under  such 
an  increase  of  duty,  cost  the  manufacturers  a half  cent  a pound  more 
than  it  does  now. 

Q.  Would  they  continue  to  buy  and  use  the  foreign  article,  or  would 
they  buy  their  flax  in  this  country? — A.  I think  if  they  were  protected 
in  their  manufactures  then  they  could  afford  to  buy  ours  in  this  coun- 
try. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  $10  a ton  additional  duty  would  enable  the  manu- 
facturers to  buy  American  flax  to  advantage? — A.  It  would  help.  We 
would  like  to  have  the  duty  more,  but  I don’t  know  that  we  can  get  that 
done. 


JAMES  LYELL.] 


SPINNING  MACHINERY. 


285 


JAMES  LYELL. 

Long  Branch,  K.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 

Mr.  James  Lyell,  of  the  firm  of  James  and  William  Lyell,  repre- 
senting the  manufacture  of  spinning  machinery,  appeared  before  the* 
Commission  in  response  to  its  invitation,  and  made  the  following  state- 
ment : 

The  President.  Before  proceeding  with  your  statement,  I would 
like  to  inquire  whether  you  are  the  inventor  of  the  Lyell  loom  % — A.  1 

am. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  We  desire  to  know  if  there  is  any  invention  likely  to  be  at- 
tended with  success  which  can  be  used  in  the  preparation  of  the  raw  jute, 
or  jute  in  its  natural  condition,  so  as  to  separate  the  wood  from  the  fiber 
satisfactorily,  promptly,  and  cheaply,  in  order  that  it  may  be  used  in 
establishments  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  this  article. — Answer.  I 
have  had  my  attention  drawn  to  that  question  several  times  by  parties 
who  have  been  working  upon  such  machines,  and  have  been  and  seen  quite 
a number  of  experimental  machines.  But  as  yet  no  one  has  been  able 
to  invent  a machine  that  does  the  work  satisfactorily.  There  have  been 
a great  many  machines  gotten  up  for  separating  the  fiber  of  the  South 
American  product,  and  they  have  been  improving  that  machinery  in  the 
direction  of  fitting  it  for  the  preparation  of  jute;  but  they  have  not 
been  successful  as  yet.  But,  as  Mr.  Hinde  says,  we  do  not  know  what 
the  possibilities  in  this  direction  may  be ; and,  although  we  have  not 
yet  succeeded  in  perfecting  such  a machine,  I do  not  know  of  any  good 
reason  why  one  should  not  be  invented  in  the  future.  Most  of  the  jute 
machines  that  have  been  experimented  upon  have  been  abandoned  as 
useless.  One  gentleman  I know  has  spent  many  thousand  dollars  on 
his  experiments  in  this  direction ; and  it  was  because  of  his  efforts  that 
jute  machinery  was  allowed  to  come  in  free  years  ago ; that  is,  on  ac- 
count of  the  experiments  he  was  then  making  to  construct  a machine  to 
clean  the  jute  and  ramie  with.  He  carried  on  his  experiments  for  some 
time,  and  spent  a great  deal  of  his  own  and  his  friends’  money;  but  dur- 
ing the  last  few  years  he  has  gone  into  the  chemical  manufacturing 
business  and  has  abandoned  the  other  business.  But  I feel  quite  con- 
fident that  if  you  can  grow  jute  in  America  some  machine  will  be  in- 
vented to  clean  it. 

In  the  mean  time  the  jute  manufacturers  are  suff  ering  greatly  because 
the  tariff*  duties  are  right  dead  against  them  to  the  figure  of  3 to  5 per 
cent.,  beside  the  difference  in  the  price  of  labor ; and,  as  a consequence, 
it  has  driven  several  of  the  jute  mills  out  of  existence  in  this  country, 
and  it  will  drive  more  of  them  out  of  the  business  if  we  do  not  have  this 
tariff  question  fixed.  While  1 would  like  to  protect  the  farmer,  and 
have  him  grow  jute  (because  we  would  rather  use  American  jute  than 
Indian  jute),  yet  at  the  same  time  we  must  be  protected  in  some  way  or 
we  shall  go  to  the  wall.  My  brother  and  myself  weave  more  than  half 
of  all  the  jute  that  is  used  in  this  country ; but  we  have  had  a hard  bat- 
tle to  fight  and  are  still  fighting  it ; and  it  yet  remains  an  open  question 


286 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  LYELL. 


as  to  who  will  go  to  the  wall.  We  must  have  protection.  Mr.  Sloan 
has  received  two  or  three  bales  of  a very  good  quality  of  jute  from  the 
South,  he  tells  me.  But,  of  course,  if  the  producer  has  got  to  clean  the 
jute  by  hand,  he  cannot  compete  with  the  cheap  hand  labor  of  India. 
In  India  the  process  is  very  simple.  They  throw  the  jute  in  a brook  of 
water  and  let  it  soften  there,  and  then  strip  the  outside  bark  off. 

When  the  jute  is  ready  to  be  baled  in  India  it  is  not  worth  more  than 
2J  cents  a pound.  We  cannot  do  much  in  America  for  2J  cents  a pound 
in  the  way  of  labor  by  hand.  We  must  have  a machine  to  do  this  work, 
if  it  is  going  to  be  done  at  all,  because  they  can  pick  more  cotton  and 
make  more  wages  at  other  industries  than  they  can  in  this,  while  the 
figures  remain  as  low  as  they  are.  The  tariff  is  now,  and  has  been  for  the 
last  few  years,  on  jute  yarns,  about  5 per  cent,  against  us;  that  is,  we 
have  to  pay  more  duty  on  the  raw  material  than  for  the  production  of 
the  yarns;  and  burlaps,  which  is  the  great  article  that  jute  enters  into, 
get  about  30  per  cent,  protection,  while  our  jute  is  1 or  2 per  cent, 
against  us  on  that,  taking  an  average  of  the  different  grades  of  jute 
that  we  use.  If  the  Commission  can  in  some  way  arrange  matters  so 
that  we  can  look  to  the  future  and  have  a chance  to  build  up  the  indus- 
try, I think  it  would  be  very  advisable.  I was  born  in  Scotland,  but  I 
am  an  American  at  heart,  and  I would  like  to  see  America  go  forward ; 
and  if  we  can  see  a way  whereby  we  can  have  the  jute  manufacturers 
protected,  and  at  the  same  time  look  further  into  the  future  for  the  rais- 
ing of  that  jute  in  this  country,  it  would  be  a very  great  advantage  to 
all  interests.  We  would  like  very  much  to  be  able  to  use  American 
jute,  and  prefer  it  to  that  which  we  have  now  to  import. 


THOMAS  BARBOUR  1 


FLAX. 


287 


THOMAS  BARBOUR. 

Long  Branch,  Y.  J.,  July  28,  1882. 
Mr.  Thomas  Barbour,  of  the  Barbour  Flax  Spinning  Company,  of 
Paterson,  jST.  J.,  appeared  before  the  Commission  upon  its  invitation 
and  made  the  following  statement : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : At  a meeting  held  in  Saratoga, 
N.  Y.,  on  the  19th  day  of  July,  the  flax,  hemp,  and  jute  manufacturers 
and  the  flax  growers  of  the  United  States  agreed  upon  a paper  to  be 
presented  to  your  body,  and  with  your  permission  I will  read  it. 

To  the  honorable  the  Tariff  Commission : 

Gentlemen:  The  flax  and  hemp  spinners  and  producers  of  the  United  States,  as- 
sembled in  convention  at  Saratoga,  July  19,  respectfully  present  the  following  facts 
and  recommendations  for  your  consideration. 

Several  millions  of  dollars  have  been  expended  by  more  than  fifty  flax-spinning 
mills  in  an  effort  to  manufacture  linen  goods  in  tbe  United  States,  but  although  cap- 
ital was  not  lacking,  The  American  Linen  Company,  Fall  River,  Mass.,  The  •Willi- 
mantic  Linen  Company,  The  Uniled  States  Linen  Company,  The  Sprague  Linen  Com- 
pany, and  many  others,  had  to  abandon  the  business  because  the  great  disparity  in 
cost  of  labor  between  European  and  American  necessitated  a protection  larger  than  the 
tariff  afforded,  so  that  the  present  manufactures  number  about  one  dozen,  and  this 
industry,  which  England  fostered  by  imposing  a duty  on  foreign  linens,  paying  a 
bounty  on  all  linen  cloth  produced,  and  au  additional  bounty  on  all  that  was  exported, 
may  be  designated  as  in  its  infancy,  needing  a protection  such  as  was  and  is  accorded 
to  cotton,  worsted,  and  silks. 

With  a uniform  duty  of  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  flax,  hemp,  and  jute  manufact- 
ures, an  immense  impetus  would  be  given  to  this  industry,  so  that  all  the  coarser 
fabrics  as  well  as  yarns  and  twines,  would  be  made  in  this  country,  spinning  the  flax, 
which  the  farmer  now  burns  to  the  extent  of  500,000  tons  annually,  or  allows  to  rot 
as  valueless  in  the  field. 

We  recommend  that  the  present  duties  on  the  raw  and  dressed  flax  and  hemp  be 
increased  a little,  as  a protection  to  the  agriculturist  and  flax-dresser,  viz : tow,  $15 
per  ton  ; flax,  $30,  per  ton  ; hackled,  $50  per  ton.  That  Schedule  C,  paragraph  41,  be 
so  amended  that  where  the  words  “linen  yarns”  occur,  flax-tow  yarns  to  be  substituted, 
and  that  in  place  of  35  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  there  be  a duty  of  50  per  cent,  on  all 
yarns,  threads,  twines,  and  woven  fabrics  made  from  flax  or  flax  tow,  hemp,  or  jute, 
and  that  paragraphs  42  and  43  of  Schedule  C be  also  included  in  the  50  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  duty.  We  also  ask  that  Schedule  L,  class  3,  paragraph  257,  be  so  changed 
that  it  shall  read  hemp  or  jute  carpeting,  eight  cents  per  square  yard,  and  on  all  colored 
or  partly  colored,  manufactured  of  jute,  hemp  or  flax,  or  of  which  these  compose  the 
chief  part,  8 cents  per  square  yard,  except  that  carpeting,  by  whatever  name  known, 
when  made  substantially  in  the  same  manner  as  Brussels  carpeting,  wrought  by  the 
Jacquard  machine,  or  printed  on  the  warp  or  otherwise,  after  the  manner  of  tapestry 
carpeting,  or  tapestry  velvet  carpetings,  or  any  other  kinds  of  carpeting,  shall,  in  each 
case,  pay  the  same  duty  as  the  carpetings  they  are  made  to  imitate ; that  it  shall  not  be 
lawful  to  allow  any  drawback  of  duty  upon  bags  made  of  jute,  flax,  or  hemp,  or  of 
which  these  compose  the  chief  component  part,  except  when  exported  in  the  original 
package. 

About  $30,000,000  spun  and  woven  fabrics,  the  manufactures  of  flax,  jute,  and 
hemp,  are  annually  imported,  and  we  confidently  assert  that  a large  proportion  of  the 
above  staple  goods  could  be  made  in  this  country,  giving  profitable  employment  to 
the  skilled  labor  and  also  to  the  farmer,  if  the  reasonable  protection  we  ask  for  is 
given  to  the  development  of  these  important  manufacturing  industries  which  we  rep- 
resent.* 


* We  annex  a memorandum  of  the  present  comparative  duties: 

Per  cent. 


Hemp  and  its  products  pay  an  average  of  about 25 

Flax  and  its  products  pay  an  average  of  about 30 

Silk  and  its  products  pay  an  average  of  about 60 

Cotton  and  its  products  pay  an  average  of  about 65 

Wool  and  its  products  pay  an  average  of  about 85 

1 FL 


288 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  BARBOUR. 


Jute,  the  raw  material,  is  taxed  an  average  duty  of  29  per  cent.,  and  the  manufact- 
ured goods  a duty  of  25  to  30  per  cent.,  so  that  jute  goods  are  comparatively  without 
protection. 

HIRAM  SISSON,  Flax  Grower,  Eagle  Bridge , N. 

Barbour  Flax  Spinning  Company,  Paterson,  N.  J., 

THOMAS  BARBOUR,  Vice-President  and  Treasurer, 

The  A.  H.  Hart  Company  of  New  York, 

JOHN  HINDE,  President, 

E.  A.  HARTSHORN, 

President  Cable  Flax  Mills,  Flax  and  Hemp  Spinners,  Troy,  N.  ¥., 
DAVID  KIRK,  Flax  Merchant,  Troy,  N.  ¥., 

Per  E.  A.  H., 

Dolphin  Manufacturing  Company  of  Paterson,  N.  J., 

JOHN  SLOANE, 

Committee  of  Flax,  Hemp  Growers,  and  Manufacturers. 

We  have  made  our  communication  as  brief  as  it  is  possible  to  make 
it,  and  have,  by  giving  the  comparison  between  the  woolen  and  cot- 
ton, the  silk  and  other  industries,  shown  that  they  are  protected  in 
the  United  States  under  the  present  tariff  to  almost  double  the  extent 
of  the  protection  given  to  the  flax  or  to  the  jute  interest.  We  have 
thought  that  figures  and  facts  were  the  strongest  arguments  we  could 
make  before  the  Commission,  and  therefore  we  have  presented  the  table 
which  I have  read.  All  the  gentlemen  who  represent  these  industries 
are  here,  and  are  prepared  to  answer  any  questions  you  may  put  to 
them,  or  to  make  any  statements  you  may  desire. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I think  the  gentlemen  who  have  signed  this 
paper  which  you  have  read  should  be  commended  for  the  good  form  in 
which  they  have  put  their  statement.  It  is  very  concise,  and  differs  in 
that  respect  from  some  other  statements  that  have  been  made  before  us. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  I would  inquire  what  is  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in 
the  jute  and  flax  industry? — Answer.  In  round  figures,  I should  say 
that  there  are  $10,000,000  invested  in  that  industry  in  the  United  States. 
We  ourselves  have  over  $1,000,000  invested  in  it  in  Paterson,  N.  J., 
where  we  pay  a local  tax  of  about  $11,000  a year.  These  local'  taxes 
really  should  be  added  in  estimating  the  duty  on  this  article.  We  have 
practically  got  30  per  cent,  duty  on  flax  goods,  and  we  have  to  pay  a 
duty  on  the  raw  material  as  well,  so  that  that  would  reduce  our  protec- 
tion to  about  25  per  cent. 

Q.  I understand  that  the  interest  you  represent  especially  is  that  of 
the  flax  manufacturers  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  duty  do  you  ask  to  have  imposed  ? — A.  We  want  a 50  per 
cent,  duty,  and  we  are  willing  to  pay  a slight  additional  duty  on  the  raw 
material  in  order  to  encourage  the  growth  of  flax  in  America.  Flax  can 
be  grown  in  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  in  a great  many 
of  the  Western  States  in  large  quantities. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Is  it,  as  a matter  of  fact,  grown  in  any  considerable  quantity  in 
this  country  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  grown  very  largely. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  $10,000,000  invested  in  this  industry  in 
the  United  States  is  invested  in  the  growing  of  the  flax  ? — A.  I did  not 
include  that  at  all  in  my  estimate  of  $10,000,000.  The  statement  that 
there  are  500,000  tons  of  fiber  burnt  iu  Ohio,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  Ohio 
and  in  Illinois,  is  within  the  figures.  I should  have  put  it  down  at  nearly 
double  that.  All  that  fiber  could  be  utilized  if  we  were  protected  in 
the  coarser  grades.  The  flax  is  raised  from  the  seed,  and  the  seed  is 


'1H0MAS  B1RBOUR.] 


FLAX. 


289 


converted  into  oil,  and  that  is  exported  to  England  in  the  form  of  oil- 
cake, and  they  throw  away  the  fiber.  In  Ireland,  where  I was  born, 
we  throw  away  the  seed  and  save  the  fiber. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Where  the  flax  is  raised  for  the  purpose  of  seed  is  the  flax  so  good; 
is  it  not  necessary  to  harvest  it  early? — A.  It  is  not  absolutely  necessary. 
The  fiber  that  is  raised  in  America  is  a remarkably  useful  grade  of  flax; 
it  would  make  good  common  towels. 

Q.  What  I want  to  know  is  whether  this  flax  is  valuable  for  both  pur- 
poses, that  is,  for  the  seed  and  the  fiber? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  How  is  it  in  regard  to  jute;  is  that  grown  in  any  considerable 
quantity  in  this  country? — A.  There  is  an  effort  being  made  to  grow  jute 
in  Louisiana,  and  Mr.  Sloane  will  be  better  able  to  inform  you  on  that, 
subject  than  I am. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Are  not  certain  conditions  absolutely  necessary  in  growing  flax 
successfully;  for  instance,  excessive  moisture?— A.  Yes,  sir.  In  Ireland 
we  grow  better  flax  than  you  can  in  this  country,  but  we  do  not  use 
American  flax  for  the  same  purpose  that  we  do  Irish  flax.  We  make  a 
great  variety  of  grades  and  qualities.  The  American  fiber  is  just  as 
useful  for  the  goods  we  make  out  of  it  as  the  Irish  is  for  the  goods  we 
make  out  of  that,  and  the  price  of  the  American  flax  does  not  commence 
where  the  imported  article  begins  in  cost. 

Q.  About  what  is  the  average  price  of  labor  per  day  in  your  linen 
factory  ? — A.  The  average  per  hand  is  about  $5.50  a week.  We  employ 
girls  from  12  years  of  age  upward  to  40  years,  and  some  of  them  make 
as  much  as  $10  a week.  Children  make  $3  or  $4  a week.  A man  can 
make  $1.50  to  $2  a day. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  average  price  of  this  same  kind  of  labor  in 
Ireland  or  France? — A.  We  pay  about  twice  as  much  in  wages.  Wre 
used  to  pay  about  two  and  a half  times  as  much,  but  labor  has  gone  up 
a little  on  the  other  side  of  the  water  owing  to  the  large  emigration  to 
this  country,  and  it  has  come  down  a little  here.  But  it  is  more  than 
double  on  the  average.  We  have  our  pay-rolls  for  our  manufactory  in 
Ireland  and  our  pay-rolls  for  our  American  manufactory  for  the  same 
kind  of  labor  side  by  side,  and  there  is  nobody  better  able  to  judge  of 
that  question  than  our  firm. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Do  you  manufacture  in  both  countries? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; both  in  Ire- 
land and  in  this  country.  We  have  2,800  hands  employed  in  Ireland 
and  about  1,200  employed  in  Paterson ; we  have  about  4,000  workers 
altogether. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  does  the  flax  grower  consider  a good  yield  per  acre  of  flax? — 
A.  The  flax  straw  yields  about  15  per  cent,  of  fiber. 

Q.  How  many  tons  to  the  acre  is  considered  a good  yield  ? — A.  Mr. 
Sisson,  our  chairman,  representing  that  matter,  will  give  you  the  figures 
exactly. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  I understand  that  you  employ  labor  in  this  particular  industry  both 
in  Ireland  and  in  this  country.  Have  you  made  any  careful  comparison 

II.  Mis.  (i 19 


290 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  BARBOUR. 


of  the  rates  of  wages  paid  for  labor  in  each  country  ! — A.  Yes,  sir;  we 
have  had  our  factories  running  here  for  14  years.  In  Ireland  we  have 
had  them  running  for  a century,  and  we  have  carefully  compared  those 
matters,  not  only  once  but  three  or  four  times  a year. 

Q.  And  then  you  speak  from  positive  knowledge  on  that  subject! — 
A.  I speak  knowingly  in  the  statements  I have  made  on  that  point. 

Q Please  restate  the  difference  in  the  rate  of  wages. — A.  The  wages 
we  pay  in  Paterson  are  more  than  double  what  we  pay  in  Belfast,  Ire- 
land, for  the  same  kind  of  labor. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  As  you  have  such  a good  opportunity  of  get- 
ting at  these  facts  correctly,  will  you  please  prepare  a statement  show- 
ing the  difference  in  the  rate  of  wages  and  submit  it  to  the  Commission 
at  your  earliest  convenience  ! 

The  Witness.  I will  do  so  with  pleasure. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Will  you  please  include,  also,  the  compara- 
tive cost  of  living  in  each  country! 

The  Witness.  I will.  We  have  imported  a great  many  workers  into 
this  country,  but  we  find  that,  as  a rule,  they  spend  more  money  in 
America  for  rents  and  for  food,  they  dress  far  better,  and  become  more 
extravagant  in  this  country,  and  do  not  lay  up  any  more  wages  than 
they  do  in  Ireland.  But  a great  deal  more  money  passes  through  their 
hands,  and  the  reason  they  do  not  accumulate  more  is,  because  they 
live  better  and  dress  better  than  they  do  in  the  old  country. 

Before  closing  my  statement  I would  like  to  read  a letter  received 
from  C.  A.  Ficke,  of  Davenport,  Iowa,  as  follows: 

I have  about  1,500  acres  of  flax  in  this  State.  Can  you  suggest  to  me  any  use  I can 
make  of  the  straw  ? If  so,  you  will  greatly  oblige, 

Yours  truly. 

This  is  a sample  of  the  letters  we  get  every  day  or  two  from  the  West. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  What  reply  would  you  address  to  that  inquiry! — A.  That  if  it 
were  scutched  it  would  bring  so  much  per  pound. 

Q.  How  much! — A.  Eleven  cents  a pound,  or  some  kinds  12  cents  a 
pound.  But  I would  here  remark  that  there  are  flax  growers  starting 
out  in  Illinois  and  flax  mills  in  Ohio  which  were  started  this  last  year, 
and  they  are  sowing  a good  deal  of  this  coarse  fiber.  There  are  as  many 
as  three  or  four  to  my  knowledge  in  as  many  different  States  in  the 
West. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  In  making  your  recommendation  in  regard  to  the  duties  to  be  im- 
posed, did  you  take  into  consideration  the  change  of  any  of  those  duties 
from  ad  valorem  to  specific,  or  have  you  suggested  whether  it  could  be 
done  or  not! — A.  Yes,  sir;  on  linen  goods  we  would  prefer  a specific 
duty.  But  there  are  so  many  different  qualities  that  it  is  next  to  im- 
possible to  have  a specific  duty  applied  so  as  to  give  a uniform  protec- 
tion on  all  qualities.  And  therefore  we  are  willing  to  make  a recom- 
mendation of  50  per  cent,  protection  duties,  and  to  pay  about  15  or  20 
per  cent,  on  the  raw  material.  We  do  not  want  anything  more  than  is 
very  reasonable.  We  would  prefer  ad  valorem  duties  from  the  fact  that 
they  are  more  simple. 

Q.  In  regard  to  linens,  you  think  it  would  not  be  easy  to  make  spe- 
cific duties  which  should  apply  to  all  cases! — I think  not,  because  there 
are  so  many  different  qualities. 

Q.  Of  course  you  have  looked  over  the  present  tariff*  la  w.  Are  there 


THOMAS  BARBOUR.] 


FLAX. 


291 


any  items  in  it  in  your  line  of  business  upon  which  you  could  recom- 
mend a reduction  5 are  there  any  rates  of  duties  which  you  consider 
excessive? — A.  In  regard  to  bleached  or  Irish  linen,  sh  rting  linen, 
there  is  no  chance  of  those  goods  ever  being  made  in  this  country  at 

all. 

Q.  Why? — A.  Because  we  cannot  bleach  them,  to  start  with.  They 
require  to  be  exposed  for  so  many  weeks  in  the  atmosphere  before  you 
can  get  the  white  color,  and  we  have  not  got  the  climate  here  to  do  that. 
It  needs  nice  grass  and  no  dust. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  if  the  raw  products  you  have  been 
talking  about  were  put  on  the  free  list  ? — A.  There  would  not  be  a pound 
of  flax  raised  in  the  United  States  for  fiber,  or  a pound  of  hemp  raised 
in  Missouri  or  Kentucky  at  all ; it  would  wipe  them  out ; Bussian  flax 
would  wipe  out  the  American  flax.  There  might  be  some  raised  for 
seed.  The  farmers  out  West  have  always  been  looking  forward  to  getting 
something  for  their  fiber;  and  they  have  raised  seed  very  often  in  hopes 
they  would  be  able  to  sell  their  fiber  also. 

Q.  I understand  they  have  not  raised  any  fiber,  except  in  New  York 
State,  to  any  considerable  extent  ? — A.  They  have  raised  flax  in  New 
Jersey  and  in  Illinois. 

Q.  But  I am  speaking  of  the  fiber  ? — A.  No,  sir ; but  there  is  fiber 
raised  in  New  Jersey. 

Q.  In  any  considerable  quantity? — A.  Yes,  sir.  We  buy  all  we  can 
get  hold  of. 

Q.  The  rates  of  duty  you  suggest  on  the  raw  product  are  from  20  to 
15  per  cent.  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; that  is  b ased  on  our  getting  the  50  per  cent, 
on  our  goods. 

Q.  And  you  want  fully  that  on  manufactured  articles ; what  effect  is 
that  going  to  have  on  the  price  to  the  consumer  ? — A.  If  there  were 
mills  in  this  country  to  make  such  goods  as  coarse  flax  would  enter  into, 
the  competiton  would  very  soon  reduce  the  price,  and  the  consumer  would 
pay  a very  low  price. 

Q.  Below  what  it  is  now  ? — A.  I should  say  not  much  above  it.  But 
they  would  get,  in  the  first  place,  a better  article.  There  is  an  immense 
quantity  of  goods  coming  here  now  that  are  mixed  with  jute.  They  are 
finished  off  very  high,  but  they  don’t  represent  what  we  would  call  a 
fair  and  honest  article  of  linen.  There  was  a flax  mill  in  Paterson  fifty 
years  ago,  but  it  went  out  of  existence  afterwards. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  jute  is  mixed  with  flax  in  some 
articles? — A.  We  use  a jute  filling  to  the  flax  warp  in  the  weaving. 

Q.  Does  that  make  an  inferior  article  to  the  all-linen  goods? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  jute  has  not  the  strength  or  durability  of  flax,  although  for  bagging 
or  burlaps  it  is  as  good. 

Q.  Where  do  you  get  your  jute  from? — A.  From  India  altogether,  l 
believe. 


292 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ C.  N.  BOVEE.  JR. 


C.  N.  BOVEE,  Jr. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  29,  1882. 

Mr.  0.  N.  Bovee,  jr.,  of  New  York,  in  response  to  an  invitation  of 
the  Commission,  made  the  following  statement  in  regard  to  the  duty  on 
foreign  newspapers,  magazines,  and  periodicals: 

The  interest  which  we  here  represent  is  that  of  all  the  newsdealers 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  importers  of  foreign  magaziues  and 
periodicals.  What  we  seek  is  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  unbound 
newspapers,  unbound  magazines,  and  unbound  periodicals.  It  is  these, 
not  books,  which  we  seek  to  have  admitted  free  of  all  duty.  Under 
the  provisions  of  the  Bevised  Statutes  we  are  compelled  to  pay  a duty 
of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  while,  under  the  provisions  of  the  postal 
union  treaty,  the  game  matter  is  admitted  through  the  mails  free  of  all 
duty.  The  postal  treaty  is  a treaty  between  the  United  States,  Great 
Britain,  France,  Germany,  and  other  of  the  principal  European  nations, 
by  which  the  transmission  of  mail  matter  is  facilitated  between  the  dif- 
ferent countries.  Under  this  treaty  all  newspapers,  magazines,  and 
periodicals  are  transmitted  from  one  country  to  the  other  free  of  any 
duty  that  may  be  imposed  by  the  laws  of  the  respective  countries. 
Foreign  newspaper  dealers  abroad  have  taken  advantage  of  the  treaty 
and  have  distributed  through  this  country  circulars  setting  forth  this 
discrimination  in  their  favor  and  against  the  interest  of  American 
dealers  and  offering  inducements  to  secure  subscriptions  to  them  in 
preference  to  home  dealers. 

They  give  notice  that  they  can  furnish  to  anybody  in  the  United  States 
foreign  newspapers,  magazines,  and  periodicals  as  soon  as  issued,  free 
of  the  25  per  cent,  duty  whili  they  would  have  to  pay  if  procured 
through  American  dealers,  who  have  to  bring  the  same  matter  through 
the  custom-house  and  to  pay  this  duty  on  it.  The  effect,  of  course,  has 
been  to  transfer  (and  this  transfer  is  constantly  increasing)  the  bulk  of 
this  trade  from  American  dealers  to  foreign  dealers.  In  1880  the  mat- 
ter was  presented  to  Congress.  Petitions  were  sent  in  from  all  the 
principal  cities  of  the  United  States,  and  were  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Ways  and  Means.  We  appeared  before  that  Committee  and 
made  our  statement.  The  committee  was  unanimous  in  recommending 
that  foreign  newspapers,  magazines,  and  periodicals  be  put  on  the  free 
list.  The  bill  failed  on  account  of  the  non-action  of  Congress.  This 
spring  a bill  for  the  same  purpose  was  introduced  in  the  House,  read 
twice,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  We  were 
assured  that,  if  any  action  were  taken  by  Congress  on  the  tariff,  this 
matter  should  be  attended  to ; but,  owing  to  the  appointment  of  this 
this  Commission,  nothing  was  done  by  Congress  on  the  subject. 


WILLIAM  H.  ARNOUX-1 


FOREIGN  PUBLICATIONS. 


293 


WILLIAM  H.  ARNOUX. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  29,  1882. 

Mr.  Wji.  Henry  Arnoux,  of  New  York,  in  response  to  the  invita- 
tion of  the  Commission,  made  the  following  statement  in  regard  to  the 
duty  on  foreign  newspapers,  magazines,  and  periodicals: 

We  appear  here  in  the  rather  paradoxical  i>osition  of  asking  you  to 
remove  the  duty  on  periodicals  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  revenues 
of  the  government.  Some  illustrations  will  help  the  Commission  to 
know  the  effect  of  the  present  condition  of  things  in  respect  to  the  reve- 
nue and  postal  service.  I hold  in  my  hand  a copy  of  a London  maga- 
zine— the  Nineteenth  Century.  It  is  not  republished  in  this  country. 
The  postage  on  this  magazine  sent  from  London  to  Chicago  is  5 cents. 
Under  the  j)Ostal  treaty,  the  country  where  the  matter  is  mailed  pockets 
all  the  postage.  Consequently,  the  5 cents  postage  paid  at  London  by 
the  Chicago  subscriber  goes  to  the  British  Government,  and  the  Ameri- 
can Government  carries  the  matter  entirely  free  from  the  time  it  lands 
in  New  York  until  it  is  delivered  to  the  subscriber  in  Chicago.  On  the 
other  hand  the  American  dealer  who  buys  this  magazine  as  an  article 
of  merchandise  pays  25  per  cent,  duty  on  it.  He  has  it  delivered  to 
him  in  the  city  of  New  York.  From  there  he  sends  it  through  the  mail, 
paying  the  postage  upon  it.  The  duty  on  this  magazine  is  7.02  cents, 
the  freight  from  London  to  New  York  is  1.25  cents,  and  the  freight 
from  New  York  to  Chicago  is  1.25  cents.  So  that  the  duty  and  freight 
together  cost  the  American  dealer  10.12  cents,  being  a little  more  than 
double  the  expense  to  the  party  who  subscribed  for  the  magazine  in 
London.  That  is  a discrimination  entirely  hostile  to  the  American 
dealer. 

I have  here  a copy  of  another  periodical — the  Saturday  Review. 
The  postage  from  London  to  a Chicago  subscriber  is  2 cents,  but  coming 
through  an  American  dealer  the  cost  would  be : Duty,  2.25  cents  ; freight 
from  London  to  New  York,  0.40  cent ; freight  from  New  York  to  Chicago, 
0.40  cent,  making  3.05  cents  as  against  2 cents.  In  the  one  case  there 
is  a discrimination  of  100  per  cent,  against  the  American  dealer;  in  the 
other  case,  of  50  percent.  The  effect  of  this  is  that  in  1879  there  were  sent 
by  mail  into  the  United  States  1,204,500  pounds  of  foreign  newspapers, 
magazines,  and  periodicals,  an  average  of  330  bags  weekly  ; and  in  1880 
(the  latest  year  of  postal  statistics)  the  quantity  had  increased  to 
1,947,400  pounds,  a weekly  average  of  535  bags,  an  increase  of  00  per  cent, 
in  one  year.  So  much  of  that  1,947,400  pounds  as  was  not  distributed  to 
New  York  went  through  the  mails  of  the  country,  at  an  expense  to  the 
government  and  without  the  slightest  compensation.  *On  the  other 
hand,  there  came  of  the  like  matter,  by  freight,  in  1881,  3,314  bales, 
weighing  040,100  pounds — less  than  one-third  of  the  quantity  that 
came  by  mail  in  1880.  It  cost  the  government  for  carrying  this  mail 
matter  $38,948,  while  the  revenue  received  by  the  government  from  the 
matter  brought  into  port  as  merchandise  was  $30,877.  Another  dis- 
advantage which  the  American  dealer  labors  under  is  that  he  has  to 
undergo  the  delay  of  getting  this  matter  through  the  custom-house, 
while  that  sent  by  the  foreign  dealer  is  forwarded  instantly.  The  for- 


294 


TAIRFF  COMMISSION. 


[william  h.  arnoux. 


eign  dealer  knows  the  advantages  which  he  thus  has  over  the  American 
dealer,  and  he  sends  out  circulars  making  the  fact  known.  I have  here 
one  of  those  circulars.  It  is  as  follows : 

ENGLISH  BOOKS  AT  ENGLISH  PRICES. 

Books  by  book  post  may  now  be  'mailed  to  the  United  States  with  safety,  punctu- 
ality, and  economy.  The  limit  of  size  for  a book-packet  addressed  from  Great  Britain 
to  any  place  in  the  Universal  Postal  Union  is  24  inches  in  length  and  12  inches  in 
width  or  depth  ; the  limitation  of  weight  is  4 pounds  ; the  postage  is  one  halfpenny 
for  every  two  ounces  if  registered,  the  fee  is  two-pence. 

The  inquiries  of  many  correspondents  are  answered  by  some  of  the  following  official 
publications : 

[Treasury  orders,  1879.  Department  No.  140.] 

IMPORTATIONS  THROUGH  THE  MAIL. 

Treasury  Department,  Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington,  September'  13,  1879. 

To  Collectors  of  Customs  and  others : 

The  fourth  paragraph  of  the  instructions  of  the  Postmaster- General,  dated  the  16th 
of  May  last,  embodied  in  this  department  order  of  the  26tli  of  May,  1875  (Synopsis 
4,027),  relative  to  importations  through  the  mails,  reads  as  follows: 

“ Unsealed  packages  received  iu  the  mails  from  foreign  countries,  which  are  found 
6n  examination  by  customs  officers  to  contain  articles  liable  to  customs  dut  es,  shall 
be  delivered  by  the  postmaster  at  the  exchange  office  of  receipt  to  the  proper  officer 
of  the  customs  for  the  collection  of  the  duties  chargeable  thereon,  with  notice  of  such 
delivery  to  the  person  addressed. 

It  has  been  suggested  by  the  Postmaster-General  that  the  following  instructions 
should  be  abided  to  the  paragraph,  viz  : 

“But  books  received  from  countries  or  colonies  of  the  Universal  Postal  Union,  which 
are  found  to  be  dutiable,  shall,  when  addressed  to  post-offices  other  than  the  exchange 
office  of  receipt,  be  promptly  transmitted  by  mail  to  the  addressees,  charged  with  the 
amounts  of  customs  duties  levied  thereon,  respectively ; which  amounts  postmasters 
at  the  offices  of  destination  will  collect  of  the  addressees  on  their  delivery,  and  remit 
by  first  mail  thereafter  to  the  collector  of  customs  of  the  district  in  which  the  ex- 
change post-office  of  receipt  is  situated ; and  in  case  of  the  refusal  or  neglect  of  the 
addressees  of  such  dutiable  books  to  apply  for  them  at  the  post-office  of  destination 
within  a period  of  thirty  days  from  the  date  of  their  receipt  at  said  office,  and  pay  the 
customs  duties  and  any  postage  charges  levied  thereon,  the  postmaster  of  said  office 
will  specially  return  the  same  to  the  collector  of  customs  of  the  aforementioned  dis- 
trict. 

“Postmasters  are  instructed  to  collect  the  customs  duties  on  such  books  forwarded 
to  their  offices  for  delivery  to  addressees,  and  promptly  remit  the  sums  so  collected  by 
them  to  collectors  of  the  customs,  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury ; but  the  postal  revenues  are  not  in  any  manner  to  be  credited  or  charged 
with  such  duties.” 

The  suggestion  meets  with  the  approval  of  this  department,  and  the  instructions 
contained  in  the  amendment  will  be  observed  by  officers  of  the  customs. 

A record  of  the  address  and  office  of  destination  of  each  package,  and  of  the  amount 
of  duties  due  thereon,  will  be  kept,  and  on  receipt  of  the  duties,  or  return  of  the 
package,  the  fact  will  be  recorded. 

A certificate  in  the  form  appended  hereto,  showing  the  amount  of  duties  due,  will 
be  attached  to  each  package  lor  the  information  of  t he  postmaster,  who,  in  his  letter 
forwarding  the  duties,  should  refer  to  such  certificate  by  mentioning  the  number,  date, 
amount,  and  the  name  of  the  party  addressed,  specified  therein.  Printed  blanks  will 
be  furnished  by  the  department.  This  order  will  take  effect  on  the  first  proximo. 

JOHN  SHERMAN,  Secretary. 

Duties  on  Books  Imported  through  the  Mail. 

No.  . [Place:] , [Date:] . 


Postmaster  at : 

You  are  requested  to  collect  and  remit  to  the  collector  of  customs  at , the  sum 

of dollars  and cents  (duties  on  the  books  inclosed  in  the  package),  in  ac- 

cordance with  the  following  instructions  from  the  amended  regulations  of  the  Post- 
master-General, and  this  department,  embodied  in  the  Circulars  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment, dated  May  26  and  September  13,  1H79. 

[Signature  of  the  customs  officer:] . 


WILLIAM  H.  ARNOUX.J 


FOREIGN  PUBLICATIONS. 


295 


[Circular.] 

Post-Office  Department, 

Office  of  the  Postmaster-General, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  September  17,  1879. 

A regulation  for  tlie  collection  of  customs  duties  having  been  agreed  upon  between 
the  Postmaster-General  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  pursuance  of  the  pro- 
visions of  section  iv  of  the  act  making  appropriations  for  the  service  of  the  Post- 
Office  Department  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1880,  and  for  other  purposes,  for 
delivery  to  addresses  in  the  United  States  of  books,  subject  to  customs  duly,  which 
are  admitted  to  the  international  mails,  exchanged  under  the  provisions  of  the  Uni- 
versal Postal  Union  Convention, 

It  is  ordered , That  the  fourth  paragraph  of  the  regulation  governing  the  treatment 
of  dutiable  articles  received  in  the  mails  from  foreign  countries,  adopted  by  the  de- 
partment under  date  of  16th  May,  1879,  be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  following 
words : 

“But  books  received  from  countries  or  colonies  of  the  Universal  Postal  Union,  which 
are  found  to  be  dutiable,  shall,  when  addressed  to  post-offices  other  than  exchange 
offices  of  receipt,  be  promptly  transmitted  by  mail  to  the  addresses,  charged  with  the 
amounts  of  customs  duties  levied  thereon,  respectively;  which  amouuts  postmasters 
at  the  offices  of  destination  will  collect  of  their  addressees  on  their  delivery,  and  re- 
mit by  first  mail  thereafter  to  the  collector  of  the  customs  of  the  district  in  which  the 
post  officer  of  receipt  is  situated;  and  in  case  of  the  refusal  or  neglect  of  addressees 
of  such  dutiable  books  to  ajiply  for  them  at  the  post-office  of  destination  within  a per- 
iod of  thirty  days  from  the  date  of  their  receipt  at  said  office,  and  pay  the  customs 
duties  and  any  postage  charges  levied  thereon,  the  postmaster  of  said  office  will  specially 
return  the  same  to  the  collector  of  the  customs  of  the  aforementioned  district. 

“Postmasters  are  instructed  to  collect  the  customs  duties  on  such  books,  forwarded 
to  their  offices  for  delivery  to  addressees,  and  promptly  remit  the  sums  collected  by 
them  to  collectors  of  the  customs  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury;  but  the  postal  revenues  are  not  in  any  manner  to  be  credited  or  charged 
with  such  duties.” 

This  order  will  take  effect  on  the  1st  of  October,  1879. 

D.  M.  KEY, 

Postmaster-  General . 

[Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  second  edition,  1878.1 

Sec.  2503.  There  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid  upon  all  articles  mentioned  in 
the  schedules  contained  in  the  next  section,  imported  from  foreign  countries,  the  rates 
of  duty  which  are  by  the  schedules  respectively  prescribed. 

Sec.  2504.  Schedule  M.  Books,  periodicals,  pamphlets,  blank  books,  bound  or  un- 
bound, and  all  printed  matter,  engravings,  bound  or  unbound,  illustrated  books  and 
papers,  and  maps  and  charts,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Sec.  2505.  The  importation  of  the  following  articles  shall  be  exempt  from  duty : 

Books  which  shall  have  been  printed  and  manufactured  more  than  twenty  years  at 
the  date  of  importation. 

Books,  maps,  and  charts,  specially  imported,  not  more  than  two  copies  in  any  one 
invoice,  in  good  faith  for  the  use  of  any  society  incorporated  or  established  for  philo- 
sophical, literary,  or  religious  purposes,  or  for  the  encouragement  of  the  fine  arts,  or 
for  the  use,  or  by  the  order,  of  any  college,  academy,  school,  or  seminary  of  learning 
in  the  United  States. 

Books,  professional,  of  persons  arriving  in  the  United  States. 

Books,  household  effects,  or  libraries,  or  parts  of  libraries,  in  use  of  persons  or  fami- 
lies from  foreign  countries,  if  used  abroad  by  them. not  less  than  one  year,  and  not  in- 
tended for  any  other  person  or  persons,  not  for  sale. 

B.  F.  STEVENS, 

American  Library  and  Literary  Agent, 

4 Trafalgar  Square  and  Charing  Cross,  London,  England. 

I suppose  that  this  is  the  only  instance  on  record  where  our  govern- 
ment has  placed  itself  in  an  attitude  of  discriminating  against  its  own 
citizens  and  favoring  foreigners  under  a treaty.  It  being  a matter  of 
treaty,  it  cannot  be  corrected  by  any  action  of  Congress  by  modifying 
the  postal  law.  That  is  beyond  the  power  of  Congress.  The  only  way 
to  remedy  the  evil  is  to  place  these  articles  on  the  free  list.  We  want 
the  Commission  to  understand  that  our  request  does  not  apply  to  books. 
That  is  a matter  of  more  far-reaching  and  deeper  interest  to  the  com- 


296 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  H.  ARNCVX. 


m unity,  as  to  liow  far  American  publishers  may  have  the  privilege  of 
republishing  valuable  English  books  and  distributing  them  throughout 
this  country  without  competition  from  English  publishers.  These  mag- 
azines and  periodicals  which  we  ask  to  have  put  on  the  free  list  are 
little  pamphlets  that  are  never  (excepting  very  few)  published  in 
this  country.  There  are  a few  English  magazines,  like  Blackwood’s, 
republished  here,  but  the  English  edition  does  not  circulate  here.  There 
come  only  a few  copies  oliit  for  the  public  libraries  and  for  the  printers 
who  republish  it.  What  we  ask  for  applies  to  matter  in  respect  to  which 
no  interest  of  theUnited  States  requires  any  tariff  protection.  This 
matter  has  been  so  arranged  by  the  Canadian  Government  that  Ameri- 
can subscriptions  for  these  foreign  periodicals  may  be  made  in  Montreal 
or  any  other  Canadian  city  on  the  same  terms  as  in  England,  so  that 
American  dealers  have  not  only  to  meet  the  competition  from  Europe 
but  also  that  from  Canada.  It  is  a very  small  matter  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  but  it  is  a very  large  matter  to  the  9,000 
periodical  dealers  who  are  interested. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Is  it  not  also  a fact  that  a great  number  of  business  circulars  and 
advertisements  are  thus  sent  through  the  mails  from  foreign  countries 
which  would  not  go  through  the  mails  if  issued  by  American  adver- 
tisers ? — A.  I have  not  examined  that  subject. 

Commissioner  Porter.  That  is  so  in  the  case  of  many  English  in- 
dustrial magazines.  Very  many  circulars  are  put  into  them  which  are 
really  not  mail  matter. 

The  Witness.  That  is  an  additional  argument  against  the  discrimi- 
nation which  our  government  is  now  making  against  its  own  citizens. 
In  Canada  the  duty  on  these  foreign  periodicals  has  been  removed  within 
the  last  three  years.  The  same  state  of  facts  had  existed  there,  and  the 
Canadian  Government  applied  the  remedy  which  we  now  seek  by  the 
removal  of  the  duty. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  There  is  a great  mass  of  advertising  matter  published  abroad  in 
the  form  of  pamphlets,  many  of  which  are  issued  periodically.  It  is  to 
them  that  Mr.  Porter  referred.  Would  you  make  any  exception  as  to 
them  ? — A.  That,  of  course,  raises  another  question — whether  these 
pamphlets  ought  to  be  required  to  pay  duty.  I would  have  to  make 
some  investigation  in  connection  with  the  postal  duty  to  see  whether 
they  come  within  the  purview  of  the  postal  treaty.  What  we  ask  is  a 
provision  putting  on  the  free  list  unbound  newspapers,  unbound  maga- 
zines, and  unbound  periodicals. 


JOHN  D.  DIX.] 


])RUGS. 


297 


JOHN  D.  DIX. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J..  July  31,  1882. 

Mr.  John  D.  Dix,  of  New  York,  representing  the  drug  and  chemical 
trade,  appeared  before  the  committee,  and  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

I do  not  come  here  with  any  personal  axe  to  grind,  but  having  had 
forced  upon  me  in  1862  the  preparation  of  a considerable  share  of  the 
figures  of  the  war  tariff  in  reference  to  articles  in  my  own  trade,  besides 
having  had  a long  experience  of  40  years  in  this  business,  I thought  my 
views  might  possibly  be  of  some  value  to  the  Commission. 

You  have  had  here  the  chemical  manufacturers  day  after  day.  The 
gentlemen  who  have  appeared  before  you  are  of  very  high  character, 
and  I would  take  their  word  on  any  subject  at  any  time,  excepting  where 
they  are  personally  interested,  and  there,  perhaps,  their  judgment  might 
be  warped.  I want  to  say  before  I go  any  further,  that  I have  merely 
taken  up  a few  articles  put  down  in  1862  in  our  list,  to  show  you  what 
has  been  done  with  them  since. 

The  temporary  tariff*  act  of  July  14, 1862,  was  enacted  solely  as  a war 
measure,  and  not  to  remain  in  force  longer  than  the  necessities  of  the 
case  demanded.  Let  me  select  a fewT  articles  to  show  what  has  been 
done.  Take  the  article  of  acetate  of  lead.  It  is  merely  sugar  of  lead, 
which  is  very  largely  used  in  manufacturing.  We  put  a duty  of  4 cents 
a pound  on  it.  It  has  since  been  raised  to  20  cents  a pound.  At  pres- 
ent it  stands  5 cents  for  brown  sugar  of  lead,  and  10  cents  for  white, 
which  is  150  per  cent,  upon  the  price  which  I last  received  from  Europe. 
I have  not  the  latest  fluctuations,  for  it  has  been  utterly  out  of  the  ques- 
tion to  import  it  for  many  years.  No  revenue,  of  course,  is  derived  from 
that.  Boracic  acid,  and  crude  borax  were  put  upon  the  temporary  tariff 
at  5 cents  per  pound.  No  man  in  his  senses  would  ever  put  a duty  of 
that  kind  upon  raw  material,  except  upon  an  appeal  to  his  patriotism. 
I find  borax  is  placed  at  10  cenis  a pound,  giving  a protection  of  5 cents 
a pound  to  the  manufacturer.  Since  that  time — I do  not  know  when, 
for  I have  not  had  time  to  look  into  it — the  crude  article  has  been  made 
free ; but  the  10  cents  a pound  has  been  kept  upon  the  refined  article. 
The  gentleman  who  has  made  the  most  money  out  of  that  will  not  ap- 
pear before  you.  He  came  from  Germany  to  New  York  in  1845,  when  a 
young  man,  to  make  his  fortune.  He  is  a very  correct,  upright,  and 
honorable  gentleman,  and  he  has  maintained  his  position  in  that  respect 
all  the  way  through.  The  great  bulk  of  his  fortune  is  made  out  of  a few 
of  these  things,  notably  out  of  this  very  article. 

The  next  article  is  citric  acid.  We  put  10  cents  a pound  upon  citric 
acid,  and  upon  lemon  juice  from  which  it  is  made,  10  per  cent.  Now^ 
pass  to  tartaric  acid,  which  at  that  time  in  New  York  was  much  used, 
as  it  is  now,  and  20  cents  a pound  was  put  on  that  article,  while  the 
crude  argol  was  6 cents  a pound.  There  has  no  revenue  accrued  to  the 
government  from  any  of  these.  The  duty  is  now  15  cents  upon  the 
manufactured  article,  but  the  crude  argol  is  free. 

Gallic  acid,  made  from  nut-galls,  we  jffaced  at  50  cents  a pound,  and 


298 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  D.  DIX. 


the  not  galls  free.  The  duty  has  since  been  raised  to  $1  a pound,  and 
nut  galls  remain  free. 

Argol,  or  crude  tartar,  we  placed  at  6 cents  a pound,  and  the  cream 
of  tartar  (a  very  important  article)  we  placed  at  10  cents  a pound, 
i'iinee  that  time  argol  has  been  made  free;  but  the  duty  of  10  cents  a 
pound  on  cream  of  tartar  still  remains.  There  is  no  revenue  from  that. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Gallic  acid,  although  it  was  made  to  pay,  in 
1862,  50  cents  a pound,  was  raised  to  $1.50  a pound  in  1864. 

The  Witness.  That  may  be.  There  was  a raise  on  almost  every- 
thing, I believe.  At  all  events,  the  crude  article  was  free  then,  and  it 
is  free  now,  the  difference  being  that  there  was  then  50  cents  a pound 
duty  on  the  manufactured  article,  and  now  it  is  $1  a pound.  We  also 
put  30  cents  a pound  on  crude  camphor,  and  upon  the  refined,  40  cents 
a pound.  Now  the  crude  article  is  free,  and  the  tariff  on  the  refined  is 
5 cents  a pound ; but  there  is  no  revenue,  because  we  can  export  cam- 
phor from  this  country  as  cheaply  as  they  can  from  Europe. 

Licorice  root,  licorice  extract,  and  paste.  This  is  an  important  arti- 
cle, or  used  to  be,  in  the  drug  trade.  It  is  not  now,  except  in  the  tobacco 
manufacture,  where  it  is  a very  important  article  as  a flavor.  We  put 
upon  the  root  1 cent,  and  upon  the  paste  5 cents  a pound.  In  1864,  or 
some  time  since  1862,  the  duty  was  made  2 cents  a pound  on  licorice, 
and  on  the  paste,  or  extract,  10  cents  a pound.  Now  the  root  is  free, 
and  the  paste  is  10  cents  a pound.  This  is  one  of  those  articles  that  it 
seems  utterly  unnatural  to  manufacture  in  this  country,  but  fortunes  are 
being  made  by  it.  To  draw  a raw  material  of  such  low  cost  from  abroad 
and  manufacture  it  here  is  not  a natural  process,  and  ought  not  to  be 
sustained  by  a heavy  protective  duty.  The  root  comes  largely  from 
Smyrna  and  from  Spain,  and  a little  from  Sicily.  The  cost  of  bringing 
the  root  in  that  form  should  be  very  great  compared  with  the  cost  of 
bringing  the  extract  from  those  countries.  The  tariff*  on  that  is  alto- 
gether out  of  character,  it  strikes  me,  upon  any  reasonable  basis  what- 
ever. Tobacco  manufacturers  have  said  that  they  can  buy  their  paste 
more  cheaply  now  than  in  other  times.  1 do  not  know  whether  it  is 
true  or  not.  1 certainly  know  that  the  paste  they  buy  is  not  so  -good 
as  it  formerly  was,  and  that  children  in  these  days  hardly  know  what 
licorice  is. 

Magnesia,  carbonate,  and  calcined,  the  carbonate  especially,  has  come 
to  be  largely  used  in  this  country  for  the  manufacture  of  dynamite 
and  giant  powder.  The  California  company  uses  a large  amount  of 
it.  The  carbonate  pays  6 cents  a pound  duty,  and  the  calcined  12 
ients.  I judge  there  can  be  ho  reasonable  ground  for  any  such  thing. 
There  is  no  manufactory  in  this  country,  except  possibly  one  started  in 
Brooklyn  a little  while  ago  to  supply  manufacturers  wit!»  dynamite. 
We  hear  nothing  about  it.  I do  not  know  even  whether  it  is  a large 
business  or  a small  one.  But,  certainly,  if  it  does  a large  or  a small 
business,  the  article  can  be  manufactured  in  this  country  just  as  cheaply 
as  it  can  in  Europe,  considering  the  difference  in  cost  in  bringing  it 
here — the  freights,  commissions,  &c. 

Essential  oils  are  important  in  every  respect.  They  go  into  the  manu- 
facture of  soap  and  perfumery,  and  that  class  of  goods.  The  figures 
which  we  submitted  in  1862  we  supposed  were  consistent  with  each 
other,  however  unreasonable,  looking  at  it  from  the  standpoint  of 
political  economy.  The  whole  was  consistent  with  its  parts.  Essential 
oil  of  almonds,  upon  which  a duty  of  $1.50  was  placed,  has  been  since 
made  free.  I think  other  things  ought  to  be  made  free  if  that  is  free. 
Anise,  caraway,  and  citronella  (soap-makers’  oils),  have  been  made  free. 


JOHN  D.  DIX.] 


DRUGS. 


299 


Cassia,  which  is  another  soap-makers’  perfumery,  is  free.  Bergamot, 
which  is  merely  for  perfumery,  has  also  been  made  free.  This  was  caused 
to  be  done  by  monopolies.  I believe  I could  tell  who  had  a hand  in 
getting  it  done.  It  was  not  done  under  such  a system  as  you  are  pur- 
suing now,  trying  to  make  the  tariff  harmonious  in  all  its  parts,  but  it 
was  a grinding  of  individual  axes,  against  the  positive  promise  of 
gentlemen  who  induced  us  to  do  what  we  did — very  foolishly,  perhaps, 
but  patriotism  appeals  strongly  to  a man  under  certain  circumstances. 

The  oil  of  cinnamon  is  almost  entirely  used  in  the  business  of  liquor 
dealers.  They  flavor  liquors  with  it,  and  that  has  been  made  fr<  e.  We 
put  $2  a pound  duty  on  it  and  now  it  is  free.  Lemon  and  orange  oils 
are  also  in  the  perfumery  line,  but  they  remain  as  they  were,  at  50  cents 
a pound. 

I only  wish  to  say  in  regard  to  these  other  articles,  that  if  they  had 
made  all  of  them  free,  there  would  have  been  some  reason  in  it.  But 
leaving  out  anything  that  was  not  specially  applied  for,  is  an  unreason- 
able mode  of  procedure.  Oil  of  cubobs,  manufactured  largely  in  Phila- 
delphia, we  placed  at  $1  a pound,  and  put  10  cents  a pound  upon  cubeb 
berries,  giving  them  a small  protection.  The  duty  is  now  $1  a pound 
upon  the  oil,  while  the  berries  are  free.  Oil  of  cloves  is  also  manu- 
factured largely.  We  placed  that  at  $1,  and  raw  cloves  at  15  cents,  it 
not  being  a product  of  this  country  at  all,  but  coming  from  the  East 
Indies  and  Zanzibar.  The  duty  has  been  raised  from  $ 1 to  $2  on  oil  of 
cloves,  and  the  raw  cloves  have  been  reduced  from  15  cents  to  5 cents, 
showing  the  manipulation  of  somebody  in  interest. 

There  are  some  things  in  the  drug  line  that  will  bear  a great  deal  of 
duty  and  make  very  little  difference  in  the  price  to  the  consumer.  We 
put  opium  at  $2  a pound,  and  morphine,  which  is  its  alkaloid,  at  $2  an 
ounce.  There  were  only  two  firms  in  the  country  who  manufactured 
morphine  at  that  time,  and  we  gave  them  a protection  of  from  55  to  90 
X>er  cent.  In  Europe  to-day,  and  always,  since  t lie  manufacture  of  fine 
chemicals  has  become  a business  largely  pursued,  the  price  of  morphine 
is  less  than  half  the  price  of  opium.  I have  here  the  list  of  Powers  & 
Weiglitman  of  the  first  of  this  month,  from  which  I see  that  the  price 
of  pure  morphine  on  the  1st  of  July  was  $5.50  per  ounce,  while  it  was 
$3.75  for  the  sulphate  of  morphia.  Opium  cannot  come  into  this  country 
unless  it  contains  9 per  cent,  of  pure  morphine.  From  that  point  it  runs 
up  to  14  or  15  per  cent.  I have  seen  it  at  10  per  cent.,  but  that  was 
exceptional.  Now,  if  one  hundred  pounds  of  opium  yields  9 pounds  of 
morphine,  supposing  the  opium  to  cost  $4  a pound,  duty  paid,  you  can 
see  there  is  considerable  chance  for  sulphate  of  morphine  at  $5  75  an 
ounce  making  a very  handsome  profit.  They  put  the  pure  alkaloid  at 
$5.50,  and  sulphate  of  morphine  at  $3.75.  The  last  price  that  I received 
from  Edinburg,  where  there  are  large  manufactories  of  morphine,  was 
G,s*.  (id,;  that  is  about  $1.60  in  round  numbers.  I think  the  price  here 
is  very  dear  in  proporiion.  Let  me  say  to  you  that  when  1 first  became 
acquainted  with  Messrs.  Powers  & Weiglitman,  and  Mr.  Uosengarten, 
in  1845,  they  were  manufacturers,  and  1 do  not  suppose  both  together 
manufactured  100  cases  of  opium  into  morphine  in  a year.  1 believe 
last  year  Powers  & Weiglitman  made  1,500  cases  into  morphine.  There 
was  an  immense  fortune  in  that  business,  and  they  made  it.  Mr.  Powers 
died  worth  probably  from  $7,000,000  to  $10,000,000. 

1 now  come  to  a more  important  article,  Peruvian  or  cinchona  bark. 
We  put  25  per  cent,  duty  on  that  in  1802,  and  45  per  cent,  duty  on  qui- 
nine and  its  other  products.  Unfortunately,  I have  not  kept  that  list; 
but  I remember  the  fact  that  we  went  over  the  list  immediately  after 


300 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  D.  DIX. 


the  passage  of  the  act,  and  found  that  about  85  per  cent,  of  our  figures 
had  been  engrafted  into  the  bill.  Cinchona  bark,  that  time,  paid  25 
per  cent.;  the  product  of  the  bark  (quinine),  45.  Since  that  time  (in 
1864, 1 think)  the  bark  has  been  made  free,  and  20  per  cent,  has  been 
kept  upon  quinine,  and  40  per  cent,  upon  the  other  products  of  the 
bark.  In  the  year  1879,  as  you  all  know,  a popular  movement  was 
started  and  quinine  was  made  free.  The  members  of  Congress  intended 
to  make  every  product  of  Peruvian  bark  free;  that  was  the  intention 
of  the  promoters  of  the  bill ; but  lawyers  are  not  quite  as  apt  to  know 
about  these  chemicals  as  some  other  people.  It  they  had  known  that 
there  were  other  products  besides  quinine  and  its  salts,  they  would  not 
have  put  that  particular  phrase  in  which  excluded  the  rest.  Quinine 
is  of  more  importance  than  all  the  other  products;  next  in  value  is  cin- 
chonidia,  and  on  which  the  duty  remains  at  40  per  cent. ; and  of  this  salt 
Powers  & Weight  man  have  pretty  much  swept  the  European  market; 
it  has  been  nearly  all  absorbed  by  them. 

Now,  I wish  to  say  a few  words  in  regard  to  the  statements  made 
here  the  other  day  by  these  manufacturing  chemists.  They  complained 
that  everything  which  they  used  was  taxed.  If  those  gentlemen  had 
been  ingenuous  and  told  you  all  they  knew  about  this  matter,  I would 
not  have  appeared  before  you  to-day  to  say  one  word  on  this  subject. 
I am  kindly  disposed  towards  every  interest  that  has  any  right  to  exist 
in  this  country,  and  I have  not  a single  word  to  say  against  those  gentle- 
men, but  1 was  sorry  to  have  my  friends,  White  and  Eosengarten,  seem 
by  their  silence  to  assent  to  statements  made  by  others  which  left  er- 
roneous impre  sions  on  the  minds  of  this  Commission  in  regard  to  the 
business  ot  quinine  manufacture.  I think  that  a suggestio  falsi  is  almost 
as  bad  as  a positive  falsehood,  and  the  suppression  of  a fact  is  not  any 
better. 

They  talked  about  fusel-oil.  If  it  was  not  made  a point  of  importance 
in  their  statement,  it  would  be  a matter  of  ridicule.  I suppose  that 
you  all  know  that  fusel-oil  is  the  oil  of  corn  that  escapes  from  the  still 
as  waste;  that  it  is  not  worth  hardly  anything;  it  is  only  when  they 
can  get  s me  little  price  for  it  that  they  save  it.  The  last  time  I had 
an  inquiry  from  abroad,  the  agent  in  New  York  for  a Western  distillery 
offered  me  a car  load  for  32^  cents  a gallon,  purified  and  refined,  de- 
lived  in  New  York.  I thought  it  was  very  cheap,  and  think  so  still.  The 
article  itself,  even  if  it  is  worth  saving,  can  be  hardly  taken  and  pu- 
rified and  cleansed  at  that  price,  for  it  is  the  most  wretched  rubbish 
ever  attempted  to  be  handled,  but,  when  purified,  it  becomes  fusel-oil, 
and  they  find  it  an  excellent  solvent  for  the  Peruvian  bark.  They  say 
they  can  buy  it  in  Canada  for  18  cents  a gallon,  but  the  duty  of  $2 
a gallon  prevented  them  from  getting  it  in.  Of  course  it  did.  They 
do  not  say  whether  it  was  purified  or  not.  It  may  have  been,  for  they 
do  worn  in  Canada  very  cheaply.  They  were  not  pressed  with  ques- 
tions on  the  subject,  but  I apprehend  if  they  had  been  it  would  have 
been  shown  that  the  chemicals  and  solvents  which  they  require  are  very 
small  affairs  in  comparison  with  the  results  which  they  produce. 

In  regard  to  the  capital  invested  in  the  plant  for  the  manufacture  of 
quinine,  I have  no  special  knowledge.  1 am  free  to  say,  gentlemen, 
that  I am  speaking  only  from  my  general  knowledge  of  such  things. 
Mr.  Robbins,  in  his  statement  before  you  on  Thursday  last,  said  that 
they  had  so  many  boilers  and  engines,  &c.,  that  their  capital  invested — 
and  this  he  said  & otto  voce — “including  bark,”  might  be  $150,000.  You 
were  asking  him  for  the  capital  invested  in  the  plant,  and  1 apprehend 
that  putting  the  crude  articles  as  a jiart  of  the  plant  is  a little  out  of 


JOHN  IX  BIX.  J 


DRUGS. 


301 

the  way.  He  said  that  their  capital  invested,  u including  the  bark,”  was 
about  $150,000.  Sometimes  they  have  30  bales  of  bark  on  hand,  and 
sometimes  150  perhaps.  In  answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Kenner,  I 
think,  as  to  what  the  capital  in  this  country  in  the  plant  was  for  the 
manufacture  of  quinine,  he  left  an  impression  upon  your  minds  that  as 
$150,000  is  to  200,000  ounces,  so  is  the  capital  invested  to  1,000,000 
ounces,  which  he  said  was  the  product  of  the  country.  I think  he  over- 
stated the  fact;  but,  nevertheless,  I will  not  dispute  it.  I do  not  think 
it  was  ingenuous.  I do  not  think  it  was  what  he  ought  to  have  stated. 
I do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  $150,000  invested  in  plant  for  the  manu- 
facture of  sulphate  of  quinine  by  all  of  the  five  manufacturers. 

Another  thing  about  all  these  fine  chemicals:  they  use  the  least 
labor  of  any  manufacture  in  the  country.  There  are  not  500  men, 
and  I do  not  believe  there  are  one-third  of  that  number  employed  in 
the  manufacture  of  quinine  in  this  country.  If  they  had  stated  these 
things  as  they  are,  I would  not  have  said  one  word.  I think  if  he  had 
been  carefully  questioned,  he  would  have  made  a very  different  impres- 
sion upon  your  minds.  At  all  events,  I would  not  like  to  buy  the  plant 
in  this  country  for  the  manufacture  of  quinine  for  $150,000  as  a specu- 
lation. If  those  interested  gentlemen  were  ingenuous,  and  had  been 
frank  to  tell  you  what  you  desire  to  know,  and  need  to  Know,  in  order 
to  form  an  intelligent  opinion,  it  would  have  simplified  the  case  greatly. 
Unfortunately,  this  they  did  not  do,  and  I doubt  if  an  assurance  by 
this  Commission,  of  a favorable  report  for  a 20  per  cent,  duty,  could 
draw  from  any  one  of  those  firms  an  account- current  of  an  average 
parcel  of  bark,  debiting  the  cost  of  bark,  labor,  solvents,  wear  and  tear 
of  plant,  &c.,  and  crediting  the  actual  value  of  the  quickly  salable 
articles  of  quinine,  cinchonidia,  &c.,  and  also  a.fair  estimate  of  the  value 
of  other  products. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Are  you  able  to  make  such  an  account-cur- 
rent for  us1?  We  do  not  care  where  we  get  it,  provided  we  get  it. 

The  Witness.  I cannot  give  it.  I have  heard  it  stated  time  and  again 
in  such  shape  that  I feel  I know  something  about  it;  but  I have  no  data 
which  would  enable  me  to  make  such  an  account-current. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Perhaps  if  you  would  give  us  the  result  of 
your  knowledge  upon  the  subject  it  might  incite  them  to  come  back  and 
give  us  that  information. 

The  Witness.  I would  be  very  glad  to  see  them  do  it.  I would  never 
have  appeared  before  you  to  say  one  word  on  this  subject  if  they  had 
done  what  I supposed  they  would  do — told  you  the  plain  facts  in  regard 
to  the  whole  matter. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  is  what  we  want  to  know;  and  I hoped 
perhaps  you  would  be  able  to  tell  us. 

The  Witness.  I am  not.  I am  not  a practical  chemist.  I have  talked 
on  this  subject  with  friends  on  the  other  side  of  the  water  who  are  en- 
gaged in  this  business,  and  I think  I know  something  about  it. 

I leave  with  you  for  your  information  a table  showing  the  importa- 
tions of  bark  in  England  and  France,  from  1871  to  1880;  also  the  stocks 
at  London  and  Paris  at  the  end  of  each  year.  This  table  shows  the 
prices  of  sulphate  of  Howard’s  quinine  in  the  London  market,  which  is 
the  same  in  England  as  the  Powers  & Weightman  in  America.  You  will 
see  that  the  prices  vary  very  much.  When  the  Russian  war  began  6.s*. 
6(1.  was  the  price  of  quinine,  and  then  it  went  up  to  16s. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Does  it  not  generally  go  up  during  wars? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


302 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| JOHN'  D.  BIX. 


Q.  Almost  invariably? — A.  Yes,  if  they  continue  for  any  considerable 
length  of  time,  because  the  soldiers  are  exposed,  in  camping  out,  to 
malarial  influences.  This  article  of  cinchonidia  has  been  used  for  a few 
years.  I presume  many  of  you  know  what  the  different  products  of 
the  bark  are.  Several  of  these  are  pure  alkaloids,  and  the  others  are 
preparations  from  those  alkaloids.  You  will  notice  that  in  my  state- 
ment in  regard  to  the  difference  between  the  sulphate  of  quinine  (which 
is  the  article  generally  used)  and  the  pure  alkaloid,  Powers  & Weightman 
give  the  prices  in  ounce  vials,  on  the  1st  of  July,  at  $2.10.  It  is  now 
$2.  The  pure  alkaloid  at  that  time  was  $3.75  in  the  same  form — one- 
ounce  vials.  I believe  that  there  is  no  business  in  the  world  that  could 
so  well  afford  to  have  its  profits  cut  down  as  this. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  they  have  a very  large  profit  at  $2  per  ounce  ? — A.  I believe 
at  tbe  present  price  of  bark  they  are  losing  money  at  $2. 

Q.  Is  there  a large  stock  of  quinine  now  held  in  this  country  ? — A. 
There  is  a large  stock  for  the  present  demand.  There  seems  to  be  just 
at  present  an  unusual  freedom  from  malarial  diseases  throughout  the 
country. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Relatively,  how  does  the  stock  now  compare  with  the  stock  before 
1879? — A.  Of  course  we  do  not  know  what  the  manufacturers  carried 
before  1879.  As  Mr.  Rosengarten  stated  the  other  day,  they  had  a 
sliding  scale  ot  prices,  and  we  know  perfectly  well  that  they  could  afford 
to  carry  a good  stock.  They  made  a good  deal  of  money.  But  to-day 
not  one  of  all  tlies6  other  manufacturers  can  tell  what  the  price  of 
quinine  will  be;  they  have  nothing  to  say  on  the  subject  whatever; 
Powers  & Weightman  fix  the  price. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  have  stated  to  us  that  quinine  is  necessary  in  case  of  war.  It 
seems  to  be  required  in  low  countries  particularly.  In  that  view  do  you 
not  think  it  would  be  well  enough  for  the  government  to  encourage,  to 
some  extent,  the  manufacture  of  it  in  this  country  so  that  it  can  be  pro- 
cured here  when  needed? — A.  Most  certainly;  I would  grant  them 
every  possible  facility  in  getting  their  raw  material  free.  They  have  told 
you  that  there  is  a duty  on  bark.  There  is  no  more  duty  on  it  than  there 
is  on  rhubarb.  There  is  that  differential  duty  of  10  per  cent.  So  it  is  in 
every  part  of  our  business.  We  cannot  draw  anything  from  Europe  that 
is  grown  in  the  East  Indies  without  paying  differential  duty.  But  they 
suffer  nothing  by  that.  There  have  been  growers  from  Ceylon  who 
would  sell  Powers  & Weightman,  or  Bosengarten,  any  quantity  they 
would  wish,  and  guarantee  them  a certain  amount  of  pure  alkaloid  in 
each  pound,  at  a less  price  on  the  average  than  they  could  buy  it  for  in 
London.  London  is  the  great  market  of  the  world,  and  the  price  is 
what  you  see  in  that  schedule.  They  do  not  care  to  run  the  risk  of 
buying  the  bark  in  Ceylon  or  Calcutta.  The  statement  which  Mr.  Rob- 
bins made  about  the  Jamaica  bark  going  to  London  is  true  ; it  must  go 
there.  I would  give  the  manufacturers  every  possible  chance  to  make 
money  out  of  their  business;  some  of  them  would  make  money  fast,  and 
some  not.  The  bark  used  to  come  here  very  largely,  more  so  than  it 
does  now.  The  reason  why  it  goes  to  London  now  (although  it  costs 
probably  5 per  cent,  more,  at  least  4 per  cent,  more  than  to  sell  it  here) 
is  because  they  can  get  better  prices  for  the  bark  there  than  here.  The 
bark  used  to  come  here,  and  the  quinine  manufacturers  would  send  and 


JOHN  D.  DIX-1 


DRUGS. 


303 


have  the  brokers  get  samples  and  send  them  on  to  them  for  examina- 
tion and  test,  and  then  make  their  bids.  The  consequence  was — you 
can  put  your  own  construction  upon  it — that  the  business  went  to  Lon- 
don instead  of  here.  It  would  sometimes  lie  here  twelve  months  and 
not  be  sold.  The  best  would  be  sent  to  London  and  the  rest  was  sacri- 
ficed here. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  In  answer  to  Mr.  Oliver’s  question  I understood  you  to  say  that, 
in  view  of  the  necessity  of  this  product,  especially  in  cases  of  war,  when 
it  might  be  difficult  to  get,  it  was  important  that  the  manufacture  should 
be  encouraged  here,  and  you  suggested — and  I think  you  left  the  subject 
by  inadvertence  before  you  were  done  with  it,  and  so  I mention  it  now 
— the  duty  on  bark  and  everything  else  used  in  the  manufacture  be 
taken  off. — A.  I did  on  fusd  oil  and  on  every  other  solvent ; and,  more- 
over, I would  give  them  a small  percentage  of  protection  besides,  not  to 
exceed  5 per  cent.,  on  an  article  like  this;  that  will  more  than  amply  re- 
pay them. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  the  fusil  oil  which  they  use  as  a sol- 
vent is  so  small  in  cost  that  it  really  does  not  affect  the  price  of  the 
product  at  all  ?— A.  Of  course  everything  affects  the  manufacture. 

Q.  I know;  but  it  is  imperceptible. — A.  I do  not  believe  there  is  a 
perceptible  effect.  The  present  high  price  of  bark  is  the  result  of  a 
corner  in  the  market.  But  it  is  very  much  like  a corner  in  wheat;  it 
will  correct  itself  speedily.  Quinine  can  be  made  just  as  cheaply  here 
as  in  England,  even  considering  the  difference  in  the  price  of  labor, 
which  is  a very  small  matter,  after  all,  in  connection  with  a thing  of  so 
much  value.  If  it  was  soda-ash  it  would  be  different. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  is  the  objection  to  putting  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  quinine ; 
will  it  not  stand  it  % — A.  It  will  stop  importation  utterly.  The  price 
of  quinine  in  Europe  is  equivalent  to  $1.70  per  ounce;  in  New  York  we 
are  selling  it  at  $1.87  now. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge,  information,  and  belief,  what  is 
the  average  profit  made  in  this  country  in  manufacturing  quinine  t — A. 
There  is  not  any  profit  if  you  take  bark  and  quinine  at  to-day’s  prices. 
It  is  made  at  a loss  ; I haven’t  auy  doubt  about  that  at  all.  The  con- 
dition is  a very  unusual  one  just  now. 

1 would  like  to  say  one  thing  which  1 omitted  to  say  heretofore:  that 
specific  duties  are  not  what  they  are  supposed  by  their  advocates  to  be. 
They  are  not  always  safe.  They  lead  to  difficulties,  especially  in  manu- 
factured articles.  When  a new  article  is  first  brought  out,  the  cost  of 
manufacture  is  greater  than  later  on  when  workmen  become  skil  ed  and 
improved  methods  have  been  tried,  thereby  reducing  the  cost  materially. 
If,  as  is  often  the  case,  a moderate  specific  duty  has  been  levied  on  the 
basis  of  the  high  original  cost,  it  becomes  prohibitory  in  time,  because 
improved  processes  and  perhaps  home  competition  have  reduced  selling 
prices  below  the  duty.  Qhloroform  has  been  named  as  a case  in  point. 
When  we  put  $1  per  pound  on  it  the  market  value  was  $2.50;  now  it  is 
65  cents.  There  are  a few  articles  besides  in  our  line  of  business,  the 
duty  on  which  should  be  stricken  off.  An  important  article  for  manu- 
facturing pur  poses  is  olive  oil.  We  cannot  make  a fine  quality  of  cloth 
by  using  lard  oil ; it  is  impossible.  The  duty  of  25  cents  per  gallon  on 
olive  oil  is  against  the  interests  of  manufacturers  and  consumers  of 


304 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  H.  DIX. 


woolen  cloths  especially,  and  of  silks  and  cottons  in  a leas  degree.  Bel- 
gian, French,  and  English  broadcloths  are  quite  firm  and  softer  to  the 
touch  than  any  manufactured  here. 

Another  article  of  inqiortance  which  should  be  made  free  of  duty  is 
saltpetre  or  crude  nitrate  of  potash.  It  is  imported  almost  exclusively 
from  the  East  Indies,  and  used  extensively  by  manufacturers  of  gunpow- 
der and  chemicals,  and  by  packers  of  meats,  and  the  public  generally. 

None  of  the  animal  oils  make  such  smooth,  fine  texture  as  vegetable 
oils.  The  duty  should  be  taken  oft*  common  olive  oil  in  the  interest  of 
our  manufacturers.  Salad  oil  is  another  matter,  but  being  a luxury,  it 
will  bear  a 50  per  cent.  duty.  It  is  the  other  interest  that  strikes  me  as 
important  enough  to  claim  your  attention.  I could  go  through  a long 
list  of  these  chemicals  that  are  protected  in  some  way  for  the  benefit  of 
a few  manufacturers,  but  I do  not  wish  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  Com- 
mission. 


E.  L.  RANLETT.J 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


305 


E.  L.  RANLETT. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  July  31,  1882. 

Mr.  E.  L.  Ranlett,  representing  the  New  Orleans  Cotton  Exchange 
and  , certain  manufactures,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made 
the  following  statement: 

I hoped  that  perhaps  the  way  might  be  paved  by  the  gentleman  who 
preceded  me  to  a proposition  for  a reduction  in  the  tariff;  but  as  1 have 
the  honor  to  propose  a reduction,  I will  state  why  and  on  what  basis  I 
do  it. 

I believe  it  has  come  to  be  an  accepted  fact  by  the  American  people 
that  for  purposes  of  revenue  the  present  tariff  law  yields  more  than  the 
requirements  of  the  government,  and  many  believe  that  for  purposes  of 
protection  (a  recognized  part  of  our  tariff  policy)  it  has  become  in  cer- 
tain respects  oppressive,  in  others  inadequate  and  unjustly  discrimina- 
tive; and  all  this  as  much  from  the  fact  of  the  vast  changes  wrought  in 
our  great  agricultural,  commercial,  and  manufacturing  interests  during; 
the  last  15  years  as  from  any  inherent  defect  in  either  the  letter  of  the 
original  law  or  the  principles  on  which  it  was  founded. 

I am  before  you  to  ask  for  such  changes  as  will,  I trust,  obvious, ly 
benefit  a greater  number  of  people  than  they  will  distress.  And,  as  a 
general  basis,  1 assume  that  the  revenue  will  be  obtained  from  such 
articles  produced  solely,  or  in  large  preponderance,  in  foreign  countries;, 
and  the  subject  of  general  consumption  in  America,  and  that  the  excep- 
tions will  be  where  the  raw  materials  are  imported  for  the  purpose  of 
manufacture,  and  where  such  manufactures  have  a position  in  the  com- 
merce of  the  world — the  exception  placing  a premium  on  American 
labor— as  in  contradistinction  to  a duty  which  has  no  protective  in- 
fluence and  hampers  the  American  maker  in  placing  his  product  in 
foreign  marts. 

I hope  and  believe  it  will  be  found  that  protection  means  to  secure 
to  the  pioneers  of  each  section  a fair  return  for  the  capital  and  labor4, 
employed,  without  special  detriment  to  any  other  class  of  producers  in  ! 
any  other  section  whose  claim  to  American  citizenship  and  protection! 
is  just  as  good.  In  short,  if  a tariff*  must  exist  for  revenue,  it  should!! 
produce  no  more  than  the  requirements  of  the  government,  and  if  it  beq 
necessary  for  protection,  it  should  not  largely  benefit  monopolies,  foster1 
sectional  feeling,  or  give  a preposterous  return  for  capital  invested  m 
the  manufacture  of  the  articles  so  protected.  Coming  from  a section 
that  needs  protection,  and  being  a citizen  of  a country  that  requires,  a 
revenue,  I believe  the  interests  of  all  are  best  served  where  the  burden 
falls  fairly  on  the  consumer  without  regard  to  locality. 

In  behalf  of  the  New  Orleans  Cotton  Exchange,  and  the  producers  of 
cotton  in  the  South,  I ask  that  the  duties  on  jute  butts  and  iron  cotton- 
ties  be  abolished.  The  revenue  from  iron  ties  is  less  than  $500,00$ per 
annum.  These  are  not  exact  figures;  the  statistical  information; I re- 
serve the  right  to  supply,  because  $50,000  or  $00,000,  in  a matter  of  this  - 
kind,  might  make  considerable  difference.  The  revenue  derived  from 
jute  used  in  making  bagging  is  less  than  $125,000;  and  on  all  tlie  low-  . 
grade  jutes  imported,  it  is  less  than  $1,000,000.  As  articles  producing  - 
H.  Mis.  G 20 


306 


TAIRFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  L.  RANLETT. 


revenue,  they  are,  therefore,  insignificant;  while,  as  a matter  of  protec- 
tion, it  susely  must  be  evident  that  a reduction  in  the  cost  of  producing 
an  American  crop  of  which  a large  proportion  is  exported,  is  the  very 
acme  of  tariff  reform.  The  interests  opposed  to  this  change  I contend 
are  individual,  and  not  even  sectional ; for,  as  a matter  of  fact,  one  firm 
in  Pittsburgh  can  supply  the  iron  ties  for  the  entire  Southern  crop;  and 
I believe  the  true  principle  of  the  tariff  does  not  contemplate  that  in- 
dividual enterprise  should  be  preferred  to  the  general  good.  No  article 
of  American  growth  has  yet  been  found  suitable  for  the  purpose  of  bal- 
ing cotton. 

1 will  state,  in  this  connection,  that  the  cotton  exchanges  of  the  South 
have  generally  passed  resolutions  objecting  to  the  use  of  articles  of  Ameri- 
can growth  for  bagging  because  it  is  claimed  that  they  stain  the  cotton. 
As  a matter  of  fact,  ^ of  all  the  jute  used  in  baling  cotton  is  imported ; 
which  makes  protection  in  that  case  a farce. 

The  existing  law,  I am  perfectly  willing  to  allow,  does  not  impose  a 
very  heavy  burden  on  the  planter.  As  a matter  of  fact  a half  million 
dollars  duty  is  very  little  to  pay  from  such  an  interest,  if  the  government 
requires  revenue;  but,  if  it  is  the  policy  of  the  government  to  cheapen 
production,  no  duty  should  exist  on  iron  ties  at  all.  I have  said  thus 
much  in  behalf  of  the  New  Orleans  Cotton  Exchange.  What  I shall  say 
in  addition  will  be  in  behalf  of  other  interests,  and  I should  like  to 
separate  my  remarks.  I shall  be  happy  now  to  answer  any  questions 
that  may  be  asked  in  regard  to  what  I have  said. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  What  is  the  average  cost  of  the  material  used  for  bagging  ? 
— Answer.  Perhaps  8 to  9 or  10  cents  a yard  for  bagging;  and  5 cents  a 
pound  for  the  ties. 

Q.  What  is  the  price  of  cotton  per  pound  ? — A.  Twelve  cents,  appar- 
ently. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  these  cotton-ties,  bought  at  5 cents  per 
pound,  are  sold  with  the  cotton  at  12  cents  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  there  is  a profit  of  7 cents  a pound  on  the  cotton -ties  ? — 
A.  I will  reply  exactly  as  I answered  Mr.  Windom  last  year,  when  I 
appeared  before  him:  “Does  anybody  know  who  pays  the  tare  on  an 
article  sold  without  tare?”  Here  is  an  article  without  tare.  Suppos- 
ing that  you  bought  a bale  of  cotton  weighing  500  pounds  gross 
weight,  and  the  ruling  of  the  exchange  is  that  after  the  1st  of  Jan- 
uary cotton  shall  be  sold  at  net  weight;  would  you  not  get  less  for 
the  bale  of  cotton?  As  a matter  of  fact  cotton  brings  less  on  account 
of  that  very  fact,  and  therefore  the  planter  does  not  obtain  the  benfit  to 
which  you  allude.  That  must  be  manifest  to  every  merchant. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Is  not  the  price  of  cotton  in  this  country  fixed  by  the  price  of  cot- 
ton in  Liverpool? — A.  Of  course. 

Q.  Then  do  they  not  strip  it  of  bagging,  ties,  and  everything  else?— 
A.  No,  sir;  not  in  New  Orleans. 

Q.  I am  speaking  of  Liverpool ; do  they  not  strip  the  cotton,  taking 
off  ties  and  bagging,  and  weigh  it? — A.  American  cotton  is  bought  in 
America  by  agents  of  English  houses  in  Liverpool.  The  Liverpool  mer 
ehants  have  a knowledge  of  the  way  cotton  is  sold  in  this  country,  so 
that  when  they  give  an  order  for  one  thousand  bales,  they  know  it  means 
Avitli  the  bagging  and  ties  around  it  (gross  weight),  and  they  calculate 
so  much  for  the  packing,  and  pay  so  much  less. 


E.  L.  KAN LETT.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


307 


Q.  So  that  in  Liverpool  they  pay  for  the  cotton  they  get;  and,  although 
apparently  they  pay  for  the  bagging  and  ties,  yet  in  regulating  the  price 
here  they  allow  for  the  bagging  and  ties? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  the  Amer- 
ican producer  loses  it;  that  is  the  point  I wanted  to  make — that  there 
is  no  gain  to  the  American  producer  by  reason  of  the  fact  I have 
alluded  to. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Have  we  not  now  control  of  the  markets  of  the  world,  so  far  as 
cotton  is  concerned  ? — A.  I suppose  so.  I am  not  a cotton  man  and 
cannot  say. 

Q.  You  are  speaking  for  the  cotton  interest  ? — A.  I represent  the  Cot- 
ton Exchange ; but  the  controlling  influences  in  the  cotton  world  I have 
not  studied.  I assume,  from  what  I have  heard,  that  America  certainly 
has  some  influence  on  the  markets  of  the  world. 

Q.  In  that  view,  could  you  not  modify  your  request  that  cotton  ties 
should  come  in  free? — A.  I assume  that  taxation,  not  to  be  oppressive, 
must  be  general,  and  this  is  only  another  form  of  taxation.  You  might 
with  just  as  much  propriety  say,  u Put  all  the  revenue  that  the  country 
requires  upon  one  section.77 

Q.  You  have  shown  that  this  is  a tax  of  only  $500,000  ? — A.  That  is 
all,  and  the  country  does  not  need  it  for  revenue;  if  it  did,  I would  say 
keep  it. 

Q.  Has  not  the  article  you  complain  of  to-day  the  least  duty  put  upon 
it  of  any  article  of  iron  or  steel  imported  into  this  country? — A.  Unques- 
tionably it  has.  It  is  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Q.  About  $11  per  ton? — A.  Fourteen  dollars. 

Q.  Therefore  it  is  the  least  of  all  ? — A.  I grant  that. 

Q.  And  you  say  that  we  ought  to  take  even  that  off? — A.  Unques- 
tionably ; if  there  are  $140,000,000  in  duties  to  come  off,  it  may  as  well 
be  given  to  the  producers  of  American  crops,  and  I believe  many  are  in- 
terested in  that  principle  all  over  the  country  as  well  as  the  cotton  pro- 
ducers of  the  South. 

In  behalf  of  the  house  I represent,  I ask  the  abolition  of  the  duty  on 
manilla  and  sisal  or  Mexican  hemp.  American  manufacturers  are  using 
in  the  aggregate  of  these  two  articles  three-fourths  of  the  world7s  pro- 
duction. Hope  is  an  article  of  general  consumption,  alike  South,  East, 
North,  and  West,  and  a protective  tariff  on  it  cannot  be  considered 
as  operating  as  a sectional  discrimination.  There  being  no  article  grown 
in  America  to  take  the  place  of  either  sisal  or  manilla,  unless  the  reve- 
nue is  required  I believe  the  abolishment  of  the  duty  on  these  fibers 
will  place  a premium  on  American  labor  and  enable  our  rope-makers  to 
enter  the  markets  of  the  world  on  an  equal  footing  with  other  countries 
and  without  undergoing  the  vexatious  delays  and  exactions  incident  to 
obtaining  a rebate  on  exports  under  the  existing  laws.  An  examina- 
tion on  your  part  of  the  information  at  hand  will  show  that  there  is  noth- 
ing in  America  to  take  the  place  of  either  of  these  two  things ; nor  can 
there  be.  There  is  every  reason  for  placing  the  tariff  on  manilla  hemp 
as  low  as  possible  on  account  of  our  shipping  interests.  Sisal  also  is 
used  very  largely  in  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  West,  and  therefore 
we  would  like  to  see  the  duty  upon  it  made  as  low  as  possible.  Ma- 
nilla is  used  largely  in  harvesting  crops.  JLt  is  important  that  the  har- 
vest of  the  Northwest  should  be  gathered  as  cheaply  as  the  harvest  of 
the  South.  But,  as  it  is  an  article  of  general  consumption,  it  is  only  fair 
that  it  should  receive  a certain  amount  of  protection  when  in  a manu- 
factured state.  That  is  all  I can  say  on  that  point. 


308 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  l.  eaxlett. 


By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Are  you  engaged  in  its  manufacture  in  any  way  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  is  the  duty  on  mauilla  ? — A.  Twenty-five  dollars  a ton.  The 
whole  duty  amounts  to  less  than  a million  of  dollars. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  we  depend  for  our  supply  upon 
other  countries  altogether? — A.  Yes;  and  as  the  Americans  are  going 
ahead  so  fast  in  the  excellence  of  their  manufactures  it  is  only  fair  that 
they  should  have  an  opportunity  to  put  their  rope  in  all  the  markets  of 
the  world  ; and,  in  order  to  do  that,  the  fewer  restrictions  placed  upon 
inanilla  as  a raw  material,  the  better  for  American  producers. 

I want  you  to  see  that  I am  not  inconsistent  in  asking  for  a protection 
on  rope  and  at  the  same  time  saying  that  cotton  ties  should  not  be  pro- 
tected. I claim  that  where  an  article  is  of  general  use,  absorbing  nearly 
all  the  raw  material  in  the  world,  we  should  have  a chance  to  take  it 
all  and  a chance  to  sell  it  all  when  manufactured.  Xo  rope  made  any- 
where else  in  the  world  compares  with  the  American  manufactured 
article. 

If  you  have  no  further  questions  upon  this  topic  I shall  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  argentiferous  ores.  This  subject  introduces  another 
phase  of  the  tariff  system.  Originally  the  law  in  its  effect  combined 
protection  and  revenue.  Xow  it  accomplishes  neither,  in  the  sense 
understood  by  its  framers.  Lead,  for  instance,  is  no  longer  imported, 
and  the  consumers  this  side  of  the  Mississippi  Biver  have  to  pay  the 
entire  amount  of  the  protection  to  the  long  lines  of  railroad  between 
them  and  the  points  of  production,  and  between  the  factories  east  and 
the  points  of  consumption  over  the  country.  Clearly,  the  consumers  can- 
not be  expected  to  subscribe  over  $2,000,000  yearly  to  freight  lines  in 
order  to  sustain  the  mining  interests  of  the  far  West.  And  just  as 
clearly  these  miners  are  deserving  of  some  consideration  in  regard  to 
an  article  of  general  consumption.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  where  there 
must  be  a demand  for  labor  produced,  equal,  or  nearly  equal,  to  the 
amount  curtailed.  If  we  admit  lead  free,  we  only  attain  part  of  our  ob- 
ject. But  I believe  the  admission  of  argentiferous  lead  ores,  without 
the  present  duty  of  $30  per  ton,  will  act  as  an  equalizer  in  the  alter- 
native above  suggested.  Before  the  development  of  the  huge  argen- 
tiferous deposits  of  Xe^v  Mexico  and  Colorado,  lead  could  be  brought 
to  this  country,  even  under  the  tariff,  and  taken  as  far  west  as  would  be 
indicated  by  a straight  line  drawn  south  from  Chicago. 

Here  is  a case  where  $2,000,000  is  diverted  from  the  laborer  and  the 
capitalist  and  passed  into  the  hands  of  railroad  corporations.  If  the 
protection  of  railroad  corporations  was  the  avowed  object  of  the  tariff, 
or  if  they  were  objects  of  charity,  and  the  people  were  inclined  to  sub- 
scribe $2,500,000  yearly  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  their  bonds,  I 
would  not  object.  All  the  lead  used  in  this  country  comes  from  the 
other  side  of  the  Mississippi.  The  greatest  consumption  is  on  this  side 
of  the  river.  From  $20  to  $25  a ton  on  110,000  tons  is  annually  paid  in 
railroad  freights  in  order  to  get  it  to  points  of  consumption.  I question 
if  there  is  a more  difficult  phase  of  this  tariff  question  to  consider  than 
this.  Certainly  the  American  miners  in  the  far  West  must  have  con- 
sideration, and  the  manufacturers  and  consumers  are  entitled  to  some 
consideration  also.  The  dilemma  is  a serious  one. 

By  admitting  argentiferous  ores  (part  gold  and  part  silver  or  copper) 


E.  L.  RANLETT.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


309 


into  the  United  States  free  of  the  duty  of  $30  a ton,  we  can  produce  a 
demand  for  American  labor,  secure  an  influx  from  Mexico  and  points  in 
the  Southwest ; the  lead  manufacturers  of  the  Atlantic  coast  can  pro- 
cure their  lead  at  about  an  equal  price  with  the  same  manufacturers 
in  the  West,  and  the  consumers  in  the  Southwest  and  Northwest  will 
pay  an  equal  price  for  their  manufactured  article.  If  I understand  the 
principles  of  tariff  reform  correctly,  that  is  about  what  we  are  striving 
for — that  no  man  shall  be  taxed  at  the  expense  of  another;  that  no  sec- 
tion shall  pay  the  expenses  of  another  or  receive  protection  at  the  ex- 
pense of  another;  and  that  no  monopoly  shall  be  protected. 

I have  simply  stated  my  case,  and  have  endeavored  to  avoid  statis* 
tical  references ; they  are  all  of  record  in  the  customs  department,  and 
can  be  obtained  without  trouble.  A full  discussion  of  this  subject  of 
ores  would  take  more  of  your  time  than  I care  to  ask  or  feel  competent 
to  profitably  occupy ; but  I have  no  doubt  my  introduction  of  the  sub- 
ject will  bring  forth  expression  from  the  interests  involved,  and  thus 
the  matter  will  be  thoroughly  ventilated. 

Gentlemen,  I am  much  obliged  to  you  for  according  me  so  prompt  a 
hearing. 


310 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANFORD  KNOWLTON. 


DANFOBD  KNOWLTON. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  1,  1882. 

Mr.  Danford  Knowlton,  of  New  York,  appeared  before  the  Com- 
mission and  made  the  following  statement : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I am  happy 
to  appear  before  you  and  say  a few  words  on  the  subject  of  the  duty  on 
sugar.  I have  no  doubt  the  subject  will  be  ably  discussed  by  others,  but 
I will  offer  a few  remarks,  as  briefly  as  possible,  and  not  consume  your 
valuable  time. 

In  the  first  place,  I would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  the  method  of 
manufacturing  sugar,  as  I have  seen  it  in  the  West  Indies  and  in  France. 
The  sugar  of  commerce  may  be  produced  from  cane,  beet  root,  or  any 
vegetable  that  contains  saccharine  matter.  The  cane  is  pressed  with 
very  heavy  rollers,  after  which  it  is  mixed  with  sufficient  quicklime  to 
prevent  the  acidity  which  it  would  naturally  take  from  the  atmosphere, 
because  it  must  be  worked  in  a neutral  state — neither  be  acid  nor  alka- 
line— in  order  to  give  good  results.  When  the  lime  is  applied  to  this 
juice,  which  is  generally  heated,  a scum  rises  to  the  top,  and,  by  one 
process  of  manufacture,  after  being  removed  to  some  extent  in  the  vat, 
it  is  skimmed  continually  while  being  boiled  in  open  kettles  or  pans. 
The  boiling  in  open  kettles  requires  a heat  of  from  212°  to  240°  Fahren- 
heit. After  further  boiling  crystallization  commences  and  sugar  is 
formed.  It  is  then  a mass  of  sugar  crystals  and  molasses,  or  other  uucrys- 
tallizable  substances  which  come  from  the  cane,  caused  by  the  extreme 
heat  which  is  applied  to  it  in  boiling.  If  cane  is  sliced  very  thin  and 
exposed  to  the  solar  heat,  or  a temperature  of  about  120°,  as  it  exists 
in  the  tropics,  the  water  will  be  evaporated  and  very  fine  white  crystals 
will  be  formed.  But  when  boiled  in  the  way  I speak  of,  a portion  of  the 
saccharine  substance  is  burnt,  becomes  dark  in  color,  uncrystal lizable, 
and  when  sugar  is  formed  it  remains  mingled  with  the  grains  of  sugar. 
The  ultimate  crystal  of  sugar,  is  white,  as  you  will  find  by  washing, 
and  the  reason  why  it  is  not  white  when  purchased  is  because  of  the 
burnt  substance  that  adheres  to  the  exterior  of  the  crystal,  gives  color 
to  the  sugar  of  commerce. 

By  another  process  of  manufacture  heat  is  applied,  in  a deficator  and 
the  impurities  are  thrown  to  the  surface  or  precipitated  to  the  bottom, 
and  the  juice  is  drawn  out  comparatively  clear.  It  is  then  introduced 
into  vacuum-pans,  and  there  it  is  boiled,  in  consequence  of  the  removal 
of  the  pressure  of  the  atmosphere,  at  about  140°,  subjecting  it,  as  you 
will  see,  to  only  a little  more  than  one-half  of  the  temperature  required 
to  evaporate  it  in  the  open  pans.  This  is  the  more  modern  way  of  ob- 
taining sugar.  When  it  is  drained  out  of  the  vacuum-pan,  it  has  also 
the  same  qualities  of  sugar  crystals  and  molasses  mingled,  the  molasses 
sometimes  by  high  boiling  being  rendered  almost  black  or  very  dark, 
and  partaking  somewhat  of  the  nature  of  caramels.  Then,  in  order  to 
clear  the  sugar,  it  is  put  in  the  centrifugal  machine,  which  revolves 
with  a rapidity  of  from  1,200  to  1,400  revolutions  per  minute,  and  in  that 
way  the  molasses  is  thrown  away  from  the  crystals.  Bear  in  mind  all 
the  while  that  the  ultimate  crystal  is  white,  and  you  will  see  very  clearly 


DANFORD  KNOWLTON.] 


SUGAR. 


311 


that  all  that  is  required  to  render  those  sugars  more  or  less  white  in  the 
process  of  manufacture  is  more  or  less  perfection  in  clearing  away  the 
exterior  coating  of  the  crystal,  and  that  is  done  by  washing  with  steam 
or  with  water,  or  with  a mixture  of  sugar,  sirup,  and  water,  as  the  case 
may  be. 

Having  ventured  thus  much  on  the  manufacture  of  sugar,  which  you 
may  see  will  apply  in  the  further  course  of  my  remarks,  I will  say  now 
that  I think  the  evidence  that  will  come  before  you  will  be  generally  in 
favor  of  reducing  the  duty  on  sugar.  I consider  the  duty  on  sugar 
very  high.  The  importers  may  consider  the  duty  too  high,  while  our 
Louisiana  friends  consider  perhaps  that  it  is  too  low.  They  are  entitled 
to  their  opinion,  and  they  will  undoubtedly  give  it  to  you.  As  an  ar- 
ticle that  enters  into  the  consumption  of  every  man,  from  the  cradle  to 
the  grave,  a tax  of  between  GO  and  70  per  cent,  ad  valorem  seems  to  me 
too  high,  while  silks  and  many  other  articles  of  luxury  are  not  taxed 
so  much.  But  whether  the  duty  is  too  high  or  too  low  on  sugar,  does 
not  enter  into  the  question  which  I shall  present  to  you. 

The  mode  of  manufacturing  sugar  by  the  vacuum-pan  and  centrifu- 
gal has  been  much  spoken  of  as  producing  sugar  better  than  was  antici- 
pated when  the  tariff  was  created.  That  it  is  possible  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  sugar  to  produce  a very  valuable  sugar  and  still  keep  it  at  a low 
color,  is  very  evident  to  those  who  have  seen  the  working  of  the  system, 
because  when  these  crystals  begin  to  form  in  the  pan  at  42°  by  saccha- 
rometer  the  system  is  to  increase  those  crystals  by  adding  more  of  the 
cane-juice  or  sirup  produced  by  the  boiling  of  the  cane,  and  to  continue 
boiling  constantly,  increasing  the  size  of  the  crystal,  and  in  that  way 
you  may  produce  a crystal  almost  any  size  you  please,  like  rock  candy. 
The  manufacturer  has  always  the  ability  to  make  sugar  suited  to  any 
color  you  designate  in  your  tariff.  He  can  produce  sugars  of  a very 
high  commercial  value  at  a low  color,  and  that  has  been  complained  of 
in  this  country. 

After  the  enactment  of  the  last  tariff  I was  appointed  as  one  of  three 
gentlemen  in  New  York  to  inquire  into  and  report  upon  a proper  draw- 
back to  be  placed  upon  sugar.  We  made  inquiries,  and  procured  all  the 
information  we  could  get  in  this  country  and  in  Europe,  and  endeavored 
to  ascertain  the  amount  of  duty  which  should  be  given  when  refined 
sugars  were  exported,  being  the  equivalent  of  duty  paid  to  the  govern- 
ment upon  the  importation  of  the  raw  material  from  which  they  were  made. 
In  the  report  which  the  gentlemen  requested  me  to  write,  I informed  the 
government  of  this  system  of  making  sugar  of  a high  commercial  value 
at  a low  color.  Nothing  came  of  that.  The  report  was  accepted,  but 
no  action  was  ever  taken  to  remedy  this  defect  in  our  law,  which  has 
failed  to  reach  a proper  duty  on  low  color  and  high  test  sugars.  I sug- 
gested to  Mr.Wood,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
that  by  taking  another  system  of  grading  sugars  than  the  Hutch  stand- 
ard, they  could  reach  those  sugars. 

Following  that,  Mr.  Sherman,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  attempted 
to  enforce  the  duty  on  one  class  of  sugar  only,  based  on  the  polariscope 
test.  That  attempt  proved  abortive.  Not  so  much  was  the  system  ob- 
jected to  as  the  manner  in  which  the  attempt  was  made.  Merchants 
became  rather  excited  when  they  learned  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  a mere  executive  officer  of  the  government,  had  attempted  to 
supersede  the  legislation  of  Congress,  and  it  was  objected  to  on  that 
ground.  I have  myself  objected  to  it  for  the  same  reason,  feeling  that 
the  power  of  Congress  should  not  be  taken  out  of  its  hands,  as  clearly 


312 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANFORD  KN'OWLTOX. 


confided  to  it  by  Article  I,  section  7,  of  the  Constitution,  which  says 
that  “all  revenue  bills  must  originate  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, but  the  Senate  may  offer  amendments,  as  on  other  bills.”  We  felt 
that  this  being  a revenue  measure  should  have  originated  in  the  House, 
and  not  upon  the  mere  ipse  dixit  of  an  executive  officer  of  the  govern- 
ment. I brought  the  first  suit  instituted  in  the  United  States  upon  that 
question,  and  received  back  the  money  for  overpaid  duties.  Since  that 
time,  the  question  has  been  decided  by  Judge  Wallace,  in  the  circuit 
court,  and  appealed  and  decided  in  Savor  of  the  importers  by  a full 
bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  consequently  the 
merchants  receive  back  the  duties  overpaid  in  consequence  of  that  order. 

I was  speaking  about  the  polariscope  as  a proper  test  for  the  duty  ou 
sugar.  In  consequence  of  the  order  of  the  Secretary  only  applying  that 
test  to  one  class  of  sugar,  it  has  never  been  fairly  applied.  It  has  been 
repudiated  by  the  people,  and  will  be  much  spoken  against  undoubtedly 
before  you.  The  system  of  grading  the  duty  on  different  classes  of  sugar 
was  adopted  originally  to  conform  to  the  then  existing  opinion  of  the 
commercial  value ; in  other  words,  under  the  old  system  of  manufactur- 
ing sugar  it  was  believed  that  color  was  a sufficient  guide  to  value,  and 
therefore  the  Dutch  standard  of  numbers  was  arranged  in  such  a man- 
ner as  it  was  believed  would  give  an  ad  valorem  duty  on  sugar.  But 
in  this  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  we  have  discovered  through 
scientific  investigation,  that  there  are  other  and  better  modes  of  manu- 
facturing sugar,  and  to  those  modes  the  Dutch  standard  fails  to  apply. 
Consequently,  we  think  that  the  system  having  been  abandoned  by 
those  who  deal  in  sugar  and  who  are  supposed  to  know  most  about  it,  as 
no  longer  a guide  to  the  value  of  sugar,  it  would  be  just  and  proper 
that  the  government  should  abandon  it,  and  substitute  the  system 
which  has  been  adopted  by  merchants  to  determine  its  commercial  value. 
That  system  is  the  use  of  the  polariscope,  an  invention  made  in  France, 
an  instrument  by  which  the  crystallizable  quantity  of  sugar  in  any  given 
mass  may  be  determined  with  great  accuracy.  France  has  arranged  her 
duty  accordingly,  and  it  is  applied  to-day  in  all  the  internal-revenue  col- 
lections on  the  beet-root  sugar,  with  which  France  supplies  herself,  and 
of  which  she  exports  a great  deal.  And  the  duty  ou  that  article  is  levied 
in  France  by  the  polariscope. 

This  system,  having  been  found  to  be  the  most  accurate  in  determining 
the  commercial  value  of  sugar,  has  been  adopted  by  all  the  intelligent 
merchants  here  and  in  the  larger  sugar-producing  countries  in  other  por- 
tions of  the  world.  Iinstead  of  assessing  the  duty  on  color,  which  does 
not  represent  the  commercial  value,  the  value  is  fixed  to  the  merchant  on 
the  polar iscopic  strength  of  the  sugar.  For  instance,  if  sugar  gives  you 
95°  or  100°  by  the  polariscope,  showing  that  there  are  so  many  degrees 
of  crystallizable  sugar  in  the  mass,  it  is  worth  more  than  sugar  that  only 
makes  75°.  In  other  words,  it  is  worth  nearly  exactly  one-fourth  more, 
and  consequently  that  system  has  come  into  daily  use,  and  all  our  quo- 
tations of  sugar  now  are  made  on  that  basis.  To  illustrate  that,  I can 
show  you  a weekly  circular  issued  and  sent  abroad  every  week,  which 
contains  quotations  from  the  brokers,  in  which  you  will  see  that  the 
quality  of  sugars  is  given  by  the  polariscopic  strength,  and  the  price 
ranges  accordingly,  while  the  Dutch  standard  is  ignored. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  Is  the  price  based  on  the  polariscopic  test  alone  ? — Answer. 
Almost  entirely.  For  instance,  Ko.  7,  Dutch  standard,  will  polarize  the 


DANFORD  KNOWLTON.] 


SUGAR. 


313 


same  and  perhaps  even  more  than  No.  8 or  9,  in  which  case  its  value  is 
considered  to  be  equal  to  that  of  the  higher  numbers. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  would  you  call  the  standard — 95°  or  90°  ? — A.  There  is  no 
standard. 

Q.  What  I want  is  the  average. — A.  According  to  the  perfection  of 
the  manufacture j all  the  way  from  99°  down  to  about  75°. 

Q.  What  is  the  average  that  comes  into  this  country? — A.  Average 
vacuum-pan  and  centrifugal  sugars  will  range  from  92°  to  99°;  the  larger 
portion  would  be  about,  say,  95°  and  96°. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  are  not  speaking  of  sugars  used  for  refining  purposes? — A. 
Those  are  used  very  largely.  The  largest  manufacturers  use  them  more 
or  less,  and  some  use  them  almost  entirely,  while  others  use  a portion 
of  one  kind  and  a portion  of  the  other. 

Let  me  remark  here,  that  refining  sugars  simply  means  taking  away 
the  color.  Take  the  vacuum-pan  centrifugal  sugar  of  95°  or  98°  test, 
and  put  it  in  the  centrifugal  and  wash  it,  and  you  have  white  sugar. 
You  only  take  off  that  infinitesimal  coating  on  the  crystal  which  is  the 
inevitable  result  of  boiling  under  a high  degree  of  temperature. 

As  scientific  investigation  and  modern  improvements  have  shown 
that  the  Dutch  standard  of  color  is  no  longer  a guide  to  commercial 
value,  is  it  unreasonable  that  we  should  ask  the  government  to  adopt, 
as  a standard  of  duty,  that  which  the  merchants  have  proved  to  be  cor- 
rect ; that  which  gives  the  exact  value  of  sugar,  instead  of  basing  it 
upon  an  uncertain  and  erroneous  system  where  color  is  concerned,  when 
color  is  no  longer  a guide  to  value?  In  other  words,  a duty  levied  upon 
the  polariscopic  test  is  in  the  first  place  a specific  duty ; in  the  second 
place,  it  is  ad  valorem,  because  it  is  fixed  upon  the  value  of  sugar  by 
polariscopic  strength,  which  is  its  value  for  sweetening,  and  that  value 
is  determined  by  the  polariscope;  and,  whether  it  be  75  or  100  per  cent., 
you  put  upon  the  article  a duty  which  its  sweetening  power,  its  com- 
mercial value  demands,  and  you  put  it  equally  upon  all  sugars,  favoring 
none  and  injuring  none.  I think  we  should  avail  ourselves  of  modern 
invention  to  arrange  the  duty  according  to  what  science  has  determined 
to  be  the  correct  standard  of  value. 

Still  farther,  this  is  ad  valorem  upon  the  value  at  home.  The  same 
principle  which  I propose  to  you  of  assessing  duty  upon  value  is  already 
in  operation  in  our  tariff.  We  charge  on  first-proof  liquor  so  much, 
and  so  much  on  second-proof,  third-proof,  and  fourth  proof,  accord- 
ing to  their  strength.  I only  propose  that  that  system  be  applied  to 
sugar,  because  if  you  condense  into  one  gallon  a value  which  would  exist 
in  a gallon  and  a half  under  other  circumstances,  it  is  not  right  that  that 
gallon  and  a half  should  pay  the  same  duty  per  gallon  as  that  which  is 
condensed  into  smaller  compass;  and  so  of  sugar.  If  you  get  the  com- 
mercial value  of  a pound  of  sugar  to  exceed  that  of  another  pound,  it  is 
not  fair  or  just  that  they  should  pay  an  equal  rate  of  tax,  and  I think 
that  point  should  not  be  forgotten.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  this 
is  not  ad  valorem  only,  but  it  is  also  ad  valorem  on  home  valuation,  be- 
cause the  polariscopic  test  of  sugar  to-day  is  its  commercial  value. 

In  offering  you  these  suggestions,  gentlemen,  I propose,  first,  a fixed 
or  specific  duty  of  2 cents  per  pound  on  all  sugar,  melado,  concentrated 
melado,  concrete,  tank  bottoms,  sirup  of  sugar  cane,  or  other  saccharine 
sirups. 


314 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANFORD  knowlton. 


By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Not  compounded  sirups;  we  have  fruit  sirups? — A.  I mean  sugar- 
producing*  sirups. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  You  mean  sirups  producing  sugars? — A.  Yes.  The  words  “or 
other  saccharine  sirups”  have  always  been  overlooked  in  our  tariff.  It 
has  been  a wonder  to  me  that  people  have  not  imported  beet  sirup  and 
manufactured  it  here.  The  tariff'  says  sirup  of  sugar-cane,  but  does 
not  mention'  sirup  from  any  other  saccharine-producing  substance. 

Then,  in  addition  to  that,  I say  a dutiable  pound  of  sugar  shall  be 
deemed  and  declared  to  be,  for  the  purposes  of  the  act,  100°  of  crystalli- 
zable  sugar,  as  shown  by  direct  polarization  in  the  state  in  which  it  is 
imported — not  by  dry  substance.  The  condition  in  which  it  is  imported 
is  the  condition  in  which  the  buyer  takes  it;  consequently  the  polariscopie 
strength  ot  it  at  that  time  should  be  the  correct  basis  for  duty.  The 
proposed  duty  of  2 cents  a pound  is  not  altogether  a fixed  limit.  You 
may  make  it  3 cents  a pound,  to  please  Louisiana,  or  you  may  make  it 
1 cent  a pound,  to  please  the  consumer  of  sugar  who  complains  bitterly 
of  the  high  tariff.  I simply  take  2 cents  a pound  as  an  illustration. 

In  order  to  illustrate  the  system,  I have  made  a few  figures: 


100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  100°,  at  2 cents $2  00 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  99°,  at  j-090-  of  2 cents 1 98 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  98°,  at  -nf<j  of  2 cents 1 90 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  97°,  at  -nfe  of  2 cents 1 94 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  96°,  at  -nfo  of  2 cents 1 92 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  95°,  at  of  2 cents 1 90 

100' pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  94°,  at  of  2 cents 1 88 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  93°,  at  of  2 cents 1 86 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  92°,  at  of  2 cents 1 84 

100  pounds  sugar  avoirdupois  polarizing  91°,  at  yA  of  2 cents 1 82 

100  pounds  sugar  avohdupois  polarizing  90°,  at  -$)%  of  2 cents 1 80 


And  following  the  same  proportions  to  the  lowest  polarization  found. 

If  one  hundred  degrees  should  pay  2 cents,  95  degrees  should  pa-y-^j- 
of  two  cents,  as  it  contains  of  the  full  dutiable  pound. 

These  gradations  are  not  arbitrary,  but  are  based  upon  mathematical 
proportions. 

This  is  easily  calculated,  and  leads  to  no  confusion  on  the  part  of  the 
customs  officers.  In  this  connection  I want  to  show  you  the  reason  why 
this  system  woidd  be  better  than  the  present,  and  less  liable  to  abuse  in 
the  administration  of  the  law.  Your  law  to-day  says  that  sugar  not 
above  No.  7,  Dutch  standard,  shall  pay  If  cents  a pound,  and  all  sugars 
above  No.  7 and  not  above  No.  10  shall  pay  2 cents  a pound ; all  above 
No.  10  and  not  above  No.  13,  2f  cents  a pound.  By  the  law  of  1875,  25 
per  cent,  was  added  to  the  duty.  I brought  with  me  and  now  show  you 
three  samples  of  Dutch  standard.  The  moment  you  pass  No.  7 you  in- 
crease the  duty  J cent,  plus  25  per  cent.,  or  31J  per  100  pounds,  while 
that  sugar  will  ordinarily  polarize  about  the  same  as  No.  7£  or  No.  8. 
And  why  should  it  be  charged  more  duty?  The  government  says  if  you 
exceed  a certain  standard  in  color  you  pay  so  much  more  duty.  Now, 
suppose  that  any  of  us  merchants  should  endeavor  to  urge  the  custom- 
house officers  to  be  a little  color-blind 

Commissioner  Kenner.  A very  wrong  supposition,!  have  no  doubt. 

The  Witness.  We  are  charged  with  a great  many  things,  although 
we  find  as  good  people  among  the  merchants  as  anywhere.  Now  sup- 


DANFORD  RNOWLTON.] 


SUGAR. 


315 


pose  that  the  appraisers  of  sugar  could  he  made  a little  color  blind 
somehow,  and  the  sugar  that  exceeds  No.  7 in  color  could  be  made  to 
pass  as  No.  7.  There  would  be  31J  cents  of  profit  per  100  pounds.  The 
same  thing  occurs  wThen  you  go  from  No.  10  to  No.  13.  The  least  shade 
of  color  above  No.  10  carries  31 J cents  per  100  pounds  difference  in  the 
duty,  when  there  is  not  one-third  of  that  difference  in  the  price  of  the 
sugar.  Consequently  that  is  so  much  loss  to  the  importer  of  sugar. 
This  only  comes  into  account  so  far  as  our  duty  is  concerned.  It  is  not 
taken  into  account  in  the  commercial  value  of  the  sugar.  Manufactur- 
ers abroad  understand  this  thing  perfectly,  and  they  are  told  by  their 
friends  here  that  they  must  not  make  sugars  above  No.  7 or  No.  10, 
because  they  carry  so  heavy  a duty  here ; and  I have  myself  been  on  sugar 
estates  where  large  consignments  have  been  made,  and  have  instructed 
them  that  they  must  not  pass  a certain  grade;  that  they  must  keep  it 
within  a certain  limit.  I have  seen  from  day  to  day;  on  the  same  estate, 
a little  variation  in  the  color  of  sugar  in  consequence  of  there  having 
been  a little  difference  in  the  boiling,  or  in  consequence  of  some  slight 
difference  in  the  soil,  the  result  being  a little  difference  in  the  color  of 
the  sugar.  I have  seen  those  sugars  separated,  and  they  were  instructed 
that  this  hogshead  cannot  go  to  the  United  States — “Let  it  be  laid  aside 
because  it  comes  within  the  range  of  United  States  duties” — while  an- 
other would  be  separated  for  shipment  to  the  United  States.  Those 
being  rejected  by  us  were  bought  by  the  largest  buyers  in  Europe  at  less 
price  than  we  pay  for  the  lower  color. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Was  the  sugar  better  or  not  ? — A.  The  sugar  perhaps  would  be  no 
better  by  polariscope  strength,  but  it  varied  in  color.  An  Englishman 
always  buys  sugar  with  reference  to  its  sweetening  capacity,  and  con- 
sequently he  does  not  care  whether  it  is  a little  darker  or  not. 

But  if  the  system  I propose,  of  the  polariscope  test  on  sugar,  should 
be  adopted,  it  puts  our  buyers  on  a parity  with  those  of  England,  be- 
cause being  admitted  there  free  of  duty,  and  being  admitted  here  under 
a thoroughly  ad  valorem  duty,  we  are  consequently  placed  on  an  equality 
plith  buyers  in  other  countries  by  this  system.  The  Dutch  standard  is 
played  out  so  far  as  buyers  and  sellers  are  concerned. 

Gentlemen  will  come  before  you  and  tell  you  that  the  polariscope  test 
is  a fraud  and  will  not  do  to  rely  upon.  The  same  man  w ho  tells  me  that, 
perhaps  uses  every  day  that  same  polariscope  to  test  his  sugars. 

Q.  Do  you  mean,  buys  the  sugars  by  test? — A.  Tests  them  to  buy  and 
tests  theui  to  sell.  He  uses  the  polariscope  every  day,  and  when  he 
comes  before  you  and  declares  that  the  polariscope  is  unreliable  he 
stultifies  himself,  because  he  uses  it  every  day  himself.  Why  does  he 
use  it  if  it  is  not  reliable  ? It  is  nonsense. 

Q.  You  mentioned  a certain  order  of  Secretary  Sherman  ; wrere  you 
an  importer  of  sugar  when  that  order  was  in  force  at  the  custom-house? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  have  a good  many  sugars  tested  by  the  polariscope? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  merchants  have  them  tested  by  the  polariscope  after  they 
have  been  tested  by  the  custom-house  ? — A.  Yes,  they  do. 

Q.  Are  those  tests  about  the  same? — A.  I am  very  much  obliged  to 
you  for  asking  that  question,  because  1 wish  to  exonerate  the  officers  of 
the  government  so  far  as  I can.  In  all  our  experience  (and  I have  Lven 


316 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANFORD  knowlton. 


an  importer  of  sugar  since  1852),  under  tlie  order  of  Mr.  Sherman,  our  test 
has  never  varied  from  that  of  the  custom-house  more  than  one  half  of 
a point. 

Q.  You  mean  that  your  test  corresponded  with  the  test  of  the  gov- 
ernment officers  always  within  one-half  of  one  point1? — A.  Yes.  We 
found  them  invariably  as  correct  as  any  tests  made  by  merchants,  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  government  cannot  have  as  good  employes 
as  the  merchants,  and  lam  very  happy  to  bear  testimony  to  those  gentle- 
men for  their  fidelity  so  far  as  I know  them.  Two  or  three  instances 
have  occurred  in  which  I asked  them  tore-test,  but  that  has  been  caused 
simply  from  their  getting  a sample  a little  too  good,  not  taking  an 
average  sample,  and  so  their  test  exceeded  ours  a little.  In  those  in- 
stances we  have  asked  them  to  re-test,  and  very  frequently  they  have 
found  ours  was  correct  and  have  corrected  their  return. 

As  a reason  for  the  duty  being  fixed  under  this  system  of  color,  it  is 
very  natural  that  it  should  have  been,  because  it  was  formerly  sup- 
posed that  color  did  represent  the  commercial  value,  and  when  it  was 
adopted  by  the  Dutch  Government  it  did  represent  its  value  by  the 
then  processes  of  making  sugar.  But  we  cannot  resist  the  advance  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  Improvements  are  made  not  only  in  sugar 
making,  but  in  all  other  directions.  We  cannot  expect  to  go  back  to 
the  California  mule- wagon,  since  we  have  the  railroad.  We  must  ac- 
cept the  improvements  made,  and  this  is  one  of  them. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  If  I get  your  idea,  the  polariscope  tests  determine  properly  and 
definitely  the  amount  of  crystallizable  sugar  in  a given  sample  ? — A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Is  there  any  commercial  value  that  may  be  attached  to  the  resid- 
uum ; that  is,  the  part  that  is  not  crystallizable  ? — A.  There  is  a com- 
mercial value,  but  it  is  very  small. 

Q.  Assuming  that  there  is  such  a commercial  value,  is  it  not  possible 
that  the  effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  system  which  you  suggest  might 
be  to  give  an  advantage  to  low-grade  sugars? — A.  It  would  be  infini- 
tesimal, if  any. 

Q.  Of  course  I ask  for  information.  I would  like  to  understand 
whether  there  is  such  an  advantage. — A.  There  would  be  such  an  ad- 
vantage, and  I will  mention  to  you  now  in  this  connection  that  it  would 
apply  on  molasses.  Molasses  will  ordinarily  test  about  50°  by  the  po- 
lariscope; molasses  that  is  capable  of  producing  50  percent,  of  crystals. 
The  residuum  has  a commercial  value,  but  it  is  small.  On  that  account 
molasses  should  be  charged  higher,  if  you  charge  by  the  polariscope 
strength,  than  under  other  circumstances,  provided  the  other  50  per 
cent,  is  free  of  duty.  But  in  most  sugars  of  commerce  that  residuum, 
for  instance  between  95c  and  100°,  is  mainly  what  adheres;  it  is  burned 
vegetable  matter,  and  it  has  very  little,  if  any,  value  to  the  refiner. 

Q.  Then  it  would  seem  to  be  a fait  test  as  to  vacuum-pan  and  cen- 
trifugal sugar,  but  I suppose  there  are  still  sugars  made  in  open  pans. 
Take  the  grade  of  sugars  where  it  runs  down  to  70°  ; how  would  the 
residuum  be  in  that  case? — A.  The  residuum  is  very  bad  stuff;  in  fact 
I don’t  know  that  it  is  of  any  consequence  in  regard  to  duty. 

Q.  But  still  it  may  have  some  commercial  value? — A.  Yes. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Would  it  pay  the  producer  to  adulterate  sugar — to  take  advantage 
of  the  law  in  that  way  ? — A.  There  would  be  no  advantage  gained.  In 


DAKFORD  KNO WLTON . ] 


SUGAR. 


317 


Germany  they  make  very  good  sugars.  Light-colored  sugar  is  taken 
very  freely  in  England.  We  cannot  import  sugars  on  their  merits,  be- 
cause they  are  excluded  by  our  high  tariff. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Does  not  the  residuum  of  sugars  tested  by  the  Dutch  standard 
of  color  have  a value  also,  no  matter  what  the  test  is  *?  Has  the  resid- 
uum in  both  cases  a commercial  value*? — A.  It  has  a very  small  com- 
mercial value.  In  the  first  place  there  is  very  little  of  it,  and  in  the 
second  place  it  has  very  little  commercial  value  for  the  reason  that  they 
work  it  over  in  the  refineries  two  or  three  times  or  oftener,  aud  get  about 
all  the  sugar  there  is  in  it. 

Q.  But  that  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is  whether  the  resid- 
uum tested  by  the  color,  and  the  residuum  of  sugar  tested  by  the 
polariscope,  has  in  it  about  the  same  relative  value,  no  matter  what  the 
test  is  *? — A.  I think  there  is  no  distinction  ; I do  not  think  you  can  make 
any  distinction  there. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  I suppose  No.  7 Dutch  standard  is  a class  of  sugar  which,  under 
the  old  method  of  manufacture,  would  run  down  by  the  polariscope  pos- 
sibly to  75°  *? — A.  If  it  is  properly  manufactured  under  that  system  and 
properly  drained,  it  will  generally  polarize  about  80°  to  86°  or  87°; 
some  muscovado  sugar  will  test  about  90° ; when  it  has  been  boiled 
very  carefully  ordinarily  muscovado  will  test  82°  to  90°,  according  to 
the  perfection  of  the  manufacture. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  If  Congress  applies  a uniform  rate  of  duty,  say  two  cents  a pound, 
on  crystallizable  sugar  as  found  by  the  polariscope,  would  it  have  the 
effect  of  bringing  in  all  the  lighter  shades  of  white  sugar  at  the  same  or 
about  the  same  degree  of  strength,  and  driving  the  refiners  out  of  busi- 
ness'? Would  there  not  be  many  of  these  lighter  grades  of  sugars  im- 
ported for  direct  consumption  without  refining*? — A.  Some  would  un- 
doubtedly come  in  that  way.  The  refiners  tell  us  now  that  the  people 
are  educated  up  to  refined  sugars  and  probably  will  never  go  back. 

Q.  Would  not  Java  sugars  go  right  into  consumption  without  refin- 
ing*?— A.  I do  not  think  they  would  to  any  extent. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  The  Demerara  sugars  would  to  some  extent,  would  they  not0? — A. 
I think  so ; they  did  formerly. 

Q.  Would  not  that  be  an  advantage  to  the  consumer*? — A.  Yes,  de- 
cidedly. 

Now  I would  like  to  speak  for  the  consumer.  I am  about  through 
with  the  sugar  business.  I am  not  satisfied  to  feel  that  the  consumer 
should  have  no  voice  in  making  the  tariff.  He  should  be  considered, 
for  fifty-two  millions  of  people  have  a great  many  interests  in  this  coun- 
try as  well  as  fifteen  or  eighteen  refiners,  and  that  is  about  the  number 
of  refiners  in  the  United  States,  I believe.  And  while  I have  nothing 
to  say  against  our  refiners,  yet  I will  say  that  the  consumer  of  sugar 
ought  not  to  be  lost  sight  of.  Now,  gentlemen,  I buy  in  the  market 
pork,  lard,  corn,  oats,  and  machinery  of  all  kinds — everything  that  is 
made  in  manufacturing  establishments  or  raised  in  the  fields,  and  I 
export  it.  The  manufacturers  and  agriculturists  send  their  products 
abroad.  When  I take  out  a cargo  of  these  things  and  want  to  bring 
back  a cargo  of  sugar,  the  United  States  interposes  and  saysj§a  You 


318 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANFOKD  knowlton. 


cannot  take  back  that  sugar.”  I reply,  u The  consumer  wants  it.  The 
gentleman  for  whom  I am  agent  directs  me  to  bring  back  some  good 
sugar  for  his  table.”  The  United  States  says,  “No,  you  cannot  bring 
it.”  And  I am  very  glad  that  that  point  has  come  up,  because  certainly 
“we,  the  people,”  ought  to  be  consulted. 

Now,  speaking  about  the  injury  to  the  refiners — and  I am  very  glad 
that  poiut  has  been  touched  upon,  because  I certainly  do  not  wish  to 
do  them  any  injury.  You  will  see  that  by  this  system  they  will  be 
placed  on  a parity  with  the  refiners  in  England.  The  Englishman  buys 
his  sugar  in  the  producing  country  on  its  intrinsic  merits.  The  Ameri- 
can has  to  pay  an  ad  valorem  duty  while  the  Englishman  pays  nothing. 
This  will  place  them  on  a parity  precisely,  so  that  no  advantage  can  be 
gained.  But  if  you  wish  to  introduce  a system  for  the  refiner  here  it 
must  be  an  exception  to  this  case;  I mean  the  rule  which  I propose, 
fixing  100°  pokiriscope  test.  If  that  was  adopted  he  would  have  the 
same  ad  vantage  which  English  refiners  would  have ; it  would  not  destroy 
refining  there  and  it  would  not  destroy  it  here,  but  it  would  give  the 
consumer  an  opportunity,  in  case  the  refining  monopoly  became  so  severe 
as  to  bear  heavily  upon  him,  to  bring  about  competition. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  At  what  number,  Dutch  standard,  would  sugars  come  in  here  and 
go  into  immediate  consumption? — A.  From  number  13  to  number  16. 

Q.  It  would  apply  to  and  include  number  13  ? — A.  Yes.  My  own 
opinion  has  always  been  that  the  point  between  raw  and  refined  sugar 
was  number  16.  We  sell  now  considerable  sugar  for  the  manufacture 
of  tobacco,  but  not  above  number  10  or  12.  But  for  consumption  gen- 
erally, people  have  been  educated  to  white  sugars,  although  I must  say 
they  sometimes  get  terribly  cheated,  because  some  sugars  that  come  out 
of  refineries,  for  instance  number  18  or  20,  Dutch  standard,  will  not 
polarize  over  85°  to  86°. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  is  the  reason  of  that?— A.  It  is  the  manner  ot  the  maim 
facture. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  That  is,  the  admixture  of  something  that  is  not  sugar? — A.  The 
second  or  third  product  runs  out  a very  light  crystal,  and  is  a spongy 
mass  making  a soft  sugar  which  is  the  dearest  sugar  we  buy — called 
the  coffee  sugar. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Would  not  this  polariscope  test  you  recommend  have  a tendency 
to  encourage  adulteration  of  sugars  abroad,  so  as  to  bring  in  a very  light- 
colored  sugar  here  to  attract  the  eye,  which  would  pass  the  custom- 
house at  a very  low  test  ? — A.  On  that  score  we  would  be  free  from 
danger.  In  the  first  place,  where  sugar  is  raised  very  little  corn  is 
raised.  We  export  corn  to  Cuba.  We  can  import  glucose,  but  it 
would  not  pay  foreigners  to  adulterate  sugar  with  glucose.  To  pay 
four  cents  a pound  for  glucose  and  take  it  there  to  mix  with  sugar 
worth  three  cents  a pound  would  not  pay.  The  higher  the  cost,  the 
more  gain  there  is  in  mixing,  and  glucose,  which  lias  risen  to  enor- 
mous proportions  of  late  years,  is  undoubtedly  mixed  with  sugars;  so 
far,  mainly,  witli  coffee  sugars,  as  we  call  them.  We  do  not  know 
exactly  what  we  are  using  on  our  tables. 

Tli|re  is  another  evil,  not  only  that  we  are  cheated  in  the  saccharine 


DANFORD  KNOWLTON.  | 


SUGAR. 


319 


strength  which  we  want  to  sweeten  our  coffee  with,  but  the  glucose,  as 
at  present  manufactured,  is  made  by  the  use  of  sulphuric  acid ; and  1 say, 
and  have  said  without  being  contradicted  by  scientists,  that  when  once 
you  mingle  sulphuric  acid  with  that  mass  to  produce  glucose  from  corn 
you  can  never  fully  eliminate  it.  I do  not  like  its  effect  on  the  mem- 
brane of  the  stomach.  Cheating,  to  a man  who  wants  100°  in  sugar 
and  gets  only  75°  or  80°,  is  of  small  consequence,  but  when  you  endanger 
health  it  is  of  consequence,  and  ought  to  be  taken  into  consideration. 
The  higher  the  duty  on  sugar  the  greater  the  temptation,  and  the  greater 
will  be  the  probable  increase  of  glucose  and  its  admixture  with  sugar. 
It  lias  come  to  that  point  now  that  you  can  scarcely  buy  in  the  city  a 
barrel  of  sitgar-house  sirup  that  is  not  mixed  with  glucose.  It  is  used 
in  enormous  quantities,  and  some  of  our  larger  refiners  are  engaged  in 
the  production  of  glucose.  I don’t  say  that  they  use  it  in  their  own 
refineries,  but  sometimes  suspicion  will  even  go  that  far. 

Gentlemen,  I am  very  much  obliged,  to  you  for  the  patient  hearing 
you  have  given  me,  and  if  any  questions  arise  in  your  mind — as  I pro- 
pose what  I presume  is  a new  system — I would  be  very  glad  at  any 
time  to  make  any  explanation  to  any  member  of  this  Commission  who 
may  feel  disposed  to  ask  it. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  stated  one  fact  of  which  I was  not  aware ; that  is,  that  the 
French  Government  has  adopted  the  polariscope  as  the  test  upon  which 
they  base  their  calls  for  revenue  on  sugar.  In  England,  sugar  being 
free,  it  is  not  used,  of  course? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Does  the  English  merchant  use  the  polariscope  as  much  as  the 
French  and  Americans  ? — A.  He  uses  it  for  the  purpose  of  buying. 

Q.  It  is  a universal  custom? — A.  Yes;  I might  say  almost  all  over 
the  civilized  world. 

Q.  They  use  that  and  that  alone? — A.  They  use  it  in  the  main.  We 
use  the  Datch  standard  because  we  have  got  to  contend  with  this  tariff 
when  the  sugar  gets  here. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  long  has  the  polariscope  been  used  for  this  purpose? — A.  My 
memory  is  not  very  good,  but  I should  say  about  fifteen  years,  although 
not  so  generally  as  to-day.  1 think  Mr.  Robert  L.  Stuart  was  the  first 
refiner  who  ever  imported  a polariscope.  Afterwards,  other  refiners  got 
it,  and  then,  of  course,  all  the  merchants  had  to  have  it.  In  the  West 
Indies  and  in  all  places  where  sugars  are  made  to  any  extent,  it  is  now 
used,  and  has  become  a standard  for  those  who  buy  as  well  as  those  who 
sell. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  These  importers  who  buy  sugar  abroad  buy  it  by  the  polariscope, 
and  it  passes  through  the  custom-house  here  by  the  Dutch  standard, 
and  then  it  is  afterwards  sold  by  the  polariscope? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  is  the  effect  of  that? — A.  Two  or  three  days  ago  we  sold  a 
cargo  of  sugar  to  the  Brooklyn  Refining  Company.  We  guaranteed  that 
a certain  portion  should  polarize  88°,  and  another  portion  should  po- 
larize 80°.  We  were  to  pay  6 cents  per  100  pounds  for  every  degree  of 
falling  off;  that  is  the  usual  custom  in  New  York.  If  you  guarantee 
sugar  to  test  90°  and  it  tests  89°,  you  pay  G cents  per  100  pounds  for 
the  deficiency.  The  sugars  came  in  and  were  discharged,  showing  a 
falling  oft’ in  polarization.  This  case  occurred  only  yesterday,  and  it  is 
constantly  occurring  here.  The  system  of  selling  sugar  here  now  is 
very  largely  by  what  is  called  cost  and  freight.  In  other  words,  your 


320 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[danford  knowlton. 


friend  in  Havana,  or  wherever  he  may  he,  sends  you  by  telegraphic 
code : u I offer  you  a cargo  of  sugar  of  so  many  hogsheads,  testing  so 
much,  at  such  a price,  cost  and  freight  in  United  States  currency,  based 
upon  payment  in  six  days  from  the  date  of  sale.”  You  go  to  a refiner, 
present  him  the  conditions  under  which  you  will  sell  him  the  sugar,  and 
you  sell  it  to  him.  It  may  arrive  two  or  three  weeks  hence.  You  guar- 
antee that  the  sugars  under  our  law  shall  not  exceed  No.  7 or  No.  10  in 
duty.  In  France  of  course,  nothing  of  this  kind  can  occur,  for  there 
they  rely  on  the  polariscope  alone ; but  here  we  have  to  submit  to  the 
law  as  it  is. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 4< 

Q.  You  made  another  remark  which  took  me  somewhat  by  surprise. 
You  said  refining  is  simply  the  removing  of  color? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  the  refining  consists  in  nothing  but  removing 
the  color  from  the  crystal?  Does  it  not  eliminate  the  filth  and  dirt? — 
A.  Undoubtedly;  there  is  some  vegetable  matter,  and  what  the  chemists 
call  ash.  All  these  impurities  in  the  sugar  are  intended  to  be  removed 
by  the  system  of  filtration  through  animal  carbon,  and  at  the  same 
time,  being  porous,  it  takes  up  the  coloring  matter  of  the  sirup.  After 
this  is  done  the  refiner  has  to  boil  and  crystallize  that  sugar,  and  take 
away  the  coloring  matter,  and  in  that  consists  the  whole  system  of 
refining. 

Q.  Any  coloring  matter  which  is  incorporated  in  an  article  would  be 
much  harder  to  remove  than  one  which  is  added  subsequently  to  the 
manufacture  of  the  article.  In  other  words,  if  you  have  a piece  of  dark 
cloth,  the  threads  of  which  have  been  dyed,  and  you  attempt  to  remove 
the  color  from  that  piece  of  cloth,  it  would  be  much  harder  to  do  so 
than  if,  after  the  manufacture  of  the  white  cloth,  you  merely  get  it 
soiled  by  mud,  would  it  not? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Would  not  the  coloring  matter  added  in  the  vacuum-pan  process, 
or  by  any  other  process  of  manufacturing  sugar,  be  much  more  easily 
removed  than  if  the  coloring  matter  which  was  incorporated  in  the  juice 
itself  had  not  been  sufficiently  extracted  ? — A.  The  coloring  matter  does 
not  exist  in  the  juice. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I think  you  are  mistaken  in  that. 

The  Witness.  The  coloring  matter  you  find  in  the  sugar  of  com- 
merce is  produced,  as  I have  stated,  by  the  rapid  evaporation  in  the 
process  of  manufacture. 

Q.  The  lime  juice  is  used  to  extract  the  coloring  which  is  naturally  in 
the  cane  juice? — A.  No;  that  is  a simply  neutralizing  acid. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I beg  pardon;  I have  some  knowledge  of  the 
process  of  sugar  manufacturing  myself.  Take  up  a quantity  of  raw 
cane  juice  in  a spoon  and  it  will  be  dark  colored,  muddy  colored. 

The  Witness.  I have  never  found  it  muddy  colored.  I have  found 
it  milky  colored.  But  it  has  not  any  of  these  colors  such  as  you  observe 
iu  these  samples  that  I have  exhibited  to  you;  that  is  produced  by  the 
burning  of  the  saccharine  matter  in  boiling.  Take  a cane  and  cut  it  in  thin 
slices  and  expose  it  to  the  sun,  and  let  the  heat  evaporate  the  water, 
and  it  forms  white  crystals.  If  there  is  any  coloring  matter  in  the 
uice,  how  could  it  form  white  crystals?  But  when  you  take  that  same 
nice  and  boil  it  in  a kettle  to  produce  sugar,  why  does  not  that  granu- 
late white?  It  is  because  you  have  burned  it  in  the  process  of  manu- 
facture. Yrou  have  subjected  it  to  a heat  from  212°  to  240°  Fahrenheit. 
You  have  burned  a portion  and  it  comes  out  uncrystallized,  and  is  what 
we  call  molasses. 


DANFORD  KNOWXTON.] 


SUGAR. 


321 


By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  I observed  that  when  you  mentioned  the  matter  of  the  use  of  the 
polariscope,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  as  to  whether  it  was  the  only  means 
of  determining-  the  full  value  of  sugar  to  the  purchaser,  you  said  it  was 
the  general  means.  If  it  is  a perfect  means,  why  is  it  not  universally 
used? — A.  It  is  the  most  perfect  means  of  ascertaining  the  commercial 
value  of  sugars  yet  found.  We  cannot  put  any  limit  to  invention,  and 
something  better  may  be  found  hereafter. 

Q.  You  were  speaking  of  present  tests  and  not  of  the  future,  as  I un- 
derstood you  at  the  time  ? — A.  There  is  nothing  known  at  present  that 
is  equally  reliable  in  determining  the  commercial  value  of  sugar. 

Q.  However,  you  still  use  some  other  additional  tests,  whether  relia- 
ble or  not? — A.  So  far  as  I know,  there  is  no  other  test  used  now.  The 
polariscope,  like  all  other  human  inventions,  may  be  imperfect.  It  does 
not  tell  you  all  the  impurities  in  sugar.  A full  analysis  will  give  that 
to  you,  but  it  is  rather  tedious  to  ask  the  government  to  make  an 
analysis;  because  when  you  have  determined  the  point  by  the  polari- 
scope, you  may  find  something  existing  in  the  juice  which  is  antagon- 
istic to  the  manufacture  of  sugar  which  a full  analysis  would  show. 
But  for  all  ordinary  purposes  we  think  the  polariscope  is  an  instrument 
which  gives  as  satisfactory  a guide  to  the  value  of  sugar  as  can  be 
made,  and  as  such  we  accept  it,  and  shall  accept  it  until  something  bet- 
ter is  invented. 

Q.  It  is  the  present  commercial  guide,  and  so  far  as  you  know,  is  suf- 
ficiently exact  for  all  commercial  purposes? — A.  That  is  my  opinion. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  official  use  of  the  polariscope  would  increase  or 
or  decrease  official  discretion? — A.  I do  not  think  it  would  increase  it 
very  much.  As  the  duties  are  now  laid,  this  is  a question  of  color  to  be 
determined  by  the  eye.  Official  discretion  comes  in  the  looking  at  sam- 
ples under  oifr  present  mode.  Under  the  polariscope  system  your  instru- 
ment indicates  within  almost  a degree  of  exactness  the  polarization  of 
the  sugar. 

Q.  Then  it  would  decrease  official  discretion  ? — A.  It  would  decrease 
mistakes  possibly. 

Q.  Does  the  polariscope  test  anything  but  the  strength  of  the  sugar  ?— 
A.%It  determines  the  percentage  of  crystallizable  sugar  that  can  be  ob 
tained  from  the  mass. 

Q.  In  other  words,  it  determines  the  strength  of  the  sugar? — A.  Yes. 
it  determines  the  sweetening  power  of  the  sugar. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Have  you  been  in  the  habit  of  comparing  the  polariscope  test 
with  any  chemical  analysis? — A.  Not  with  a full  analysis.  We  have 
sometimes  had  our  samples  analyzed. 

Q.  I suppose  you  have  been  in  the  habit  generally  of  comparing 
polariscope  tests  with  the  rulings  of  the  appraisers  according  to  the 
Dutch  standard,  have  you  ? — A.  It  does  not  prove  the  color  at  all*  It 
simply  shows  what  is  the  saccharine  strength  of  the  sugar  without  re 
gard  to  its  color.  And  let  me  say  further,  that  the  polariscope- cannot 
be  applied  to  sugar  as  dark  as  this  darkest  sugar  I have  shown  you 
without  filtering  it  somewhat  to  remove  the  coloring  matter  which  is  in 
it.  The  coloring  matter  must  be  first  taken  out,  because  when  you  put 
it  into  this  tube  to  allow  the  rays  of  light  to  pass  through  it,  if  the  sub, 

H.  Mis.  0 21 


322 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[danford  knowlton. 


stance  is  very  dark  it  will  not  refract  the  rays.  So  that  in  testing  mo- 
lasses or  dark  sugars  you  must  pass  them  through  a filtering  process 
first,  which  takes  out  a portion  of  the  coloring  matter.  That  was  one 
of  the  great  errors  Secretary  Sherman  made,  that  he  wanted  those  sugars 
to  be  tested,  not  as  they  came  from  the  foreign  country,  but  to  draw 
out  all  the  water  that  they  contained,  and  he  wanted  to  determine  the 
color  by  the  polariscope.  The  polariscope  must  first  get  rid  of  the  color 
before  it  can  be  applied  to  sugar.  It  discloses  the  saccharine  matter. 
It  tells  you  the  crvstallizable  sugar  that  can  be  obtained.  It  tells  you 
the  strength  of  the  sugar  for  use,  but  it  1 ells  you  nothing  about  the 
color.  Therefore,  it  would  be  a very  bad  thing,  which  I should  much 
regret  to  see,  to  unite  the  polariscope  and  the  Dutch  standard.  They 
are  as  unlike  as  oil  and  water. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Please  give  us  some  idea,  if  you  can  in  a few  words,  of  the  manner 
of  preparing  sugar  for  the  polariscope  test. — A.  I have  never  worked 
it  much.  Take  a given  quantity  of  sugar  and  ascertain  the  exact  amount 
of  water.  All  the  proportions  must  be  as  exact  as  a druggist  would 
apply  when  making  up  a very  fine  prescription.  Mix  the  sugar  and 
water  so  that  all  the  crystals  shall  dissolve.  Then  it  must  be  put  through 
a process  to  clear  it  of  color  so  that  it  will  refract  the  rays  of  light. 
Then  it  is  placed  in  the  tube,  and  the  opposite  end  of  the  tube  being 
lighted  with  a very  powerful  lamp,  the  operator’s  eye  is  brought  to  the 
other  end,  and  the  refraction  of  the  rays  gives  you  on  one  side  of  a 
central  line  perhaps  a blue  and  the  other  will  be  red.  You  then  move 
the  instrument  until  the  color  is  even  on  both  sides.  In  doing  that  your 
little  index  has  given  the  exact  amount  of  crystallizable  sugar  in  that 
mass.  It  is  a very  delicate  and  beautiful  instrument.  It  was  first  in- 
vented to  be  applied  by  doctors  to  determine  the  amount  of  saccharine 
matter  contained  in  human  urine. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  You  think  by  the  use  of  the  polariscope  there  will  be  no  danger  of 
difference  of  opinion  as  there  is  now  ? — A.  I think  perhaps  there  would  be 
less  danger.  I have  no  doubt  you  will  be  told  that  there  will  be  a great 
deal  of  cheating  under  it,  &c.,  but  I can  only  ask  you  to  look  carefully 
at  the  system  itself,  and  see  whether  in  your  judgment  such  things  will 
occur.  Under  this  scale  I have  given  you,  of  2 cents  per  100  poumls, 
the  merchant  cannot  afford  to  hire  a polarizer  to  cheat  for  him,  because 
he  could  not  make  more  than  a point  or  half  a point  difference  anyhow, 
and  that  would  be  only  two  cents  or  one  cent  on  one  hundred  pounds 
of  sugar.  But  under  the  Dutch  standard  system  a little  variation  in 
seeing  or  failing  to  see  the  color,  produces  a difference  of  31 J cents  on 
each  100  pounds  of  sugar;  so  that  to  me  this  seems  the  safest  guide  to 
the  government:.  It  is,  after  all,  thoroughly  ad  valorem  while  it  is 
specific. 

1 owe  you  many  thanks  for  your  patient  hearing  of  the  facts  which  I 
have  tried  to  bring  before  you,  and  if  there  are  any  further  questions 
now  that  suggest  themselves  to  you,  or  that  may  be  suggested  to  you 
at  any  other  time,  I shall  be  glad  to  give  you  the  benefit  of  my  observa- 
tion in  many  years’  study  of  the  subject. 

I desire  in  closing  to  submit  some  statistics  received  by  me  from  the 
Treasury  Department  in  Washington,  showing  the  quantity,  value,  rate 
of  and  amount  of  duty  received  from  molasses,  melado,  and  sugar  im- 


DANFORD  KNOWLTON.] 


SUGAR. 


323 


ported  and  entered  for  consumption  in  the  United  States,  during  the 
nine  mouths  ended  March  31,  1882. 


Molasses 


Quantity. 


Value. 


gallons. . 


14,  581,  776 


$3,  889, 184  18 


Molasses  concentrated,  tank -bot- 
toms. sirup  of  sugar-cane  juice, 
and  melado pounds. . 


10,  504, 155 


339,  220  00 


R^le  of  duty. 


Amount  of 
duty. 


5 cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  per  gallon. 


$911,  361  00 


14  cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  per  pound. 


196,  952  93 


Sugar,  Dutch  standard  in  color: 
Not  above  No.  7 pounds. . 

Above  No.  7 and  not  above  No. 
10 pounds.. 

Above  No.  10  and  not  above  No. 
13 pounds.. 

Above  No.  13  and  not  above  No. 
16  pounds.. 

Above  No.  16  and  not  above  No. 
20 pounds.. 

Above  No.  20  and  all  refined, 
loaf,  lump,  crushed,  powdered, 
and  granulated pounds.. 


4,  228,  404  18 


============ 

304,  695,  908 

10,  915,  269  52 

913,  789, 187 

41, 751,  249  87 

108,  035,  563 

5,  382,  922  87 

1,  213,  020 

55,  079  50 

983 

79  75 

40,  394 

3,  382  00 

1,  327,  775,  055 

58, 107,  983  51 

1, 108,  313  93 

If  cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  jrer  pound. 

6,  665,  222  97 

2 cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  per  pound. 

22,  844,  729  73 

2\  cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  per  pound. 

3,  038,  500  29 

2|  cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  per  pound. 

41,  697  55 

3£  cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  per  pound. 

39  93 

4 cents  plus  25  per 
cent,  per  pound. 

2,  019  70 

32,  592,  210  17 

The  above  statistics  show  an  import  of  sugar  for  the  first  three-quar- 
tos of  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1882. . 1, 327,  775,  055  pounds. 

Add  for  last  quarter — Received  at  Boston, 

New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore,  (un- 
official)— 

April 107,  423  tons, 

May  o.l  19, 217  tons, 

June 102,  441  tons, 


329,  081  tons  = 737, 141,  440  pounds. 


2,  0G4,  916,  495  pounds, 

or  equal  to  about  921,  838  tons. 

Estimated  receipts  from  the  Sandwich  Islands,  45,  000  tons. 

To  which  must  be  added  the  receipts  of  all  other  than  the  four  ports 
mentioned  since  March  31st,  which  it  is  estimated  will  swell  the  total  im- 
port to  nearly  1,000,000  tons  per  annum  for  the  fiscal  year  1882. 

From  the  above  official  figures  we  deduce  the  following: 


Average  invoice  value  of  sugar  per  pound 4.  376 

Average  duty  per  pound  2.  454 

Per  centage  of  duty  on  invoice  value 56.  089 

Per  centage  of  duty  on  molasses,  melado,  &c 26.  21 


Assuming  the  import  to  be  950,000  tons  and  average  polarization  to 
be  90  degrees,  duty  1.80  per  pound  avoirdupois,  we  reach  a revenue  of 
$38,'  04,000  on  sugar  alone  by  the  system  proposed,  and  ad  valorem  on 
foreign  cost,  41.035  per  cent.  This  is  believed  to  be  a sufficient  duty 
on  an  article  of  such  general  consumption,  and  ample  protection  to 
Louisiana,  whose  largest  production  of  sugar  was  under  an  ad  valorem 
tariff  of  24  per  cent. 


324 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANFORD  KNOWLTON. 


The  rapid  development  of  the  manufacture  of  glucose,  which  passes 
into  consumption  for  the  manufacture  of  beer,  confectionery,  and  for  the 
adulteration  of  sugar,  although  possessing  little  or  no  sweetening  power, 
interferes  with  the  consumption  of  sugar.  The  amount  manufactured, 
as  estimated  by  those  engaged  in  the  business,  will  reach  in  the  present 
year  from  250  to  300,000  tons.  If  the  duty  on  sugar  and  molasses  could 
be  abolished,  its  manufacture  would  be  greatly  diminished  by  reducing 
the  price  of  sugar  so  low  as  to  make  adulteration  less  profitable. 
Abolish  the  temptation  to  fraud,  and  fraud  will  cease.  The  honest 
consumer  can  also  be  protected  from  the  fraud  of  adulteration  by  im- 
posing a tax  upon  its  manufacture,  which  would  tend  to  equalize  its  cost 
to  that  of  sugar.  Ho  sufficient  reason  exists  why  glucose  should  not  be 
taxed  as  well  as  tobacco  and  spirits. 


ALBERT  A.  POPE.] 


BICYCLES. 


325 


ALBERT  A.  POPE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  2,  1882. 

Mr.  Albert  Pope,  president  of  the  Pope  Manufacturing  Company, 
of  Boston,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following 
statement  in  regard  to  bicycles  : 

Mr.  President  : The  operation  of  the  present  tariff  is  in  many  respects 
unjust  to  our  people  and  inexpedient  for  our  country.  I will  confine  my 
remarks  to  the  working  of  it  upon  the  young  but  growing  business  in 
bicycles  and  tricycles,  and  explain  briefly  how,  in  this  department  at 
least,  instead  of  protecting  American  industry,  it  represses  and  defeats 
it.  I speak  of  this  branch  of  business  particularly,  partly  because  other 
branches  are  so  well  represented  to  you  by  other  men,  and  partly  be- 
cause I can  speak  of  this  from  intimate  knowledge  derived  from  obser- 
vation abroad  and  experience  at  home — the  Pope  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany, of  which  I am  president,  being  a corporation  entirely  and  exclu- 
sively devoted  to  it,  and  the  largest  concern  of  the  kind  in  this  country, 
if  not  in  the  world.  Notwithstanding  the  discriminations  against  it, 
and  the  difficulties  attending  its  development,  this  industry  has  already 
reached  respectable  proportions  here.  In  England,  with  a free  trade, 
it  has  become  one  of  the  large  manufacturing  industries.  Coventry, 
Birmingham,  London,  Leicester,  Wolverhampton,  and  other  cities,  are 
busier  for  the  hum  of  its  factories $ indeed,  in  Coventry  this  is  now 
the  leading  industry.  I estimate  from  authentic  reports  the  amount  of 
English  capital  invested  in  plant,  machinery,  &c.,  at  $10,000,000,  and 
the  annual  volume  of  business  at  more  than  that.  The  English  makers 
send  their  machines  into  foreign  markets,  which  they  find  already  not 
only  in  the  United  States  and  the  Canadas,  but  also  in  France,  Switzer- 
land, Spain,  Germany,  Russia,  India,  South  Africa,  Australia,  the  West 
Indies,  New  Zealand,  and  parts  of  South  America.  The  uses  of  the 
machines  in  most  of  the  foreign  markets  have  but  lately  begun,  and  the 
prospects  are  for  immense  increase  in  their  demand.  Who  shall  supply 
this  demand  ? With  present  tariff  rates,  England ; with  no  tariff,  or  with 
a just  and  expedient  one,  the  United  States.  The  whole  business  has 
grown  in  a dozen  years  : it  has  a future  of  importance. 

How  does  the  tariff*  stand  ? Forty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  steel, 
which  is  the  principal  part  of  the  bieycle.  American  labor  is  better 
paid  than  English,  the  price  being  from  50  to  100  per  cent,  higher  here. 
About  one-third  the  cost  of  bicycles  and  tricycles  is  in  labor  of  mechanics, 
and  this  is  50  per  cent,  more  expensive  here ; while  in  the  other  two- 
thirds  of  their  cost,  as  made  here,  there  is  45  per  cent,  additional  ex- 
pense. The  duty  on  bicycles  and  tricycles,  imported  as  carriages,  com- 
pletely manufactured  in  England,  is  85  per  cent.  Here  is  a discrimina- 
tion of  10  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  foreign  maker.  I am  not  now  arguing 
for  free  trade,  but  for  fair  trade. 

The  present  state  of  things  is  unjust  at  home,  because  there  is  a 
discrimination  of  10  percent,  against  American  labor,  where,  if  there  be 
discrimination  at  all  it  should  be  in  favor  of  our  own  labor ; and  there 
is  10  per  cent,  discrimination  against  American  capital  and  enterprise, 
when  it  should  be  the  other  way,  if  at  all.  English  manufacturers 
compete  at  an  advantage,  therefore,  for  our  home  consumption  to  a 


326 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


(ALBERT  A.  POPE. 


large  extent;  and  while  this  is  so,  American  manufacturers  of  ma- 
chinery will  hesitate  to  extend  their  enterprise  and  their  consumption 
of  raw  materials  and  their  employment  of  labor,  so  as  to  cover  the  de- 
mand for  bicycles  and  tricycles  at  home.  The  present  state  of  things 
is  inexpedient  for  the  manufacture  and  export  trade  of  the  country. 

In  competing  for  foreign  trade  we  may  offset  our  greater  cost  of  labor 
here  by  our  better  machinery  and  methods;  but  the  American  compet- 
ing in  Brazil,  for  instance,  with  the  English  bicycle  or  tricycle  maker, 
is  at  45  per  cent,  disadvantage  on  every  particle  of  material  entering 
into  the  construction  of  his  machines,  since  that  which  he  does  not  im- 
port is  kept  up  in  price  by  the  duty,  and  this  disadvantage  is  so  great 
as  to  be  almost  exclusive.  This  discrimination  in  its  working  on  the 
export  trade  is  against  every  just  and  wise  principle  of  policy  for  the 
United  States.  This  special  manufacture,  if  fostered  here,  would  .bring 
a large  home  consumption  of  steel  in  special  forms,  and  of  labor,  would, 
give  employment  to  many  and  create  other  industries  of  which  the 
country  is  deprived,  and  for  which  the  trifling  receipts  of  revenue  under 
existing  laws  is  but  a pittance  of  offset.  So  on  every  hand  the  operation 
of  the  present  tariff  law  on  this  branch  of  manufacture  is  impolitic  and 
hostile. 

Where  we  have  now  $500,000  in  plant,  there  ought  to  be  ten  times  as 
much  to-day ; where  we  have  a volume  of  $500,000  of  annual  home  trade, 
we  ought  to  have  three,  five,  or  ten  times  as  much ; where  we  have  $5,000 
volume  of  foreign  trade  at  no  profit,  we  ought  to  have  several  millions 
at  a profit;  and  in  my  judgment  we  would,  but  for  the  tariff,  with 
larger  possibilities  for  the  future.  If  we  are  to  have  a tariff  u for  protec- 
tion,” or  even  u for  revenue  only,”  the  rate  on  raw  or  half-worked  mater- 
ials should  be  less  than  on  the  manufactured  machine. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  Do  you  make  bicycles  of  imported  material  entirely? — 
Answer.  No,  sir ; but  largely ; and  yet  the  duty  on  steel  for  bicycles 
makes  the  price  for  the  home  article  about  the  same  as  for  the  foreign. 
In  England  the  business  is  older  than  it  is  in  this  country.  It  has  been 
in  existence  there  about  twelve  years.  The  velocipede  business  started 
here  in  1869  or  1870,  and  went  out  of  existence  the  same  year.  The 
velocipede  was  found  to  be  too  hard  to  propel  to  ever  become  popular. 
The  English  manufacturers  went  on  making  the  bicycle  until  it  has  been 
brought  to  its  present  state  of  perfection.  There  are  now  nearly  200 
manufactories  in  England,  and  about  200,000  bicycles  and  tricycles  used 
by  all  classes,  from  the  Queen  down,  for  the  Queen  uses  one  of  the  lat- 
ter in  her  private  garden,  and  so  do  some  of  her  daughters.  On  the 
Continent  it  is  also  used  very  largely.  This  industry  was  taken  up  again 
by  me  in  this  country. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  How  many  manufactories  are  there  in  the  United  States? — A. 
About  a dozen. 

Q.  How  many  men  are  employed  ? — A.  Perhaps  about  1,000.  Our  con- 
cern is  the  largest  in  the  United  States;  we  employ  350.  The  f<  reign 
demand  is  growing  very  fast,  but  we  cannot  compete  with  the  English. 
As  I have  said,  the  duty  on  raw  material  is  10  per  cent,  more  than  on 
the  manufactured  article. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  If  you  were  allowed  a drawback  on  your  exportation  equal  to  the 
duty  which  you  pay  on  the  raw  material,  w'ould  that  help  you  ? — A. 


ALBERT  A.  POPE.] 


BICYCLES. 


327 


Yes;  if  we  were  allowed  a drawback  on  tbe  steel  that  enters  into  the 
construction  of  the  tricycles.  The  45  per  cent,  duty  on  steel  keeps  up 
the  price  of  domestic  steel  about  the  same  as  the  foreign.  If  this  draw- 
back were  allowed  there  would  be  many  manufactories  started  in  this 
couutry  to  supply  the  English  market.  That  market  is  very  large.  It 
is  estimated  that  the  English  manufacturers  will  turn  out  more  than 
50,000  bicycles  and  tricycles  this  year,  and  the  business  is  only  in  its 
infancy.  Hon.  Robert  Lowe,  M.  P.,  now  seventy-four  or  seventy-five 
years  of  age,  rides  a bicycle.  More  than  100  members  of  Parliament 
are  bicyclers.  You  see  what  a hold  it  has  taken  in  popular  favor  there. 
A man  on  a bicycle  can  outdo  any  horse  for  20  miles  and  upwards. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  they  can  manufacture  45  per 
cent,  more  cheaply  than  we  can  ? — A.  Hot  exactly.  The  material  I said 
is  45  per  cent,  cheaper. 

Q.  How  could  you  sell  your  machines  in  Brazil,  for  instance?— A.  We 
could  do  so  if  we  could  get  our  material  cheap  enough.  We  do  every- 
thing in  this  country  by  machinery,  which  makes  all  the  parts  inter- 
changeable. We  do  nothing  by  hand  that  can  possibly  be  done  by  a 
machine;  while  in  England  the  working  people  object  to  machinery, 
and  they  do  as  much  as  they  can  by  hand.  Boys  even  stand  up  at  a 
lathe  and  turn  out  screws  by  hand,  while  in  this  country  we  grind  out 
screws  all  day  long  at  a machine,  and  one  man  takes  the  screws  from 
30  machines ; and  if  you  were  to  examine  a thousand  screws  you  would 
find  that  every  one  is  exactly  the  same.  In  fact,  they  pass  through 
gauges,  and,  if  not  exactly  alike,  they  are  cast  aside.  That  is  the  ad- 
vantage the  American  machinery  will  have  in  competing  with  the  labor 
of  the  Old  World,  where  it  is  done  by  hand. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  have  the  interchangeable  process  where  the  parts  correspond, 
so  that  if  one  part  is  broken  you  can  have  it  replaced  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  just 
exactly  like  the  Waltham  watch,  and  that  is  why  the  Waltham  watch 
sells  so  largely  in  Europe.  The  Waltham  Company,  and  the  other 
large  companies  of  our  country,  have  killed  the  cheap  watch  business  in 
England,  so  that  there  is  very  little  done  even  in  Coventry. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  are  the  principal  materials  you  import? — A.  Steel;  there  is 
hardly  anything  but  steel.  The  saddles  are  of  leather;  the  handles 
are  either  hard  rubber  or  horn. 

Q.  What  are  the  duties? — A.  Forty-five  per  cent,  on  steel,  and  35 
per  cent.,  if  you  import  the  bicycle  complete,  made  in  England.  A bicycle 
comes  in  at  35  per  cent.,  because  it  has  been  decided  to  be  a carriage. 
In  England  they  have  had  many  suits  instituted  by  people  who  think 
that  horses  and  horsemen  have  an  exclusive  right  to  the  highways; 
and  in  every  instance,  without  a single  exception,  the  bicycle  has  been 
decided  to  be  a carriage,  and  that  it  has  the  same  right  to  the  carriage- 
way that  a carriage  has.  When  bicycles  were  first  imported  at  Boston, 
the  collector  did  not  know  what  duty  to  levy  upon  them,  so  he  inquired 
of  the  department  at  Washington,  and  Attorney-General  Devens  de- 
cided that  the  bicycle  was  a carriage,  for  the  purpose  of  duties,  and 
consequently  the  duty  was  fixed  at  35  per  cent. 

Q.  If  a higher  rate  of  duty  was  fixed  on  imported  bicycles,  would 
that  help  you? — A.  Ho;  it  would  not  help  us  for  export  business;  we 
do  not  complain  of  our  home  trade ; but  we  want  the  export  business 
too. 


328 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALBERT  A.  POPE. 


Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Wlmt  prevents  you  now  from  exporting  and  having  the  benefit  of 
a drawback?  If  you  make  a bicycle  entirely  of  imported  material,  it 
can  be  exported  and  the  original  duty  upon  the  raw  material  refunded, 
less  10  per  cent. 

The  Witness.  Who  is  going  to  tell  how  much  imported  material 
there  is  in  it  ¥ 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  must  state  that  under  oath. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Is  there  a drawback  on  India  rubber  as 
well  as  on  steel  ¥ 

Commissioner  McMahon.  There  is  no  duty  on  India  rubber,  and 
none  on  raw  horn. 

The  Witness.  With  a lower  duty  on  steel  for  the  manufacture  of 
bicycles  it  would  make  the  cost  of  bicycles  in  this  country  less  and  it 
Avould  create  a greater  demand. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  is  the  average  wholesale  price  of  your  bicycles  ¥ — A.  About 
$80. 

Q.  What  do  they  weigh? — A.  They  weigh  from  40  to  50  pounds. 

Q.  How  much  of  that  weight  is  steel? — A.  I should  think  all  but  ten 
pounds  at  least;  say  from  30  to  40  pounds.  We  import  the  steel  in 
tubes,  bars,  and  wires.  Some  of  it  costs  15  cents  a pound,  and  that  would 
be  about  0 or  7 cents  for  the  duty. 

Q.  The  bicycle  is  used  only  for  pleasure,  is  it  not  ? — A.  No,  sir ; it  is 
also  used  for  business.  I suppose  one-half  are  used  for  business. 

Q.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  as  to  the  duties  you  pay  ? Accord- 
ing to  what  you  have  stated,  you  do  not  pay  over  $2  or  $3  to  the  gov- 
ernment for  every  bicycle. — A.  Yes,  we  do.  The  cost  of  the  steel  in  a 
bicycle  is  at  least  $30  before  we  do  any  work ; at  45  per  cent,  duty 
that  would  be  nearly  $14. 

Q.  Why  do  you  not  import  steel  in  its  raw  state  and  finish  it  here,  if 
you  have  such  good  machinery  which  will  make  all  the  parts  inter- 
changeable?— A.  We  cannot  draw  the  wire.  To  draw  wire  we-  must 
have  a very  expensive  plant.  The  Washburn  & Moen  Company  have 
a plant,  I suppose,  of  about  $2,000,000,  just  for  that  purpose.  We  buy 
the  wire  drawn,  and  the  tubes  are  all  drawn  like  a gun  barrel,  and  then 
we  have  to  taper  and  shape  them  properly. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  sized  wire  do  you  use  ? — A.  From  11  to  12  gauge.  It  is  a very 
small  wire.  The  telegraph  operators  in  country  towns  in  New  England 
use  bicycles  largely  to  deliver  their  messages.  In  England,  the  Post 
master- General  has  recommended  them  for  letter-carriers.  In  Coventry 
every  letter-carrier  is  mounted  on  a bicycle  or  tricycle,  and  then  he 
does  his  work  in  nearly  one-half  the  time  that  would  be  required  if  he 
went  on  foot,  and  he  has  the  other  half  for  other  purposes. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  duty  upon  the  material  in  each 
bicycle  is  about  $14? — A.  I said  that  as  a rough  estimate.  The 
cost  of  steel  for  felloes  is  15  cents  a pound.  It  is  partially  made  up  or 
half  wrought  when  we  get  it. 


JOSEPH  CAMPBELL.] 


SULPHUR  ORE. 


329 


JOSEPH  CAMPBELL. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  3,  1882. 

Mr.  Joseph  Campbell,  of  New  York,  appeared  before  the  Commis- 
sion and  made  the  following  statement: 

I wish  to  speak  on  the  subject  of  sulphur  ore  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  sulphuric  acid  for  agricultural  purposes.  I may  explain  preliminarily 
that  one-half  of  the  chemical  fertilizers  in  this  country  are  composed  of 
sulphuric  acid,  which  is  used  to  make  the  elements  in  the  fertilizer  avail- 
able. The  quantity  of  chemical  fertilizers  manufactured  in  the  United 
States  amounts  to  700,000  tons  per  annum,  300,000  tons  of  that  being 
sulphuric  acid.  The  present  source  of  sulphuric  acid  is  Sicilian  brim- 
stone, which  costs  about  $32  per  ton.  The  cost  of  sulphuric  acid  is  about 
$9  to  $10  per  ton.  In  England  the  brimstone  is  not  used  as  a source  of 
sulphuric  acid.  Then*,  it  is  sulphur  ore  imported  from  Spain.  Six  hun- 
dred thousand  tons  annually  come  into  England  for  the  manufacture  of 
sulphuric  acid  for  agricultural  purposes.  The  acid  there  costs  the  inan- 
utacturer  about  $6  per  ton.  The  American  competitor  buys  brimstone 
as  a source  of  sulphuric  acid,  which  costs  about  $10  per  ton.  Thus  the 
American  manufacturer  is  at  a great  disadvantage. 

And,  moreover,  England  of  late  has  commenced  to  export,  chemical 
fertilizers,  on  which  there  is  no  duty,  to  America.  Within  the  last  12 
months  about  80,000  tons  of  fertilizers  have  been  brought  from  England 
to  the  United  States.  That  is  a seeming  absurdity,  because  South  Car- 
olina is  the  source  of  phosphate  of  lime  which  composes  the  other  half 
of  chemical  fertilizers  manufactured  in  this  country,  in  addition  to  the 
sulphuric  acid.  This  South  Carolina  phosphate  rock  goes  to  England 
at  $6  a ton.  The  chemical  fertilizer  is  there  made  from  the  South  Car- 
olina rock  and  sent  to  the  United  States  without  duty,  where  it  competes 
with  the  American  manufactured  chemical  fertilizers.  That  is  an 
anomaly  which  we  wish  to  have  corrected,  by  suggesting  that  sulphur 
ore  should  be  admitted  free  of  duty  into  the  United  States  in  order 
that  the  chemical-fertilizer  manufacturer  may  be  enabled  to  make  a 
fertilizer  on  the  same  footing  as  the  English  manufacturer. 

And  here  I may  explain  that  sulphur  ore  is  composed  of  about  one- 
half  of  iron  and  one  half  of  sulphur,  with  about  1 per  cent,  of  copper. 
After  the  sulphuric  acid  is  extracted  from  the  copper  ore,  there  remains 
the  cinder. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  That  is  what  is  termed,  commercially,  purple  ore  ? — Answer. 
Yes;  and  this  1 per  cent,  of  copper  is  sufficient  to  make  worthless  the 
cinder.  Then,  again,  it  does  not  pay  to  extract  that  one  per  cent,  of 
copper. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Is  this  sulphur  ore  used  in  this  country  for  any  other  purpose  than 
for  the  manufacture  of  fertilizers  t — A.  No,  sir;  it  has  not  been  imported 
hitherto,  I mean.  I am  the  representative  in  this  country  of  a Spanish 
company  engaged  in  the  mining  of  sulphur  ore  which  has  hitherto  sent 


330 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  CAMPBELL. 


all  of  its  products  to  England.  It  lias  never  been  imported  into  this 
country. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  know,  could  it  be  used  for  any  other  purpose? — A.  It 
cannot  be  used  for  any  other  purpose  than  the  manufacture  of  sulphuric 
acid  for  agricultural  purposes.  Tfie  pure  article  for  medicinal  purposes 
cannot  be  made  from  it. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Are  there  not  great  beds  of  pyrites  or  sulphur  ore  in  this  country  ? — 
A.  Various  beds. 

Q.  In  large  quantities? — A.  In  large  quantities;  but  they  are  either 
copper  pyrites  or  in  some  other  form,  which  makes  the  cinder  the  prin- 
ciple source  of  value. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Sulphur  is  the  enemy  of  iron? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  When  you  say  that  there  are  700,000  tons  of  fertilizer  made  in  the 
United  States,  and  300,000  of  those  tons  are  sulphuric  aci<l,  do  you  mean 
that  that  is  the  relative  quantity  of  the  two  articles  used? — A.  The  mix- 
ture. In  a ton  of  fertilizer  there  is  about  half  a ton  of  sulphuric  acid 
to  make  the  ammonia  and  the  other  chemical  elements  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed available  to  the  plant. 

Q.  Are  you  certain  that  the  phosphates  derived  from  Charleston  are 
not  used  simply  as  a solvent  to  enable  the  plant  to  assimilate  the  chemi- 
cal elements  of  the  fertilizer? — A.  That  is  the  object. 

Q.  It  comes  to  us  in  a dry  condition. — A.  But  the  phosphoric  acid  and 
the  lime  absorb  the  sulphuric  acid,  so  that  it  dries  in  about  an  hour  after 
the  two  are  combined.  Of  course  the  lime  has  an  affinity  for  the  sul- 
phuric acid,  and  forms  a sulphate  of  lime. 

Q.  Where  do  you  get  your  data  for  the  statement  that  there  are 

700.000  tons  of  fertilizer  made? — A.  I am  engaged  in  the  business.  I 
say  about  700,000. 

Q.  Where  do  you  get  your  data  from? — A.  From  my  own  personal 
knowledge  of  what  is  manufactured  in  this  country. 

Q.  The  figures  are  not  given  in  any  document  ? — A.  No.  These  facts 
are  only  known  to  me  because  I am  a miner  of  i>hosphate  rock,  and  I 
import  guano  and  everything  pertaining  to  chemical  fertilizers.  Such 
statistics  are  only  known  to  those  engaged  in  the  trade.  In  Charleston, 
S.  C.,  about  125,000  tons  of  chemicals  are  manufactured ; in  Wilmington, 
N.  C.,  in  Augusta,  Ga.,  in  Atlanta,  Ga.,  and  in  Chicago,  there  is  a large 
amount  made ; and  Baltimore,  I suppose,  manufactures  150,000  to 

200.000  tons ; Philadelphia  and  Wilmington,  Del.,  manufacture,  be- 
tween them,  perhaps  150,000  tons.  New  England  manufactures  nearly 

100.000  tons ; New  York  over  100,000  tons. 

Q.  Are  there  any  statements  to  that  effect  in  any  public  print? — A. 
No,  sir;  they  are  known  to  myself  from  personal  contact  with  large  man- 
ufacturers. 

Q.  Do  you  xmetend  to  say  that  these  manufacturers  do  not  make 
statements  to  anybody  else? — A.  I suppose  not.  In  dealing  with  phos- 
phate rock  I know  precisely  what  the  output  is.  Of  course,  it  is  my 
business  to  know  these  facts,  because  I am  engaged  in  selling  the  raw 
material  to  the  manufacturers  in  England  aud  in  this  country. 

Q.  Are  you  sole  agent  for  the  whole  South  Carolina  business? — A. 
Not  at  all. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  how  much  other  people  manufacture? — A.  I 


JOSEPH  CAMPBELL. J 


SULPHUR  ORE. 


331 


may  mention  to  you  that  the  annual  production  of  South  Carolina  phos- 
phate is  about  350,000  tons  per  annum ; 150,000  tons  of  that  will  be  ex- 
ported to  Europe,  and  200,000  tons  of  South  Carolina  rock  are  consumed 
in  this  country.  It  is  a colossal  trade.  I came  over  to  this  country  in 
1870,  and  have  been  mining  in  South  Carolina.  I do  not  think  50,000 
tons  were  mined  in  1870 ; but  tcPday  we  are  mining  at  the  rate  of  350,000 
tons  per  annum.  This  phosphate  deposit  in  South  Carolina  is  second 
to  none.  It  is  of  medium  grade,  and  is  perfect  of  its  kind.  The  man- 
ufacture of  chemical  fertilizers  has  been  quadrupled  in  a little  over  a 
decade,  for  I do  not  suppose  more  than  150,000  tons  were  manufactured 
in  1870. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  upon  the  market  to  import  this  fertilizer 
free  ?■ — A.  It  would  give  it  to  the  farmer  cheaper.  In  England  the  farmer 
gets  his  superphosphate  at  a price  nearly  25  per  cent,  less  than  the 
American  farmer. 

Q.  What  is  the  object  in  the  manufacturer  asking  to  have  it  furnished 
more  cheaply? — A.  I do  not  represent  the  manufacturer;  I represent 
the  seller  of  the  raw  materials. 

Q.  You  want  to  increase  the  consumption  of  the  rock? — A.  Yes, 
sir ; and  o#  the  sulphur  ore,  because  then  less  rock  will  go  to  England, 
and  more  will  be  used  here.  You  understand  that  the  United  States 
holds  the  key  to  the  situation  on  the  question  of  artificial  fertilization. 
She  alone  has  the  mineral  phosphate  deposit  of  the  world. 

Q.  What  is  the  present  price  of  these  fertilizers  ? 

The  Witness.  Do  you  mean  the  manufacturer’s  price? 

Commissioner  Garland;  Yes. 

The  Witness.  The  farmer  can  go  to  the  manufacturer  and  buy  the 
superphosphates  at  a price  varying  from  $20  to  $30  per  ton.  The  dealer 
buys  it  somewhat  cheaper,  because  be  buys  in  quantity. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  between  the  price  of  that  manufactured  in 
this  country  and  the  imported  article? — A.  I may  explain  to  you,  first, 
that  the  price  of  superphosphates  in  this  country  has  been  unduly 
depressed  by  the  importation  of  80,000  tons  from  England,  so  that  we 
are  in  a peculiar  condition.  The  price  ought  to  be  higher  in  this  country ; 
and  if  the  manufacturer  in  the  United  States  made  his  estimate  at  the 
minimum  price  of  sulphur  ore,  then  he  would  be  able  to  take  off  perhaps 
10  to  20  per  cent,  from  the  nominal  price  in  his  transactions  with  the 
dealer — not  from  the  present  price,  which  is  too  low,  I think,  owing  to 
the  fact  that  English  phosphates  can  be  imported. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Your  idea  is  that  the  manufacturer  of  superphosphates,  and  con- 
sequently the  consumer  also,  will  be  benefited  by  the  introduction  free 
of  this  sulphur  ore? — A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  The  manufacturer  will  then  be  able  to  sell  more  cheaply  to  the  con- 
sumer?— A.  Yes;  and  England,  instead  of  exporting  chemical  fertilizers 
to  America  will  receive  them  from  the  United  States. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Have  you  heard  of  a large  deposit  of  sulphur  ore  which  has  been 
found  in  Louisiana  or  Texas? — A.  I have  not.  We  frequently  hear  of  new 
deposits  of  sulphur.  I have  heard  of  deposits  of  iron  pyrites,  and  copper 
pyrites,  but  they  are  usually  so  chemically  impure  as  to  be  unfit  for  the 
purpose  of  acid  making. 

Q.  They  are  using  them  in  Savannah,  Ga.  ? — A.  It  is  not  pure  sul- 


332 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  CAMPBELL 


phur.  They  are  using  Georgia  pyrites,  but  they  are  using  it  for  the 
value  of  the  cinder,  which  contains  copper.  I do  not  believe  an  ore  has 
ever  been  discovered  in  this  country  which  could  be  profitably  used  for 
the  sake  of  the  sulphur  alone. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver:  • 

Q.  If  this  sulphur  ore  were  placed  on  the  free  list  what  would  it  dis- 
place in  this  country  ? — A.  Nothing  that  I am  aware  of. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  If  sulphur  ore  came  in  duty  free,  would  it  not  displace  newly-dis- 
covered brimstone  or  sulphur  deposits? 

The  Witness.  Do  you  mean  pure  brimstone,  or  a mixture? 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Not  chemically  pure  brimstone,  of  course, 
but  very  nearly  pure. 

A.  I suppose  it  would ; but  I am  not  aware  that  any  brimstone  such  as 
the  Sicilian  can  be  found  in  this  country. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  purity  of  Sicilian  ore  ? — A.  It  is  almost  entirely 
pure.  These  heavy  raw  minerals  will  not  bear  the  cost  of  transpor- 
tation. „ . 

Q.  Are  not  these  minerals  which  are  brought  from  Nevada  and  Cali- 
fornia beating  the  cost  of  transportation  ? — A.  That  is  owing  to  the  gold 
and  the  silver  in  them.  These  raw  products  will  not  bear  much  trans- 
portation. We  can  bring  them  from  Spain  and  Italy,  but  if  vessels  did 
not  bring  some  such  cargo  they  would  have  to  come  to  this  country 
empty  in  order  to  get  the  freights  of  grain  to  carry  back.  That  is  the 
only  reason  why  we  are  enabled  to  import  these  bulky  raw  minerals. 


GASTON  L.  FEUARDENT.J 


ANTIQUITIES. 


333 


GASTON  L.  FEUARDENT. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  3, 1882. 

Mr.  Gaston  L.  Feuardent,  of  New  York,  appeared  before  the  Com- 
mission and  made  the  following  statement: 

Mr.  President.  Antiquities,  until  the  year  1870,  were  on  the  free- 
list; but  an  act  passed  by  Congress  in  that  year,  intended  to  enlarge 
the  free  list,  added  a few  words  which  have  had  the  effect,  instead  of 
making  them  all  free,  to  make  free  such  articles  only  as  are  specially 
imported,  and  are  not  for  sale. 

In  1877  there  was  a large  collection  of  antiquities  brought  into  this 
country.  The  Treasury  Department  declared  that  they  were  uncondi- 
tionally free  of  duty,  although  they  were  for  sale,  because  the  act  of 
1870  was  intended  to  enlarge  the  free  list,  not  to  restrict  it. 

But,  in  1878,  I myself  imported  a collection  of  antiquities,  whereupon 
the  Treasury  Department  changed  its  ruling  and  declared  that  if  they 
were  imported  for  sale  they  must  be  classified  as  model  objects,  and 
charged  duty  according  to  their  different  materials. 

In  1882.  in  a suit  brought  before  Judge  Bond  in  the  United  States 
court,  he  declared  that  the  act  of  1870  was  meant  to  enlarge  the  free  list, 
and  that  it  could  not  be  restricted,  so  that  at  present  the  subject  remains 
in  an  uncertain  state. 

I beg  to  present  to  you  the  fact  that  in  other  countries  the  exporta- 
tion of  antiquities  is  prohibited,  but  never  the  importation  ; it  is  rather 
invited.  Also,  that  those  few  words  put  in  our  law,  u specially  imported, 
and  not  for  sale,”  make,  I have  to  submit,  a distinction  between  antiqui- 
ties. For  instance,  a dealer  here  cannot  import  antiquities,  while  every- 
body else  can  import  every  day  any  amount  of  them;  therefore,  the  for- 
eign resident  dealer  has  a great  advantage  over  the  dealer  in  this  coun- 
try, because  he  can,  at  any  time,  send  his  goods  without  paying  duty, 
while  the  resident  dealer  here,  who  is  responsible  for  his  actions,  is 
charged  from  25  to  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Of  course  the  collector  has 
to  rely,  to  a great  extent,  on  the  honesty  of  the  dealer. 

If  I import  an  iron  weapon  made  sixteen  hundred  years  ago,  that 
weapon,  which  can  hardly  be  handled,  is  charged  25  per  cent,  duty  ad 
valorem,  notwithstanding  its  great  age,  just  the  same  as  if  it  had  been 
recently  manufactured.  I beg  to  submit  that  that  duty  will  prevent  the 
importation  of  desired  objects. 

There  is  an  item  not  to  be  found  in  the  tariff ; I refer  to  objects  of 
collection,  by  which  I mean  collections  of  objects  made  prior  to  this 
century  and  after  the  medimval  period.  They  are  generally  regarded 
as  being  imported  for  the  purpose  of  instruction,  and  not  in  the  way  of 
competing  with  our  manufactures,  and  therefore  they  do  not  enter  into 
the  question  of  the  relations  between  producer  and  consumer.  It  is 
more  a question  of  the  production  of  human  genius  addressing  itself  to 
human  taste.  In  every  other  country,  however,  such  articles  are  free 
of  duty. 

The  third  item  which  I beg  to  speak  in  regard  to  is  plastic  art.  At 
present,  such  articles  are  charged  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  They  can- 


334 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GASTON  L.  FEUARDENT. 


not  be  faithfully  copied  here,  and  I beg  to  submit  that  it  is  very  desir- 
able that  all  plaster  casts  and  photographs  of  such  objects  should  be 
put  upon  the  free  list. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Whether  for  sale  or  not,  do  you  mean  ? — A.  Whether  for  sale  or 
not. 

Gentlemen,  I beg  to  leave  on  your  table  an  argument  written  in  1881 
by  Dr.  Holland,  on  that  very  subject,  which  is  priuted  in  Scribner’s  Mag- 
azine. It  covers  the  whole  ground,  and,  with  your  permission,  I will 
leave  it  with  the  Commission. 

I wish  to  add  that  the  small  duty  of  10  per  cent,  which  is  now  levied 
on  works  of  art  hardly  prevents  the  importation  of  desired  objects,  while 
it  does  not  protect  the  artist  here,  as  these  objects  are  imported  in  large 
quantities. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  If  the  Commission  will  allow  me,  I will  ex- 
plain what  I think  Mr.  Feuardent  wishes  to  say. 

On  page  185  of  Heyl,  at  section  1528,  it  says:  ‘‘Cabinets  of  coins, 
medals,  and  all  other  collections  of  antiquities,”  regardless  of  their  use; 
and  at  section  1555,  “ collections  of  antiquity  specially  imported  and  not 
for  sale.”  Under  these  two  clauses  there  have  been  imported  large 
numbers  of  antiquities  for  the  encouragement  of  taste  and  art.  The 
Treasury  Department  decided,  first,  that  by  the  term  “antiquities”  is 
meant  the  productions  or  works  of  ancient  times  as  contradistinguished 
from  those  of  recent  periods;  and,  second,  that  by  the  term  “ all  other 
collections  of  antiquities,”  inasmuch  as  it  is  in  the  same  paragraph  with 
“ cabinets  of  coins  and  medals,”  it  means  “ all  other  similar  collections 
of  antiquities.”  So  that,  according  to  that  construction,  the  law  would 
read,  “ coins,  medals,  and  all  other  similar  collections  of  antiquities  im- 
ported and  not  for  sale”;  but  if  imported  for  sale  they  pay  duty. 

With  reference  to  the  act  of  June  6,  1878,  to  which  Mr.  Feuardent  has 
referred,  he  Avishes  the  articles  mentioned  therein  to  be  admitted  free 
of  duty  for  the  encouragement  of  the  arts  and  science,  whether,  for 
sale  or  not,  and  wishes  to  add  to  that  the  words  “objects  of  collection,” 
according  to  the  sense  in  which  they  are  used  in  the  British  Museum. 

The  Witness.  Prior  to  the  mediaeval  period  they  are  called  antiqui- 
ties, and  between  that  and  prior  to  this  century  they  are  called  “ objects 
of  collection.” 


ALONZO  M.  VITI.] 


STATUARY. 


335 


ALONZO  M.  VITI. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  3,  1882. 

Mr.  Alonzo  M.  Viti,  of  Philadelphia,  appeared  before  the  Commis- 
sion and  made  the  following  statement: 

While  expressing  to  the  honorable  president  and  members  of  the 
Tariff  Commission  my  thanks  for  the  asked -for  interview,  I will  en 
deavor  to  present  my  views  on  the  present  condition  of  the  tariff  relat- 
ing to  the  duties  imposed  on  marble  statuary  in  as  brief  and  concise  a 
manner  as  possible.  I will  not  make  any  remarks  regarding  the  duty 
on  marble  in  blocks,  as  that  will  be  argued  by  other  firms  engaged  in 
that  business. 

I understand  the  object  of  the  Tariff  Commission  is  to  hear  the  dif- 
ferent views  of  business  men  of  the  country,  for  a continuance  of  exist- 
ing duties,  or  for  a reduction  of  duties.  And  here,  before  going  any 
further,  I congratulate  the  country  that  this  Tariff  Commission  is  formed, 
for  a commission  composed  of  gentlemen  with  sound  business  views,  and 
not  biased  one  way  or  the  other,  is  the  only  means  of  ever  coming  to  a 
proper  understanding  regarding  all  the  vexatious  questions  the  present 
tariff*  causes  the  importer  and  the  Treasury  Department.  I will  now 
state  that  my  object  in  having  a hearing  before  you  is  not  so  much  to 
ask  for  a reduction  or  change  in  the  rate  of  duty  imposed  on  statuary, 
as  it  is  to  have  an  equal  duty  made  for  all  persons  who  are  engaged  in 
the  importation  of  foreign  statuary,  so  that  no'  differential  duties  shall 
exist  between  American  dealers  and  sellers  of  statuary,  nor  between 
foreign  and  American  dealers  in  statuary,  especially  when  the  former 
are  entitled  under  treaty  to  enter  their  property  at  the  same  rate  of 
duty  as  Americans. 

The  law  imposing  duty  on  statuary  says  that  u the  professional  pro- 
ductions of  a statuary  or  of  a sculptor  only , shall  pay  10  per  cent . duty.” 
For  years  past  statues  of  all  kinds  in  marble  paid  10  per  cent,  duty,  but 
suddenly  and  without  warning  to  importers  the  department  has  con- 
strued the  above  law  in  such  a manner  as  to  exclude  from  the  10  per 
cent,  duty  all  copies  of  antique  statues,  although  these  copies  may  have 
been  made  by  eminent  professional  sculptors.  It  appears  to  me  that 
all  statues  in  marble  or  stone  carved  by  professional  sculptors  should 
be  admitted  at  10  per  cent,  duty,  for  after  all  an  original  statue  is  but  a 
copy  in  marble  from  the  clay  model,  and  must  be  done  by  a professional 
sculptor.  The  department,  though,  has  decided  that  a copy  of  a statue 
is  not  the  production  of  a statuary  or  sculptor,  and  is  to  be  considered 
a manufacture  of  marble,  subject  to  50  per  cent.  duty. 

It  often  happens  that  a sculptor  makes  a statue  in  marble,  which 
pleases  many  art  admirers,  and  the  artist  gets  orders  for  others.  Are 
not  all  the  statues  this  artist  makes  works*  of  art?  You  will  certainly 
agree  with  me  that  they  are  all  his  professional  productions  as  a mod- 
eler and  sculptor. 

Now,  Antonio  Canova,  one  of  Italy’s  greatest  sculptors,  made,  in  the 
year  1793,  his  famous  group  of  Love  and  Psyche  reclining,  now  to  be 
seen  in  the  royal  palace  of  Compiegne,  France.  Then,  in  179G,  he  re- 
peated this  same  group  for  the  Russian  Prince  Youssauppoff,  and  as  a 
matter  of  course  this  second  was  a copy.  In  the  year  1805  Canova 
made  the  statue  of  Venus  coming  from  the  Bath,  now  in  the  Pitti 
Palace  of  Florence,  Italy.  From  the  same  model  two  other  statues 


336 


o 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| ALONZO  M.  VITI. 


were  executed  by  him,  one  for  the  King  of  Bavaria,  the  other  for  the 
Prince  of  Canino.  Here,  therefore,  are  three  statues  of  the  Venus  com- 
ing from  the  Bath,  by  that  great  sculptor,  and  I think  any  intelligent 
mind  would  pronounce  them  to  be  all  three  works  of  art,  the  original 
one  as  well  as  the  two  copies.  What  would  Canova  think  were  he  to 
rise  from  his  grave  and  hear  that  the  Secretary  of  the  United  States 
Treasury  had  decided  that  copies  of  works  of  art  were  not  to  be  classed 
as  works  of  art,  and  therefore  that  Gan  ova’s  group  of  Love  and  Psyche, 
made  in  1793,  and  his  Venus  from  the  Bath,  made  in  1805,  and  which  is 
in  the  Pitti  Palace,  were  his  professional  productions ; but  that  his  Love 
and  Psyche,  made  in  1796  for  the  Russian  Prince  Youssauppoff,  and 
his  Venus  from  the  Bath,  made  for  the  King  of  Bavaria  and  the  Prince 
of  Canino,  were  not  his  professional  productions  and  not  works  of  art, 
but  were  manufactures  of  marble?  I think  that  you  will  agree  with  me 
that  all  those  pieces  of  statuary  made  by  Canova  were  works  of  art, 
both  original  and  copies. 

j Art  should  be  encouraged  in  all  its  branches,  and  to  exclude  copies  of 
antique  statues  would  be  injurious,  for  the  reason  that  the  antique  is  the 
universally  acknowledged  instructor  of  modern  art.  Now  these  original 
antique  statues  cannot  be  had ; why  not,  therefore,  allow  a copy  exe- 
cuted by  a professional  sculptor,  and  which*,  perhaps,  as  far  as  form  and 
finish  go,  might  be  as  good  as  the  original,  to  enter  at  10  percent,  duty, 
or  the  same  as  all  works  of  art?  Would  not  a fine  copy  of  Canova’s 
group  of  Love  and  Psyche,  executed  by  a noted  sculptor,  be  termed 
“Love  and  Psyche,  after  Canova,”  and  would  it  not  be  a work  of  art? 

A copy  of  a painting  pays  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  the  original.  It 
requires  an  artist  to  paint  a picture,  and  it  requires  an  artist  to  -paint  a 
copy.  So  it  is  with  statuary.  It  requires  a modeler  and  a sculptor  to 
execute  an  original  statue,  and  it  requires  a sculptor  to  make  a copy. 

I think  Congress  intended  that  all  statues  in  marble  and  stone  should 
enter  at  the  same  rate  of  duty.  But  while  this  sudden,  stringent  law 
was  construed  so  as  to  make  all  foreign  artists  pay  a duty  of  10  and  50 
per  cent.,  the  department  has  decided  that  an  American  artist  can  make 
a model  of  a figure  or  group  in  clay,  send  it,  for  instance,  to  Italy,  and 
get  an  Italian  sculptor  to  cut  in  marble  from  that  model  a statue,  and 
have  it  brought  here  and  passed  through  the  custom-house /m?  of  duty, 
as  the  American’s  professional  production,  although  it  has  been  cut  from 
foreign  marble,  in  a foreign  land,  and  by  a foreign  sculptor $ while  if, 
on  the  contrary,  the  same  Italian  artist,  who  cut  the  statue  in  marble 
for  the  American  artist,  makes  a model  himself  and  cuts  it  in  marble, 
he,  the  Italian  sculptor,  will  have  to  pay  10  per  cent,  duty,  provided  the 
department  is  satisfied  the  statue  is  an  original ; if  not,  it  will  pay  50 
per  cent. 

I believe  the  law  also  allows  American  artists  to  send  models  abroad  to 
be  cast  in  bronze  and  enter  here  free  of  duty,  while  we,  as  American 
importers,  would  have  to  pay  35  per  cent.  duty. 

If  we,  as  American  importers  of  statuary,  send  an  order  to  an  Italian 
sculptor  for  a statue  in  marble,  we  would  have  to  pay  10  per  cent,  or 
50  per  cent,  duty,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  department,  while 
American  artists  can  have  their  statues  cut  and  pay  no  duty  to  the 
government  at  all.  There  is  no  objection  to  the  American  artist  send- 
ing his  model  to  a foreigner  to  get  it  cut  in  marble,  if  he  chooses  to  do  so, 
but  let  him  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  other  dealers  do ; for  the  artist 
who  makes  a model  and  gets  it  cut  in  marble  to  sell,  and  not  for  the 
love  of  art  alone,  is  certainly  carrying  on  a business  precisely  the  same 
as  American  importers  who  bring  from  France  and  Italy  their  statues 
for  sale,  and  are  matters  of  commerce. 


ALpXZO  M.  VITI.l 


STATUARY. 


337 


Therefore,  the  present  law  causes  differential  duties  to  exist  between 
American  citizens,  namely,  between  the  American  artist  who  may  have 
statues  carved  by  a foreigner  and  the  American  importer  who  may  im- 
port from  the  same  foreigner.  The  decision  is  also  in  violation  of  exist- 
ing treaties  with  foreign  nations,  for  those  treaties  award  foreigners  the 
right  to  enter  their  products  on  the  same  footing  as  Americans. 

To  make  the  matter  more  clear  to  you,  and  if  I am  correct  regarding 
the  present  law,  I will  state  that,  suppose  A,  who  is  an  American  artist, 
can  make  a model  in  this  country  and  send  it  to  B,  a sculptor  in  Italy,  to 
be  cut  in  marble  for  a certain  price.  How  B,  the  Italian  sculptor,  cuts 
the  figure  in  marble  for  the  American  artist.  In  the  meantime  B,  the 
Italian  sculptor,  makes  in  marble  a statue  from  the  model  of  some  Ital- 
ian sculptor  for  his  own  account.  We  will  suppose  that  B,  the  Italian 
sculptor,  ships  both  statues  to  the  United  States  on  the  same  vessel, 
viz,  the  statue  he  cut  for  the  American  artist  and  the  statue  he  cut  for 
himself.  When  these  two  statues  arrive  here,  the  one  cut  for  the  Ameri- 
can artist  is  admitted  free  of  duty  as  the  professional  production  of  the 
American  artist  A;  but  the  statue  of  B,  the  Italian  sculptor,  is  taxed 
50  per  cent.  duty.  I here  ask  why  does  the  department  demand  50  per 
cent,  duty  from  an  Italian  or  other  foreign  artist  in  marble,  and  allow  a 
copy  of  an  American  model  made  by  this  same  foreign  sculptor  to  come 
in  free  of  duty,  when  the  foreign  sculptor  is  entitled  by  existing  treaty 
to  enter  his  property  under  the  same  privileges  as  the  American? 

You  may  say,  gentlemen,  that  Congress,  many  years  ago,  allowed 
American  artists  to  enter  their  productions  free  of  duty.  That  was  done 
by  Congress  with  the  understanding  that  the  American  artist  should 
reside  abroad,  and  there  make  his  models  and  cut  his  statues.  At  that 
time  the  law  admitted  all  statues  at  10  per  cent,  duty  5 consequently  it 
made  no  difference,  as  copies  as  well  as  originals  paid  10  per  cent.  But 
lately  the  words  “residing  abroad”  have  been  stricken  out,  thus  allow- 
ing an  American  artist  to  make  his  models  here,  and  then  send  them  to 
some  foreign  artist  to  be  cut  in  marble  and  brought  back  here  as  his 
professional  production.  I say,  gentlemen,  that  such  laws  are  more  for 
the  encouragement  of  sham  art  than  for  real  art. 

Under  the  decision  of  the  department,  I am  under  the  impression  that 
not  only  statues  can  be  imported  free  of  duty  as  productions  of  Ameri- 
can artists,  but  also  parts  of  monuments  to  which  these  statues  may 
belong  as  forming  a part,  and  upon  which  we,  as  American  importers, 
would  have  to  pay  50  per  cent,  duty  if  we  imported  them  from  the  same 
country. 

I think,  gentlemen,  that  the  present  law  should  be  changed.  I would 
much  prefer  to  see  statuary  on  the  free  list.  But  if  that  is  not  advisa- 
ble, then  put  a duty  of  10  per  cent,  on  all  statues,  groups,  busts,  ani- 
mals, basso  and  alto  relievos,  carved  from  marble,  alabaster,  or  other 
stone  or  wood;  strike  out  the  clause  allowing  American  artists  to  im 
port  statues  cut  by  foreigners  free  of  duty;  and  then  the  law  will  be 
plain  and  equal  for  all  dealers  in  statuary,  whether  foreign  or  native, 
There  will  be  no  further  need  for  consular  certificates  declaring  that 
this  and  that  piece  of  statuary  is  the  professional  production  of  such  or 
such  an  artist,  and  it  would  avoid  all  the  present  existing  trouble  as  to 
whether  the  statue  is  original  or  a copy;  for,  under  the  present  law, 
how  are  appraisers  at  the  custom-house  able  to  decide  if  a statue  is  an 
original  or  a copy,  unless  it  be  of  a subject  known  all  over  the  world? 

H.  Mis.  G 22 


o 


338 


TARIFF  COMMISSION.  [ william  b.  higbie. 


WILLIAM  S.  HIGBIE. 

Long  Branch,  1ST.  J.,  August  3,  1882. 

Mr.  William  S.  Higbie,  of  New  York,  representing  the  silk  hat 
industry,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  I represent 
the  silk  hat  manufacturing  industry  of  New  York.  Having  been  in  that 
business  for  the  past  27  years,  I know  something  of  its  vicissitudes. 

We  claim  that  the  duty  on  hatter’s  plush  is  excessive,  insomuch  that 
it  discriminates  against  us.  The  article  cannot  be  manufactured  in  this 
market.  It  has  been  tried.  Skill  and  capital  have  been  invested,  but 
it  cannot  be  produced.  The  article  will  not  stand  the  intense  heat  to 
which  it  is  subjected  in  this  country.  We  claim  that  the  foreign  manu- 
factured article  coming  into  this  country  at  a duty  of  GO  per  cent,  in- 
volves a discrimination  against  us.  Previous  to  1861  the  duty  was  19 
per  cent.,  but  during  the  war  it  was  raised  from  30  to  50  per  cent.,  and 
under  what  they  call  the  u little  tariff  bill”  it  was  in  1875  raised  to  60 
per  cent.  That  was  the  last  straw  that  broke  our  back. 

I will  give  you  a few  statistics  of  the  average  run  of  our  business. 
Previous  to  1860  the  association  numbered  604  members.  During  the 
war  a great  many  of  them  entered  the  service,  and  that  reduced  the 
Humber  probably  one  half.  In  1865,  with  the  return  of  peace,  our 
membership  increased  to  684  in  number.  From  that  time  it  has 
steadily  decreased,  until  in  1882  it  is  but  327 — a decrease  of  48  per  cent, 
in  the  membership  of  the  association.  In  the  face  of  these  figures, 
considering  the  increase  in  population,  we  think  we  are  a diminishing 
industry,  and  we  attribute  it  to  nothing  else  than  the  action  of  the 
government  in  imposing  heavy  duties  through  a misconception  of  the 
facts  and  through  these  ambiguities  in  the  law.  At  one  time,  in  1872, 
we  had  106  manufactories  in  New  York  alone,  but  at  present  there  are 
but  42. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  Is  the  manufacture  carried  on  anywhere  else  than  in  New 
York? — Answer.  Oh,  yes;  in  the  principal  cities  of  the  Union. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  wages  between  the  time  when  you  had 
106  manufactories  and  at  present? — A.  The  rates  are  about  25  per  cent, 
and  in  some  cases  50  per  cent,  less  at  present. 


CHARLES  BBYCE.] 


GOLD  LEAF. 


339 


CHARLES  BRYCE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  4,  1882. 

Mr.  Charles  Bryce,  of  New  York,  representing  the  Gold  Beaters’ 
Union,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission: 
The  gentlemen  present  with  me  are  a committee  appointed  to  represent 
the  journeymen  gold-beaters  of  the  United  States. 

Our  object  is  to  present  to  you  the  condition  of  our  trade,  and  to  show 
the  necessity  for  an  increase  in  the  present  tariff  on  gold-leaf.  Under 
the  existing  tariff  we  are  obliged  to  accept  wages  fully  25  per  cent,  below 
the  average  paid  to  other  skilled  mechanics  and  artisans.  There  is  a 
great  deal  of  brain-work  in  connection  with  our  business.  Vv^e  require 
no  compass  or  plumb.  It  requires  a number  of  years  to  become  suffi- 
ciently skillful  to  earn  fair  wages.  The  business  is  subject  to  many  un- 
favorable influences,  such  as  changes  of  the  weather,  &c.,  and  we  have 
to  study  the  results.  The  tools  we  use  are  very  sensitive,  and  it  re- 
quires great  care  in  order  to  produce  gold-leaf  satisfactory  to  the  con- 
sumers in  this  country  to-day.  At  the  preseut  rate  of  duty  we  do  not 
see  the  slightest  chance  of  bettering  our  condition,  and  as  the  duty  is 
now  $1.50  per  pack  we  respectfully  ask  that  you  recommend  that  it 
should  be  raised  to  $2.50  per  package  of  500  leaves. 

About  four  months  ago  we  were  receiving  about  18  per  cent,  above 
what  we  now  receive,  but  our  employers  showed  us  quotations  of  for- 
eign leaf,  proving  that  they  could  import  it  at  lower  rates  than  it  could 
be  made  for  here,  and  in  order  to  compete  with  it  we  were  obliged  to 
accept  the  present  rate  of  wages.  As  artisans  we  have  to  use  a degree 
of  intelligence  above  the  average  of  other  mechanics.  We  present  the 
estimated  wages  earned  at  other  branches  of  industry,  those  who  are, 
like  us,  employed  in  cities : 


Per  annum. 

Bricklayers $600 

Painters 550 

Carpenters 550 

Gold-beaters 432 


The  average  wages  of  the  women  employed  at  our  trade  is  $234  per  an- 
num. Gold  leaf  is  not  an  article  of  absolute  necessity,  although  it  is  ex- 
tensively used,  but  may  be  regarded  more  as  an  article  of  luxury,  and 
should,  injustice,  be  placed  in  a list  where  a consumer  whose  means 
enable  him  to  enjoy  luxuries  should  be  required  to  pay  a duty  adequate 
to  protect  labor  in  this  country  from  the  effects  of  ruinous  foreign 
competition. 

In  conclusion,  we  thank  the  Commission  for  the  courtesy  shown  us  in 
our  endeavor  to  preseut  our  case,  and  we  earnestly  hope  for  favorable 
consideration. 

I will  state  in  addition  that  quotations  have  recently  been  received 
from  Germany,  from  which  it  would  appear  that 'gold-leaf  can  be  deliv- 
ered in  this  market  at  $G.42  per  pack  of  500  leaves,  while  it  costs  our 
manufacturers  here  to  produce  it  in  the  same  condition  $6.45.  So  you 
see,  gentlemen,  that  we  dare  not  move  to  get  an  increase  of  wages,  be- 
cause the  moment  we  do  we  throw  the  market  open  to  loreign  importa- 


340 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHARLES  BRYCE,  v 


tion.  We  think  that  if  we  could  get  an  increase  in  the  duty  from  $1.50 
to  $2.50  per  pack,  we  might  hereafter  induce  our  employers  to  give  us 
an  advance  of  wages,  whereby  we  could  calculate  on  an  average  com- 
pensation of  $675  to  $700  per  annum.  But  under  existing  circumstances 
there  is  no  possibility  of  getting  any  advance. 

We  have  tried  to  occupy  as  brief  a time  as  possible.  It  is  a matter 
that  our  brothers  throughout  the  United  States  are  deeply  interested  in 
and  have  taken  action  upon,  and  Mr.  Hickson,  Mr.  Ames,  and  myself 
were  appointed  a committee  to  wait  upon  you  to  represent  the  interests 
of  the  gold-beaters  of  the  United  States. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Question.  I would  like  to  know  about  how  many  people  in  the  United 
States  are  engaged  in  this  business  ? — Answer.  To-day  there  are  about 
1,200  people — men,  boys,  and  women.  They  are  employed  in  Cincin- 
nati, Philadelphia,  Boston,  San  Francisco,  Yew  York,  Hartford,  Conn., 
and  other  places  that  I cannot  remember  just  at  present.  It  is  a great 
hardship  on  men  with  families,  to  have  to  work  for  the  wages  we  get,  for 
it  is  an  impossibility  to  pay  an  advance  rent  and  have  anything  left 
with  which  to  live  half  decently.  We  dare  not  demand  any  advance, 
because  the  moment  we  make  a fight,  we  know  there  is  nothing  left  our 
employers  but  to  import. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  The  principal  expense  attending  your  business  is  labor,  judging 
from  your  remarks0? — A.  Labor  and  the  tools. 

Q.  But  the  principal  expense  is  the  labor,  and  in  protecting  it  you 
jn’otect  it  more  than  you  do  the  capital  ? — A.  Yes ; that  is  the  principal 
object  at  present,  and  if  we  could  get  this  increase,  which  I respectfully 
ask  you  gentlemen  to  recommend,  it  would  be  of  great  benefit  to  us. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Who  are  your  employers — are  they  manufacturers  ? — A.  They  are 
manufacturers.  They  are  gentlemen  who  have  served  their  time,  nearly 
all  of  them,  at  the  business. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  The  duty  is  now  $ 1 .50  per  pack  of  500  leaves,  and  you  ask  an  increase 
of  how  much0? — A.  One  dollar  more,  making  $2.50  per  pack. 

Mr.  Tho3IAS  Hickson,  another  member  of  the  committee  of  the  Gold 
Beaters’  Union,  also  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

One  of  the  gentlemen  asked  my  colleague  (Mr.  Bryce)  a question  as  to 
whether  the  labor  or  the  gold  was  the  principal  part  of  the  expense.  I 
believe  Mr.  Bryce  misunderstood  the  question.  The  gold  itself  is  by  far 
the  largest  proportion  of  the  expense.  The  gold  is  worth  $4.25,  and 
the  leaf  as  it  is  imported  is  imported  at  an  advance  of  about  80  or  90 
cents  for  labor.  Here  it  costs  $1.25  for  labor..  You  can  see,  gentlemen, 
that  no  mechanic  can  live  on  an  average  wages  of  $432  a year.  We  ask 
that  the  duty  may  be  increased,  so  that  we  may  get  at  least  as  much  as 
other  mechanics  do,  and  that  is  all  that  we  can  expect,  of  course.  We 
think  we  are  entitled  to  more,  but  that  is  all  we  ask. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  The  purport  of  my  question  was  whether 
the  interest  to  be  protected  was  the  money  invested  in  the  plant  or  the 
labor  of  the  people  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Hickson.  It  is  the  labor  of  the  people  of  the  country. 


WM.  A.  A.  CAR8EY.  ] 


LABOR. 


341 


WILLIAM  A,  A.  CARSEY. 

Lono  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  4,  1882. 

Mr.  William  A.  A.  Oarsey,  builder,  of  New  York,  and  representing 
the  Laborers’  Union,  appeared  before  the  Commission,  and  made  the  fol- 
lowing statement : 

Mr.  President  and  Members  oe  the  Tariff  Commission  : 

Gentlemen  : I appear  before  you  as  a representative  of  that  large 
class  of  workingmen  who,  after  a long  and  bitter  experience  of  the  folly 
or  inability  of  the  non-political  striking  labor  union  system  to  obtain  the 
rights  or  better  the  condition  of  the  worker,  have  directed  our  eiforts 
and  energies  to  the  education  of  the  working  classes  in  the  use  of  the 
ballot  as  a cure  for  the  evils  of  our  labor  system,  its  power  to  remove 
the  cause,  as  well  as  cure  the  effect,  and  to  the  discussion  of  all  ques- 
tions, political,  social,  and  economic,  that  affect  their  interests  (such  as 
the  tariff,  the  question  of  all  questions  to  American  labor),  prior  to  their 
peaceful,  intelligent,  and  just  settlement  by  that  great  power  and  priv- 
ilege we  possess  over  the  workingmen  of  all  other  civilized  or  uncivilized 
countries — the  ballot. 

The  Independent  Labor  Party  of  New  York,  to  which  I have  the  honor 
to  belong,  was  organized  in  the  year  1874,  pursuant  to  a resolution 
adopted  by  the  State  Trade  Assembly  at  their  annual  convention  of  that 
year,  ihat  political  action  was  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the  working 
classes,  and  from  that  time  to  this  we  have  steadily  and  persistently 
labored  to  that  end.  We  had  the  pleasure  in  that  line  of  policy  of  ap- 
pearing before  the  Labor  Commission  and  presenting  our  views  on  the 
labor  problem. 

We  also  take  great  pleasure  in  appearing  before  your  committee  to 
present  our  side  of  this  great  question,  and  we  hope  that  the  wise  and 
unprecedented  statesmanship  that  devised  or  adopted  this  new  method 
of  solving  a problem  upon  a basis  of  knowledge  that  first  seeks  out  the 
facts  as  a guide  to  intelligent  action,  and  that  comes  to  the  people  to  learn 
their  wants  and  listen  to  their  suggestions  on  questions  of  legislation, 
will  not  only  lead  to  wise  and  just  action,  but  act  as  a great  precedent 
for  all  future  legislation,  and  will  give  to  our  people  not  alone  wise  laws, 
but  a truly  representative  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and 
for  the  people. 

As  American  citizens  our  interests  are  bound  up  in  the  preservation 
and  perpetuation  of  our  free  government  and  its  institutions,  as  well  as 
in  the  material  prosperity  and  contentment  of  our  working  people,  and 
we  appear  before  you  to  advocate  a broad  and  liberal  policy  in  the  in- 
terest of  all  classes ; not  one  to  foster  or  oppress  a special  class  or  spe- 
cial interests,  but  one  that  will  foster  and  protect  and  build  up  our  in- 
dustries, develop  our  resources,  perpetuate  our  institutions,  and  make 
us  a wealthy,  prosperous,  self-supporting  nation,  with  ahappy,  contented, 
enlightened,  and  industrious  people;  a policy  that  will  foster  and  develop 
our  system  of  free  schools,  free  press,  free  church,  and  a free  ballot,  as 
well  as  decent  homes  and  well-clad,  well-fed  people,  for  upon  the  material 
prosperity  of  our  working-people  depend  not  alone  the  comfort  and  pros- 


342 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WM.  A.  A.  CAUSEY. 


perity  of  our  great  middle  and  professional  classes,  but  our  system  of 
government,  our  institutions,  and  the  liberties  of  our  whole  people. 

In  the  interest  of  all  classes  we  ask  for  a policy  which  will  protect 
our  own  industries,  develop,  occupy,  and  fill  our  home  market,  foster 
domestic  exchange,  shipping,  trade,  and  transportation,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  all  foreign,  hostile,  competitive  interests,  and  we  deprecate  and 
oppose  a policy  that,  under  a mask  of  love  of  liberty,  philanthropy,  and 
humanity,  strives  to  benefit  and  enrich  a few  foreign  and  native  ex- 
changers, and  foreign  sliip-builders  and  manufacturers,  at  the  expense 
of  our  own  people,  and  at  the  cost  of  the  loss  of  our  shipping  and  manu- 
facturing industries,  with  its  results — the  poverty,  idleness,  and  degra- 
dation of  the  American  workman ; a policy  that,  by  draining  our  country 
of  its  natural  wealth,  wheat,  gold,  and  other  raw  material,  destroys  our 
own  industries,  makes  us  poor  and  dependent,  and  if  we  are  to  believe 
the  New  York  city  press  of  to-day,  threatens  us,  in  the  midst  of  peace, 
plenty,  and  prosperity,  with  another  panic.  In  the  last  two  weeks  the 
New  York  press  has  been  filled  with  statements  that  the  loss  of  $20,000,000 
or  $30,000,000  of  gold  exported  to  Europe  will  bring  on  another  panic. 

Let  me  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  a few  facts  (not  ideas 
or  theories),  on  which  we  ask  you  to  base  your  report. 

1st.  That  we  are  a rich,  prosperous,  and  self-supporting  nation,  pos- 
sessed of  all  the  soil,  climate,  and  natural  wealth  required  for  the  use 
and  sustenance  of  all  our  people ; that  we  are  or  could  be  perfectly  in- 
dependent of  all  foreign  exchange  of  goods,  food,  or  money,  and  that 
our  present  exchange  between  the  United  States  and  Europe  is  at  the 
cost  and  loss  of  the  American  people. 

2d.  That  to  develop  our  own  resources,  make  our  o^n  exchanges,  and 
fill  our  own  markets,  would  employ  all  the  energies  of  our  people,  and 
would  be  a better  and  more  profitable  trade  than.  that  with  pauper 
nations. 

3d.  That  to  eat  our  own  food  and  manufacture  our  own  goods  at  any 
standard  of  cost  or  rate  of  exchange  is  a wiser  and  better  policy  than  to 
employ  others  to  make  our  goods  and  eat  our  food  for  us,  unless  we  wish 
to  build  up  an  idle  aristocracy,  with  an  idle,  pauper  people. 

4th.  That  the  cheapest,  best,  and  fairest  exchange  of  commodities  is 
that  which  is  the  nearest  and  most  direct  between  the  producer  and 
consumer ; and,  to  quote  Andrew  Jackson,  u True  statesmanship  will 
place  side  by  side  the  farm  and  workshop.”  You,  gentlemen,  are  aware 
that  we  now  make  our  wooden  pails  in  the  woods  and  send  them  to  New 
York.  The  iron  manufacturer  is  going  where  the  ore  is.  That  is  the 
natural  logic  of  events  and  cannot  be  stopped.  The  manufactories  must 
go  where  the  raw  material  is.  I will  add,  if  wise  statesmanship  will  not 
do  so,  the  logic  of  events,  the  bitter  war  of  competition,  will  do  so  in  the 
end. 

5th.  That  if  exchange  with  foreign  nations  is  to  be  our  policy,  or  a 
necessity,  it  should  be  carried  on  by  means  of  American  ships  maimed 
by  American  seamen,  so  that  the  profit  of  such  trade  would  inure  to 
our  own  people. 

6th.  As  American  labor,  owing  to  various  causes,  requires  and  de- 
mands a higher  wage  to  supply  its  wants,  needs,  or  luxuries — that  is, 
to  own  a decent  house,  read  books  and  papers,  pay  pew  rent  and  doc- 
tor’s bills,  send  his  children  to  school,  and  buy  good  clothing  for  himself 
and  family — the  American  manufacturer  must  pay  100  per  cent,  higher 
wages  than  his  foreign  competitor,  as  well  as  higher  taxes  and  rate  ot 
interest.  It  is  a self-evident  truth  that  we  must  have  a tariff  of  at  least 
100  per  cent,  to  allow  us  to  compete  with  foreign  manufacturers,  or’ 


WM.  A.  A.  CARSEY.] 


LABOR. 


343 


cease  to  manufacture  goods  for  a competitive  market,  or  else  reduce  the 
American  to  the  wage  and  (its  result)  the  condition  of  Europeans,  or 
import  the  pauper  laborer  to  take  the  place  of  the  American  laborer. 

Therefore,  we  ask  of  your  Commission — 

1st.  A tariff  on  all  goods  or  materials  that  can  be  made  or  produced 
in  this  country,  not  as  a means  of  revenue,  but  as  a policy  to  protect 
and  employ  American  labor  and  develop  the  resources  of  the  nation, 
and  higli  enough  to  allow  a fair  profit  to  the  American  manufacturer 
and  producer  on  his  capital  invested,  after  paying  as  high  a wage  as  is 
required  to  keep  up  to  a high  standard  the  American  laborer. 

2d.  We  favor  a liberal  policy  to  develop  our  own  merchant  marine. 

3d.  We  oppose  the  importation  of  cheap  labor  as  an  injury  to  both 
employer  and  workman,  and  an  injury  and  danger  to  our  government 
and  our  institutions.  While  you  are  so  close  to  the  city  of  New  York, 
I would  suggest  that  it  would  be  wise  for  you  to  pay  a visit  to  Castle 
Garden  and  see  the  character  of  people  brought  here  with  these  ideas 
in  their  heads,  to  strike  and  do  nothing  but  strike.  You  should  also 
visit  the  tenement  houses  on  the  east  side  and  west  side  of  the  city,  and 
see  the  condition  of  the  working  classes  there,  and  then  consider  whether 
it  is  wise  to  continue  to  do  anything  to  add  to  that  condition  of  things 
in  this  country. 

We  limit  our  demands  to  these  three  propositions,  as  we  know  your 
Commission  is  confined  in  its  powers  and  limited  in  its  report  upon  this 
question,  and  prefer  not  to  embarrass  you  by  demands  outside  of  the 
limits  set  you  by  present  conditions  in  the  discussion  of  the  question. 

We  might  suggest  to  your  consideration  the  encouragement  of  such 
industries  as  the  culture  of  silk,  to  furnish  employment  to  girls  and 
women  at  their  homes,  and  arbitration  and  co-operation  as  a remedy  for 
strikes  and  labor  agitation. 

We  try  to  be  practical,  fair,  and  just,  and  ask  only  for  what  is  ad- 
mitted to  be  necessary  for  our  own  protection  by  all  fair-minded  men, 
and  we  appeal  to  you  as  just  and  honest  men  tp  give  to  us  this  relief, 
which  will  not  affect  or  alter,  or  threaten  to  overthrow  any  class  or  sys- 
tem, and  we  will  willingly  abide  by  its  results,  and  trust  to  time  and 
education  to  alter  and  amend  other  evils  of  our  condition.  Refuse  us 
this  protection,  flood  the  country  with  cheap  goods  and  cheap  labor, 
and  the  result  will  be  a war  of  classes,  strikes,  riots,  and  armed  rebellion. 

It  is  a self-evident  fact  that  men  like  myself  will  not  submit  to  be  re- 
duced to  the  condition  of  people  on  the  other  side  of  the  water.  We 
have  been  spoiled  by  the  public  schools,  free  press,  and  the  political 
system  of  the  country,  and  when  we  are  driven  too  far,  we  may  just  as 
readily  take  up  our  muskets  as  we  did  in  1861  for  the  defense  of  the 
country.  I have  been  president  of  the  laborer’s  union,  a knight  of 
labor,  and  a socialist,  and  I know  them  all  thoroughly.  I have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  best  way  to  settle  the  matter  is  to  bring  the 
workingmen  up  to  the  use  of  the  ballot  as  a means  of  redress.  I have 
led  strikes  in  New  York,  and  I know  by  bitter  experience  that  that  is  a 
mistake.  The  leaders  of  strikes  simply  drag  the  workingmen  into  iso- 
lated associations  that  make  war  upon  the  capitalist,  and  the  result  is 
that  the  capitalist  makes  war  upon  them.  There  are  a great  many  men 
like  me  in  New  York  who  think  as  1 do,  but  who  have  not  the  moral 
courage  to  express  themselves  and  break  loose  from  their  old  associa- 
tions. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Do  you  represent  an  organization  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


344 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WM.  A.  A.  CAUSEY. 


Q.  What  is  its  character  ? — A.  It  is  composed  of  the  leading  trades 
unions  in  New  York,  and  we  are  trying  to  organize  the  workingmen 
politically.  We  have  got  in  our  ranks  the  presidents  of  fifteen  or 
twenty  organizations.  Those  men  have  all  learned  by  experience  that 
this  is  the  only  way  we  can  settle  these  questions,  and  while  I still  belong 
to  the  Bricklayer’s  Union,  and  work  with  them  as  far  as  I can,  I keep 
telling  them  that  they  will  find  out  that  they  will  have  to  go  with  us. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Has  your  organization  representatives  in  all  the  cities? — A.  It  has 
representation  all  through  the  State  and  all  through  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  attempts  are  making  all  over  the  United  States  to  organize. 
The  New  York  men  to-day  are  in  a chaotic  condition  between  the  trades- 
union  system  and  the  political  system.  Most  of  them  are  aiming  at 
the  same  thing,  but  have  not  yet  come  together.  Many  are  Greenback- 
ers,  many  are  Socialists,  but  in  a year  or  two  they  will  all  be  together. 


C.MENELAS.J 


JUTE. 


345 


C.  MENELAS. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  4,  1882. 

Mr.  C.  Menelas,  of  New  Orleans,  appeared  before  the  Commission 
and  made  the  following  statement  in  regard  to  jute: 

Mr.  President  : I have  the  honor  to  appear  here,  as  a foreigner,  to 
represent,  as  plainly  and  briefly  as  possibly,  the  subject  of  the  cultiva- 
tion of  jute  in  this  country. 

I suppose  you  are  all  very  familiar  with  the  history  of  jute.  It  rep- 
resents an  industry  whose  annual  productive  value  is  over  $100,000,000. 
India  alone  produces  the  raw  material.  In  18(30 — I do  not  go  beyond 
that  period — the  total  export  from  India  was  322,000  bales  of  300  pounds 
each,  of  which  America  only  took  7,000  bales.  I have  statistics  up  to 
1879,  and  the  growth  has  been  enormous.  In  1868,  it  was  1,000,000  bales; 
in  1872, 1,472,000  bales;  in  1879  it  was  1,600,000  bales;  and  by  this  time 
I suppose  it  is  over  1,750,000  bales.  Jute  is  exx>orted  from  India  to 
Europe  as  well  as  to  America.  To  the  total  export  of  jute  to  Europe 
you  must  add  the  enormous  quantity  used  in  India  for  domestic  pur- 
poses and  for  the  manufacture  of  such  articles  as  gunny-cloth  and  gunny- 
bags,  which  they  send  to  this  country.  The  use  of  it  in  India  is  immense. 
Their  saltpeter,  indigo,  rape-seed,  and  linseed,  and  many  other  articles 
are  all  more  or  less  covered  with  gunny-bags  or  gunny -cloth,  so  that  the 
total  is  perfectly  enormous. 

You  will  perceive  that  it  is  of  great  importance  that  we  should  pay 
attention  to  this  industry  and  try  to  introduce  it  into  this  continent, 
especially  in  the  South,  where  the  climate,  soil,  and  everything  are 
favorable  to  its  growth.  Last  year  I think  we  must  have  paid  over 
$10,000,000  for  jute  imported  and  manufactured,  and  the  consumption 
is  increasing  not  only  in  Europe,  but  in  this  country  as  well.  It  enters 
into  the  manufacture  of  the  coarsest  as  well  as  the  finest  fabrics.  Scot- 
land has  an  increasing  demand,  and  begins  to  feel  anxious  in  regard  to 
the  production  of  jute,  and  two  or  three  years  ago  a company  was  formed 
in  Dundee  for  the  sole  object  of  sending  men  to  Egypt  to  try  and  intro- 
duce the  cultivation  of  jute  there.  They  succeeded  in  the  production 
of  jute,  and  sent  a few  bales  of  it  to  Dundee,  where  it  was  pronounced 
excellent.  But  still  they  have  not  there  the  facility  for  its  production 
that  we  have  here. 

As  to  the  growth  of  jute  in  this  country  opinion  is  divided.  Some 
think  it  can  be  grown  profitably,  and  some  think  it  cannot.  Professor 
Waterhouse,  of  Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  has  expressed  a favorable  opinion  as 
to  the  desirability  of  jute  culture  in  the  South  ; and  another  gentleman, 
Mr.  McAllister,  who  went  to  Florida  and  Louisiana,  has  expressed  the 
opinion  that  that  industry  should  be  introduced  in  this  country,  because 
everything  is  favorable. 

To  those  statements  I have  to  add,  in  a few  words,  my  own  experience. 
In  1878  I bought  a plantation  in  Mississippi,  and  concluded  to  make 
an  experiment  in  jute  culture.  I wrote  to  the  Agricultural  Department 
at  Washington  about  it,  and  planted  one-eiglith  of  an  acre.  The  land  upon 
which  I planted  was  alluvial,  such  as  is  used  for  corn  and  cotton.  To 


346 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[C.  MENEL\S. 


my  surprise,  I saw  that  crop  grow  magnificently  to  perfection.  I took 
some  stalks  to  the  Cotton  Exchange,  in  New  Orleans,  which  measured 
15  feet  high.  I induced  the  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  Louisiana 
and  other  friends  of  mine  to  plant  several  acres,  and  I have  been 
through  their  plantations,  and  it  seems  to  grow  admirably.  So  there  is 
not  the  slightest  doubt  that  jute  will  grow  splendidly. 

I will  now  show  you  some  samples  of  jute  that  I raised  on  my  plan- 
tation the  past  year.  The  first  sample  I show  you  is  one  I had  at  the 
exposition  at  Atlanta,  where  I submitted  it  for  inspection  to  Mr.  Sloan, 
a manufacturer,  and  to  others  who  were  dealing  in  jute.  They  exam- 
ined it  very  carefully,  and,  except  that  it  was  gummy  in  some  places, 
they  said  they  had  not  seen  anything  better,  and  they  told  me  further 
that  they  were  prepared  to  pay  as  high  a price,  if  it  was  brought  into 
market,  as  they  paid  for  jute  brought  from  India.  This  was  prepared 
in  the  old  style,  which  is  certainly  very  expensive. 

We  cannot  compete  with  India,  where  labor  is  very  cheap,  so  long  as 
the  present  rate  of  duty  is  in  force.  For  15  cents  a day  in  India  you 
can  hire  a man  to  work  for  8 or  9 or  10  hours.  The  object  is  to  find  ma- 
chinery to  decorticate  the  stalk,  and  there  is  very  little  doubt  but  that 
we  can  get  it.  A gentleman  has  patented  a machine,  which  has  been  ex- 
amined at  Washington,  and  the  agricultural  papers  have  a great  deal  to 
say  on  the  subject.  The  patentees  are  extremely  sanguine  of  success. 
They  tried  it  at  West  Point,  Virginia,  last  year,  and  although  the  jute 
was  very  short  and  hard  in  consequence  of  the  extreme  drought  that 
had  prevailed,  still  the  machine  did  the  work  splendidly  ; so  much  so 
that  this  year  they  have  offered  to  contract  with  farmers  to  buy  their 
production  in  a green  condition  upon  their  own  account.  They  have 
a factory  built  and  are  ready  to  do  the  work.  They  have  about  600  or 
700  acres  planted  this  year,  in  North  Carolina  and  Virginia,  and  they 
are  very  sanguine. 


I received  a letter  from  Saint  Louis  yesterday  transmitting  three 
samples.  Of  course  this  is  in  a very  raw  condition,  the  plant  not  being 
ripe  yet  [exhibiting  the  samples  to  the  Commission].  In  regard  to  the 
machine  mentioned,  I will  read  from  a newspaper  slip  the  following : 

The  Dejjartment  of  Agriculture  has  received  a magnificent  sample  of  American  jute 
fiber,  prepared  by  a mechanical  process  from  green  stems  grown  in  Virginia.  It  satis- 
factorily solves  the  problem  that  has  engaged  the  attention  of  the  department  for  ten 
years,  and  establishes  the  fact  that  India  jute  can  be  successfully  and  profitably  grown 
on  American  soil.  In  the  language  of  the  Commissioner,  “ It  is  a declaration  of  our 
independence  from  India  in  the  matter  of  jute,  and  makes  an  annual  saving  to  this 
country  of  over  $10, 000, 000. ” The  prepared  fiber  now  on  exhibition  at  the  department 
is  pronounced  equal  in  any  respect  to  the  foreign  fiber,  and  superior  in  strength  to 
India  fiber.  The  plant  can  be  successfully  grown  in  any  section  of  the  country, "and  it 
is  believed  farther  to  the  north.  A machine  has  recently  been  invented  in  this  country 
for  cleaning  and  preparing  the  fibers  for  the  market.  The  inventors  intend  to  operate 
the  machine  this  season  on  the  James  River.  The  department  is  distributing  a large 
amount  of  jute-seed  throughout  the  Southern  States.  The  yield  of  fiber  is  about 
3,500  pounds  to  the  acre,  and  the  market  quotation  for  the  prepared  article  is  12£ 
cents  per  pound.  For  years  jute  has  been  to  India  a great  source  of  wealth,  and  there 
is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  an  equal  source  ol  wealth  to  the  United  States. 

After  it  passes  tliis  preparatory  process  tbe  jute  goes  through  a chemi- 
cal process,  which  produces  the  whiter  article  which  I now  exhibit  to  you, 
and  this  is  the  finest  article  I have  seen,  and  will  come  into  immense  con- 
sumption, even  in  competition  with  silk  fabrics.  The  extra  expense  of 
putting  it  into  this  condition  will  be  from  1^  to  cents  a pound,  but  once 
in  the  market,  I believe  it  will  sell  for  4 or  5 cents  a pound.  It  may  be 
that  this  fall  we  shall  find  some  defects  in  the  working  machinery,  but, 


C.  MENELAS.  ] 


JUTE. 


347 


gentlemen,  I think  injustice  will  be  done  to  the  inventive  genius  of  our 
people  to  doubt  for  a moment  that  the  difficulty  will  not  be  remedied.  I 
believe  that  the  question  is  settled  already.  The  moment  the  culture  of 
jute  is  started  in  the  South,  then  there  will  be  no  end  to  its  cultivation, 
because  it  is  an  article  that  requires  very  little  labor.  In  four  months 
it  grows  from  the  seed  to  fiber,  afterwards  it  attains  such  growth  that  it 
chokes  out  the  weeds,  and  then  it  will  take  care  of  itself.  After  it  attains 
a height  of  six  to  twelve  inches  it  grows  so  rapidly  that  it  kills  every 
other  vegetable.  It  has  no  enemies,  such  as  insects  and  worms.  I re- 
member last  year,  when  the  drought  was  so  terrible  in  its  effects  upon 
almost  everything  else,  the  jute  on  our  plantation  was  fresh  and  green. 

This  subject  is  one  of  great  importance,  and  I have  no  doubt  will  com- 
mend itself  to  your  consideration. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  You  are  the  pioneer  cultivator  of  jute  in  the  United  States, 
are  you  not  ? — Answer.  Jute  was  raised  in  this  country  fifteen  or  twenty 
years  ago,  while  I was  in  India,  where  I spent  ten  years.  It  was  not 
cultivated  successfully  the  first  year,  and  after  that  it  was  abandoned. 
We  hope  for  better  results  this  time. 

Q.  During  the  ten  years  you  were  in  India,  I presume  you  saw  a great 
deal  of  jute  cultivation  ? — A.  Yes;  I handled  a great  deal  of  jute. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  which  you  raised  in  Mississippi  was  equal  to 
any  you  ever  saw  in  India  ? — A.  Most  undoubtedly ; and  I do  not  hesi- 
tate to  say  that  in  a few  years  we  shall  produce  here,  with  intelligent 
labor,  much  better  jute  than  India  produces. 

Q.  The  labor  required  to  produce  jute  as  a cultivated  plant  is  very 
small,  I understand? — A.  Extremely  small — smaller  than  for  any  of  the 
usual  crops.  The  first  labor  is  to  plant;  there  is  very  little  to  do  after 
that. 

Q.  Preparing  the  jute  for  market  requires  labor,  but  you  think  that 
will  be  supplanted  to  a great  extent  by  the  machines  to  which  you  have 
referred  ? — A.  I have  not  the  slightest  doubt  of  it.  The  cotton-gin  was 
the  offspring  of  necessity,  and  some  machinery  for  this  purpose  will 
surely  be  invented.  The  genius  of  our  country  men  will  come  to  the  res- 
cue as  soon  as  they  see  the  need  of  machinery. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  jute  could  be  grown  successfully 
in  Virginia  and  West  Virginia? — A.  Near  West  Point,  Virginia,  they 
have  tried  it.  I believe  jute  can  be  raised  in  Virginia  in  all  the  alluvial 
bottoms.  It  requires  good  soil. 

Q.  What  amount  per  acre  can  be  raised? — A.  That  is  a question  which 
will  be  answered  by  practical  results  soon,  but  I do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  the  minimum  will  be  1,200  to  1,500  pounds  of  fiber  to  the  acre,  and 
with  intelligent  labor,  we  may  increase  that  amount  greatly  ; I could 
not  venture  to  say  how  much.  This  sample  which  I now  hold  in  my  hand 
represents  the  product  of  seven  stalks  only,  which  I cut  myself,  washed, 
and  then  took  to  the  exposition.  So  you  can  imagine  the  enormous  yield 
we  will  have  per  acre  when  it  is  properly  cultivated. 

Q.  Does  frost  affect  it  in  its  early  growth? — A.  Yes,  I think  it  does. 
In  the  South  we  always  try  to  have  our  ground  ready  and  plant  it  as 
early  as  possible — usually  the  first  week  in  April. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  What  amount  of  duty  would  you  recommend  to  be  placed  on  the 
manufactured  article  and  upon  the  raw  material? — A.  I am  not  familiar 
with  the  duty  on  the  manufactured  article.  1 believe  it  is  about  $0  a ton 


348 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[C.  MEXJSLA8. 


on  the  butts,  and  about  $20  a ton  on  the  jute.  I think  that  if  the  duty 
remains  as  it  is,  it  will  be  enough  for  us  to  start  with. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  You  have  mentioned  that  the  jute  you  cultivated  was  free  from  the 
inroads  of  all  kinds  of  insects.  Have  you  ever  heard  that  jute  planted 
in  a cotton  field  will  prevent  the  inroads  of  the  cotton  worm,  so  de- 
structive to  Southern  crops? — A.  Yes,  but  I have  never  made  the  ex- 
periment myself,  though  I have  read  that  in  books,  especially  those  em- 
anating from  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  in  the  writings  of  such 
authorities  as  Professor  Waterhouse,  of  Saint  Louis.  I am  sorry  to  say 
I never  tried  the  experiment  myself,  but  the  fact  that  no  insect  comes 
near  it  I think  shows  that  it  may  do  a great  deal  of  good. 


O.  B.  SMITH.] 


PATNTS  AND  OILS. 


349 


O.  B.  SMITH. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  4,  1882. 

Mr.  O.  B.  Smith,  of  the  firm  of  J.  Lee  Smith  & Co.,  of  New  York, 
appeared  before  the  Commission,  and  made  the  following  statement : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  There  are  few,  if  any, 
staple  goods  of  universal  use  that  are  so  highly  taxed  by  the  present 
tariff  as  paints.  Comprising  as  they  do  articles  of  necessity  to  every 
property-holder  in  the  United  States,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  burden- 
some duties  now  levied  upon  them  should  be  lessened  and  many  of  the 
prohibitory  ones  be  done  away  with  entirely,  or  at  least  placed  upon 
a footing  which  would  bring  them  within  the  reach  of  our  manufacturers 
and  consumers.  Among  the  many  articles  that  are  comprised  under 
this  head  I would  instance  a few  cases  of  such  flagrant  overtaxation, 
to  which  I invite  your  attention. 

The  most  important  pigment  in  the  paint  list  is  the  article  of  white 
lead,  which,  under  the  present  tariff,  is  taxed  3 cents  per  pound  duty. 
This  article  we  purchase  in  England,  at  a cost  of  20s.  4 d.  net,  packages 
included,  which  is  equivalent  to  $4.95  per  112  pounds,  or  a cost  per  pound 
of  4.42  cents,  which  the  English  manufacturer  receives,  against  a simi- 
lar article  made  in  this  country,  for  which  the  American  manufacturer 
receives  7 cents  per  pound.  The  duty  on  this  quantity  is  3.36  per 
cent.,  giving  the  American  manufacturer  a protection  of  67.87  per  cent. 
Were  it  not  for  this  exorbitant  duty  we  could  sell  this  article,  with 
shipping  expenses  included,  at  a cost  to  the  consumer  of  cents  per 
pound.  The  difference  of  1^  cents  per  pound  is  what  is  paid  by  the 
consumers  in  this  country  on  an  estimated  consumption  of  55,000  tons 
per  annum.  As  a proof  that  this  duty  is  almost  prohibitive,  I will  state 
that  there  was  imported  for  the  eleven  months  ending  with  May  31, 
1882,  only  931  tons  of  English  white  lead,  both  dry  and  in  oil,  into  this 
country,  the  value  of  which  was  $116,975.  It  would  seem  that,  taking 
into  consideration  the  enormous  quantity  of  pig  lead  produced  in  this 
country,  and  with  the  best  facilities  for  the  manufacture  of  white  lead, 
that  the  American  manufacturers  should  be  content  with  a smaller  profit 
than  they  are  realizing  at  preseut,  and  I should  therefore  suggest  a 
rate  of  duty  not  exceeding  1J  cents  per  pound,  which,  adding  the  cost 
of  freight  charges,  &c.,  would  be  ample  protection  upon  such  a neces- 
sary article. 

The  pigment  known  as  red  lead  costs  in  England  16s.  Id.  net,  pack- 
ages included,  equivalent  to  $3.91  per  112  pounds,  or  3.49  cents  per 
pound.  Upon  this  quantity  the  duty  is  $3.36,  which  makes  a protection 
of  85.94  per  cent.  For  the  American  manufacture  of  this  article  6£ 
cents  per  pound  is  demanded.  It  is  very  extensively  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  glassware,  for  which  our  manufacturers  are  endeavoring  to 
find  an  export  outlet,  but  the  difference  in  t»lie  price  they  are  forced  to 
pay  for  the  American  product  seriously  hampers  them  in  competing 
with  the  foreign  market,  as  well  as  for  our  home  trade  in  fine  glassware, 
which  has  to  be  made  from  a certain  production  of  red  lead  made  only 
in  England.  Combined  with  the  importation  of  litharge,  which  two 
pigments  are  classed  together,  the  total  imports  for  the  eleven  months 


350 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  B.  SMITH. 


ending  May  21,  1882,  amount  to  only  255  tons,  of  tlie  value  of  $25,079. 
This  article  is  also  very  extensively  used  for  the  preservation  of  iron- 
work, iron  vessels’  bottoms,  tin  roofs,  &c.  We  claim  that  the  duty  on 
this  article  should  not  exceed  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Litharge  is  used  largely  by  glass  and  rubber  manufacturers.  It 
costs  in  England  17s.  7 cl.  per  112  pounds  net,  packages  included,  equiv- 
alent to  3.81  cents  per  pound,  on  which  the  duty  is  3.36,  or  a protection 
of  78.69  per  cent,  to  the  American  manufacturer.  The  market  price  of 
this  product  is  6 cents  per  pound.  We  would  suggest  the  duty  on  this 
be  placed  at  25  per  cent.,  as  it  is  used  almost  entirely  by  manufacturing 
interests. 

Paris  white  is  made  from  English  cliffstone,  which  is  admitted  free  of 
duty.  It  costs  in  England  36s.  per  ton,  or  39  cents  per  100  pounds,  the 
duty  on  which  is  $1  per  100  pounds,  or  a protection  of  256  per  cent.  It 
is  used  very  largely  by  manufacturers  of  wall-paper,  oil-cloths,  in  whiten- 
ing ceilings,  &c.  The  consumption  of  Paris  white  amounts  to  many  thou- 
sand tons  per  annum.  The  quantity  imported  for  the  eleven  months 
named,  including  whiting,  amounted  to  only  1,619  tons,  of  the  value  of 
$14,146,  on  which  the  government  received  in  duty  $36,249.25.  As  the 
article  of  cliffstone,  from  which  this  is  manufactured,  is  not  found  in  this 
country,  and  the  manufacture  of  it  here  employs  but  very  few  people, 
we  would  suggest  that  the  duty  be  fixed  at  not  over  25  per  cent. 

Wbiting  costs  in  England  20s.  per  ton,  or  21  cents  per  100  pounds,  the 
duty  on  which  is  1 cent  per  pound,  or  a protection  of  476  per  cent.  It 
is  an  article  of  almost  universal  consumption,  being  used  extensively  by 
the  wall-paper  manufacturers,  in  the  manufacture  of  putty,  oil-cloths, 
and  a variety  of  manufactures.  It  is  made  from  English  cnalk,  a sub- 
stance which  is  not  found  in  this  country,  and  admitted  free  of  duty. 
We  are  not  aware  of  any  having  been  imported  for  some  time,  although 
as  the  articles  of  Paris  white  and  whiting  are  classed  together  in  statis- 
tics, being  very  similar,  it  is  difficult  to  state  positively.  We  would  sug- 
gest that  the  duty  be  fixed  at  25  per  cent. 

China  clay  costs  in  England  21s.  per  ton,  equivalent  to  $6.56,  on  which 
the  duty  is  $5  per  ton,  or  a protection  of  76  per  cent.  It  is  used  by  china 
and  porcelain  manufacturers,  also  largely  by  the  paper  manufacturers. 
There  are  no  corresponding  grades  of  china  clay  found  in  this  country 
to  answer  the  purpose  for  which  the  English  china  clay  is  used,  and 
the  difference  in  cost  to  the  china  and  porcelain  manufacturers  in  this 
country  and  those  in  foreign  countries  is  so  great  as  to  place  our  manu- 
facturers upon  a very  unequal  footing  with  their  foreign  conrpetitors. 
The  preparation  of  china  clay  consumes  but  very  little  labor,  and  is 
therefore  of  a trifling  benefit  to  the  American  laborer,  whilst  our  large 
China  and  paper  manufacturers  are  forced  to  pay  an  unnecessarily  high 
price  for  their  raw  material  or  use  the  poorer  qualities  found  in  this 
country,  which  produce  a much  inferior  manufacture  of  china  and  paper. 
We  suggest  that  a duty  of  25  per  cent.,  to  which^should  be  added  the 
heavy  freights  and  expenses  attendant  upon  the  importation  of  such  a 
bulky  merchandise,  would  be  ample  protection  for  the  few  persons  en- 
gaged in  its  production  in  this  country. 

Linseed  oil  is  worth  in  England,  at  present,  £25  per  ton,  equivalent  to 
40  cefits  per  gallon,  the  duty  on  which  is  30  cents,  or  a protection  of  75 
per  cent.  This  article  is  often  advanced  by  speculation  and  temporary 
causes  to  an  artificial  value,  which  the  consumers  are  obliged  to  pay,  as 
the  prohibitive  duty  prevents  the  importation  of  the  foreign  oil  which 
would  correct  the  market.  We  would  suggest  that  a duty  of  15  cents  per 
gallon  would  be  ample  protectiflfi  to  the  manufacturers  in  this  country, 


O.  B.  SMITH.] 


PAINTS  AND  OILS. 


351 


as,  for  instance,  at  the  present  time  the  oil  is  worth  in  this  market  52 
cents  per  gallon,  upon  which  it  is  supposed  they  are  making  a fair  profit, 
and  should  the  price  be  raised  the  oil  could  be  landed  here  for  55  cents 
per  gallon  to  serve  the  purpose  mentioned  betore. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  What  is  the  average  price  of  it? — Answer.  The  price  in 
August  last  was  49  cents  a gallon.  Since  that  it  has  been  up  as  high 
as  05.  We  bought  in  July  last  at  42  cents,  and  resold  it  two  months 
afterwards  at  52  cents.  When  there  is  a little  scarcity  it  will  put  up 
the  price  sometimes  as  much  as  20  cents  a gallon,  but  the  duty  of 
30  cents  is  so  great  that  we  cannot  bring  in  foreign  oil.  The  price 
ranges  in  England  from  40  to  55  cents  a gallon.  If  they  put  up  the 
prices  to  a speculative  degree,  we  could  bring  in  foreign  oil.  Linseed  oil 
is  an  article  of  immense  consumption  in  the  oil-cloth  trade  alone.  It  is 
about  the  most  important  article  which  we  have,  next  to  petroleum. 

Venetian  red  is  produced  almost  entirely  in  England,  and  is  admitted 
at  a duty  of  25  per  cent.  It  is  a paint  of  the  most  common  use,  required 
by  all  classes  of  people  who  use  paint  at  all.  There  is  scarcely  a farmer 
in  any  section  of  the  country  who  does  not  use  more  or  less  of  it  to  paint 
his  house,  barns,  fences,  &c.  The  consumption  of  it  is  about  20,000 
barrels  per  annum.  We  know  of  only  two  manufacturers  in  this  coun- 
try, who  produce  but  a small  proportion  of  the  total  amount.  Wre  would 
suggest,  under  these  circumstances,  that  it  be  admitted  free  of  duty. 

Ochers  and  ochery  earths  are  taxed  at  the  rate  of  one-half  cent  per 
pound,  and  are  among  the  most  largely  used  of  any  class  of  paints.  The 
qualities  found  in  this  country  are  very  poor,  and  are  unsuitable  for  the 
uses  to  which  the  foreign  ochers  are  put.  The  low  grades  found  here  are 
used  almost  entirely  by  the  oil-cloth  manufacturers,  and  are  produced 
so  cheaply  that  no  foreign  ocher,  if  admitted  free  of  duty,  with  heavy 
expenses  upon  them  for  shipping,  &c.,  could  compete  with  it  in  price. 
We  should,  therefore,  suggest  that  they  be  put  on  the  free  list,  as  they 
are  articles  of  necessity  to  the  manufacturers  and  consumers  alike. 

The  foregoingare  but  a few  instances  of  the  exorbitant  rates  of  duty 
charged  upon  this  class  of  goods,  and  as  fully  75  per  cent,  of  jmints  and 
colors  are  used  for  the  preservation  of  wood  and  iron  work,  principally 
in  the  country,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  whole  list  should  be  admitted 
at  a low  rate  of  duty,  which,  in  few  cases  if  any,  should  exceed  25  per 
cent. 

We  would  also  call  your  attention  to  section  2499  of  the  Revised  Stat- 
utes of  the  United  States,  which  has  caused  much  trouble  in  our  partic- 
ular line  of  goods.  It  provides  that  the  duty  shall  be  paid  on  any  non- 
enumerated  article  which  bears  similitude  either  in  material,  quality, 
texture,  or  the  use  to  which  it  may  be  applied,  to  any  article  enumerated 
in  this  title  as  chargeable  with  duty,  the  same  rate  of  duty  which  is 
levied  and  charged  on  the  enumerated  article  which  it  most  resembles 
in  any  of  the  above  particulars  before  mentioned,  &c.  We  would  rec- 
ommend that  this  section  be  repealed,  as  it  gives  rise  to  endless  litiga- 
tion. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  What  would  you  recommend  as  a substitute?  The  mere  repeal 
of  the  similitude  section  would  perhaps  be  hardly  fair  without  some 
other  provision  in  its  place. — A.  It  is  easy  to  make  a list  from  the  sta- 
tistics in  the  custom-house  of  these  articles  in  the  different  lines  of  busi- 
ness that  are  imported,  and  all  that  are  imported  should  be  put  down 
at  a certain  rate  of  duty ; and  any  article  in  that  line  unenumerated 
could  be  charged  50  to  75  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 


352 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  B.  SMITH. 


By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  You  would  make  a general  clause  to  cover  all  unenumerated  arti- 
cles, and  make  that  clause  specific  in  its  rates'? — A.  Yes  ; but  I would 
enumerate  everything  almost  that  is  imported.  The  article  of  whiting 
is  taxed  1 cent  a pound  duty.  It  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  chalk 
ground  up  and  floated  off  in  water  and  settled  in  a tub.  That  in  the 
first  tub  will  be  sand,  and  in  the  next  tub  whiting.  Any  one  would  see, 
in  following  out  the  line  of  that  manufacture,  that  it  is  nothing  but  pre- 
pared chalk.  That  would  be  plain,  and  yet  prepared  chalk  is  especially 
enumerated  in  the  tariff  at  25  per  cent,  duty,  which  would  be  about  £ 
of  a cent  a pound,  whereas  whiting,  which  is  prepared  chalk,  is  charged 
a cent  a pound.  During  this  year  a party  found  some  cliff-stone  that 
required  no  washing.  It  was  brought  into  this  country,  and  they  have 
been  unable  to  find  out  whether  that  article,  as  imported,  is  chalk,  pre- 
pared chalk,  whiting,  or  Paris  white.  If  I take  the  two  articles  of  Paris 
white  and  whiting  I don’t  suppose  one  gentleman  in  a thousand  could 
tell  the  difference. 

By  Commissioner  Asibler. 

Q.  There  is,  however,  a commercial  difference? — A.  Yes,  there  is; 
but  it  is  left  a good  deal  to  the  honor  of  the  seller.  -In  this  case  I un- 
derstand, Appraiser  Howard  asked  him  what  he  did  with  this  article 
claimed  as  prepared  chalk.  He  answered  that  he  sold  it.  He  was  asked 
what  for,  and  answered,  “ I sold  it  for  Paris  white.”  That  was  in  favor 
of  the  government.  But  still,  it  is  a very  close  question  whether  it  was 
whiting,  Paris  white,  or  prepared  chalk.  And  there  are  those  two  items 
there  which  are  really  one  and  the  same  thing,  assessed  at  J of  a cent  a 
pound  duty  in  the  one  case,  and  at  1 cent  a pound  in  the  other. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  there  is  a commercial  distinction  without  a 
commercial  difference? — A.  Of  course  an  expert  could  tell  the  difference; 
but  it  would  be  only  by  the  superior  whiteness  of  the  one  article,  or  by 
its  toughness,  and  an  ordinary  person  would  not  be  able  to  tell  the  dif- 
ference. Under  this  section,  2499,  orange  mineral  was  charged' a rate 
of  duty  of  3 cents  per  pound. 

Q.  That  was  by  decision. — A.  We  paid  that  duty,  I suppose,  for  twenty 
years,  because  they  said  that  it  most  resembles  red  lead,  and  under  this 
section  we  must  pay  3 cents  a pound.  So  we  paid  that  duty,  I think, 
for  twenty  years,  and  the  matter  finally  came  up  in  suit,  and  the  court 
decided  that  it  should  pay  25  per  cent,  as  a u painter’s  color  not  other- 
wise provided  for.”  And  we  got  back  under  that  decision  some  $2,800. 
Also  section  Yo.  2907,  which  provides  for  an  Additional  2£  per  cent,  to 
to  be  added  to  the  market  value  of  the  goods,  should  be  repealed,  as  it 
is  a petty  extortion  on  the  part  of  the  government,  and  an  addition  to 
the  duties  levied  by  law,  for  which  there  seems  to  be  no  right  or  justice. 
They  add  2£  per  cent,  to  the  invoice  value,  and  you  have  to  pay  the  ad 
valorem  duty  in  addition,  which  gives  rise  to  much  trouble  and  loss  to 
to  the  merchant,  and  seems  to  be  unjust. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Would  you  recommend  a specific  duty  instead  of  ad  valorem  ? — A. 
I would  recommend  specific  duty  in  all  cases  where  possible. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Are  these  staple  articles  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


0.  B.  SMITH.] 


PAINTS  AND  OILS. 


353 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Would  it  be  practicable,  and  work  easily,  to  assess  them  by  the 
pound  or  gallon  ? — A.  To  assess  them  specifically  would  be  very  much 
better. 

Q.  Then,  as  I understand  you,  as  a general  principle,  you  are  in  favor 
of  specific  duties,  and  not  ad  valorem  t — A.  Yes  ; decidedly. 

We  would  also  respectfully  urge  the  adoption  of  the  suggestion  made 
by  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Hon.  H.  F.  French,  a few 
days  since,  that  a special  court  of  claims  be  established  to  have  the  sole 
consideration  of  revenue  cases,  as  the  present  mode  of  settling  such  dis- 
putes gives  rise  to  much  trouble,  delay,  and  expense  to  the  merchant. 

As  an  example  of  the  w orking  of  the  present  system  we  would  instance 
the  following  in  our  own  experience.  Section  2505,  Article  1554  of  the 
free-list,  reads  as  follows,  “Oolcothar,  dry,  or  oxide  of  iron.” 

Upon  an  importation  of  ours  in  1873,  the  collecter  charged  us  25  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  classifying  it  as  u a painter’s  color  not  otherwise  pro- 
vided for.”  Upon  appeal  to  the  Hon.  Secretary,  George  S.  Boutwell, 
he  decided  in  our  favor  that  it  should  be  free  of  duty  (decision  1349 
of  the  year  1873).  The  matter  being  again  agitated,  the  Hon.  Secretary, 
B.  H.  Bristow,  in  a letter  of  instruction  to  the  collector  at  Boston, 
August  21,  1874  (decision  No.  1912),  defines  “colcothar  as  being  a dry 
oxide  of  iron  produced  by  chemical  action,  but  not  chemically  pure,  con- 
taining quantities  of  lime,  sulphuric  acid,  and  sulphate  of  lime  as  im- 
purities.” We  continued  to  import  this  free  until  1876,  when  the  col- 
lector again  charged  us  25  per  cent.  duty.  The  Secretary,  L.  M.  Mor- 
rill, again  decided  in  our  favor.  It  then  rested  until  1880,  W'hen  Sec- 
retary John  Sherman  decided  it  should  pay  duty  (decision  No.  4700). 

In  the  spring  of  1881,  the  government  adopted  a plan  of  analyzing 
all  importations  of  colcothar,  and  at  first  adopted  the  standard  of  90 
per  cent,  purity  to  entitle  it  to  free  entry.  The  result  being  that  if  it 
fell  below  this  standard  it  was  charged  25  per  cent,  duty,  although  of 
less  commercial  value  than  the  pure  oxide.  As  a consequence  of  this 
arbitrary  ruling  against  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the  law,  we  have  been 
forced  to  pay  thousands  of  dollars  in  duty  upon  an  article  which  the 
law  declares  shall  be  free  of  duty  without  any  standard  as  to  its  purity. 

Since  this  ruling  was  established  we  have  had  a number  of  decisions 
upon  importations,  sometimes  in  our  favor  and  sometimes  against  us, 
and  we  could  never  tell  before  the  liquidation  of  the  entry  whether  we 
would  be  charged  duty  upon  it  or  not,  which  uncertainty  compelled  us 
a short  time  since  to  sue  the  government  to  have  the  matter  finally  set- 
tled in  the  courts,  w hich  under  the  present  state  of  the  calender  may 
be  deferred  for  perhaps  two  years,  whereas,  if  we  had  such  a court  of 
claims  as  proposed,  we  could  arrive  at  a settlement  of  the  question  with 
comparatively  little  delay. 

We  had  a shipment  of  oxide  by  the  steamship  Itoumania  in  April, 
1881 ; part  of  it  was  put  in  20  casks,  and  the  rest  of  it  in  50  kegs.  They 
passed  the  kegs  as  analyzing  over  90  per  cent.,  and  the  20  casks  from 
the  same  pile,  according  to  other  analysis,  was  only  33.3  per  cent,  oxide. 
We  appealed  on  that,  and  the  Secretary  decided  that  they  had  had  it  ana- 
lyzed by  the  government  chemist,  and  we  should  pay  duty.  I wrote  to 
the  Secretary  again  and  told  him  it  was  a mistake,  and  asked  a recon- 
sideration of  the  matter.  There  it  rested  for  twTo  or  three  months.  lie 
then  said  they  had  had  it  re-tested  and  found  that  there  was  only  33.3 
per  cent,  of  oxide,  and  he  must  decide  against  us.  I then  went  up  to 
the  appraiser’s  office  and  asked  them  to  turn  up  their  formal  sample 
from  that  shipment,  which  they  did.  They  gave  me  part  of  that  sam 
IT.  Mis.  G 23 


354 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  B.  SMITH. 


pie  in  a sealed  bottle,  and  I took  it  to  a chemist  and  had  it  analyzed. 
The  chemist  found  that  it  contained  94.G  per  cent,  of  oxide.  At  the 
same  time  the  custom-house  had  it  sent  to  their  own  chemist  again,  and 
he  analyzed  it  and  found  it  to  contain  94.6  per  cent.  They  then  went 
back  on  their  own  sample.  They  said,  aThis  sample  must  have  got 
mixed  somehow;  that  is  not  the  same  sample.”  “But,”  I said,  “there 
is  the  bottle  from  the  same  shipment.”  I told  them  to  leave  it  to  any 
good  chemist,  and  we  would  pay  the  expense.  So  they  gave  it  out  to 
another  chemist  who  decided  with  our  chemist,  and,  after  a year,  we 
got  our  money  back.  That  all  consumed  much  time  and  cost  much 
trouble. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Your  business  is  purely  importing? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  manufacture? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  the  importers  generally  favor  specific  duties  ? — A.  I think  so, 
undoubtedly.  It  is  a very  much  easier  way  to  collect  duties,  and  it 
makes  a regular  stationary  amount  to  be  fixed  upon  the  goods,  without 
regard  to  value  abroad.  It  is  easy  of  calculation,  aud  much  easier  of 
collection. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  possible  to  assess  the  duty  on  the  home 
valuation  of  goods? — A.  I don’t  think  it  would  be;  that  article  of  white 
lead  to  day  is  worth  8J  to  9 cents  with  duty  on. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Suppose  you  take  the  home  valuation  with  duty  off? — A.  The 
home  valuation  here  would  be  7 cents;  but  it  would  be  American  lead; 
the  English  lead  is  better  and  would  bring  more  money  in  this  market. 

Q.  The  home  valuation  would  be  on  the  article  itself  without  reference 
to  whether  it  was  American  or  English;  that  is,  the  appraiser  would  ap- 
praise the  article  presented  at  the  market  price  here.  If  English  lead 
was  worth  more  it  would  be  appraised  higher. — A.  Then  they  would 
have  to  go  upon  the  same  system  here  that  they  do  in  England ; that 
is,  if  a merchant  is  dissatisfied  with  an  appraisement,  the  government 
will  pay  him  10  per  cent,  and  take  the  goods.  But  I do  not  think  that 
would  hardly  work  in  this  country. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I have  heard  several  say  the  same  thing ; 
but  I have  not  heard  a reason.  If  the  Euglish  lead  is  worth  more,  say, 
one-fourth  of  a cent  a pound,  of  course  the  appraiser  will  put  that  much 
more  on  the  valuation. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  At  what  it  would  bring  at  a trade  sale  at  a 
commercial  center? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  is  the  idea.  I am  not  desiring  to  say 
that  I think  that  ought  to  be  the  rule,  but  it  is  a question  for  consider- 
ation, and  it  has  been  pressed  upon  us  by  several  gentlemen.  On  the 
other  hand,  several  gentlemen  have  said  it  was  impracticable.  That 
’does  not  necessarily  make  it  so ; but,  if  it  is  impracticable,  we  want  to 
know  it,  and  the  reason  why.  It  would  seem  that  complaints  of  false 
valuations  and  false  invoices  would  be  very  materially  overcome  by  a 
specific  duty. 

The  Witness.  But  suppose  the  merchant  is  dissatisfied  witli  the  ap 
praisement ; for  instance,  if  an  article  is  imported  into  this  country  that 
has  no  value,  then  what  shall  the  appraiser  do  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Just  as  he  does  now  with  articles  that  are 
imported  that  have  no  foreign  value.  There  are  undoubtedly  such 


O.  B.  SMITH.  J 


PAINTS  AND  OILS. 


355 


articles  sold  in  this  market  that  have  no  market  value  in  the  country 
from  which  they  are  exported.  But  if  it  had  no  value  here,  I suppose 
the  value  at  the  nearest  point  of  consumption  might  be  the  test. 

The  Witness.  Then  in  that  way  what  redress  would  the  merchant 
have  if  the  value  was  excessive  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I do  not  see  why  he  might  not  have  the  same 
redress  under  that  system  as  under  the  present.  They  could  ascertain 
its  value,  it  seems  to  me,  unless  in  exceptional  cases.  As  a rule  they 
have  both  the  home  and  the  foreign  valuation,  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
an  exceptional  case  would  be  perhaps  as  well  met  here  on  the  home 
valuation  as  upon  the  foreign. 

The  Witness.  That  system  works  very  well  in  England.  There  if  a 
merchant  is  dissatisfied  the  government  will  take  his  goods  and  pay  him 
10  per  cent.  If  that  law  was  properly  hedged  around  it  might  do  very 
well. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I called  your  attention  to  it,  so  that  you 
might  ascertain  and  give  a definite  opinion  thereupon,  now  or  hereafter, 
as  to  whether  it  is  practicable,  and  what  means  should  be  taken  to  hedge 
it  around  so  as  to  do  justice  to  the  government  and  to  the  importer. 

The  Witness.  In  that  case  a great  deal  would  depend  upon  the 
appraiser.  The  government  would  have  to  employ  the  best  men  for  that 
business. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  My  understanding  is  that,  as  a rule,  apprais- 
ers now  are  very  efficient  men.  I do  not  know  what  your  iudgment  is 
as  to  that. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Are  they  not  very  bright  ? 

The  Witness.  The  appraiser,  for  instance,  passed  this  lot  of  pre- 
pared chalk  could  not  have  been  very  bright. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  There  are  undoubtedly  instances  of  incom- 
petent men  occupying  such  positions,  but  our  general  information  is  that 
the  appraisers  are  very  competent  men. 

The  Witness.  I think,  as  a rule,  they  are;  and  under  an  arrange- 
ment of  that  kind  they  would  have  to  be. 

Q.  Why  do  you  think  it  easier  to  take  the  valuation  in  Liverpool  than 
here  T — A.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  an  American  consul  there,  who  can 
easily  ascertain  the  valuation  of  goods  in  those  different  ports.  It  is  a 
very  simple  matter  to  ascertain  the  value  of  china  clay,  or  white  lead, 
or  anything  else,  and  he  can  certify,  as  he  is  now  obliged  to  do  by  the 
law,  in  regard  to  the  value  of  the  goods,  whereas  in  this  case  it  is  left 
to  the  appraiser  here  to  fix  the  market  value.  It  would  work  all  right 
in  well-known  articles,  of  course. 

Q.  Would  there  not  be  the  same  difficulty  that  has  been  suggested  in 
ascertaining  the  value  of  these  unknown  articles  in  Liverpool  as  here? — 
A.  I should  not  think  there  would  be  the  same  difficulty,  because  the 
consul  is  there  on  the  spot. 

Q.  So  is  your  appraiser  here  on  the  spot,  also. — A.  I know;  but  in 
the  case  of  well-known  goods  coming  from  foreign  countries,  any  com- 
petent man  ought  to  be  able  to  tell  their  market  value.  Suppose  there 
is  a brand-new  color  made — and  they  are  making  such  things  all  the 
time — and  it  comes  here  and  looks  like  vermilion,  and  also  looks  like 
Venetian  red,  how  is  he  going  to  tell  unless  he  is  an  expert  ? 

Q.  I am  assuming  that  he  is  an  expert  in  the  business.  I do  not  see 
that  he  has  any  business  in  the  position,  if  he  is  not. — A.  If  they  were 
experts,  the  law  would  work  very  well  of  course.  It  would  be  a good 
system,  if  well  carried  out. 


356 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  B.  SMITH. 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  How  low  has  white  lead  been  in  this  country  in  the  last  ten  years  ? — 
A.  About  three  years  ago  it  was  the  lowest. 

Q.  How  low? — A.  It  was  down  then  to  about  6 cents.  There  might 
have  been  exceptional  sales  at  5g;  but  it  is  now  7 cents,  and  that  is  about 
the  normal  price  of  it  here. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  You  were  speaking  of  yellow  ocher,  and  you  recommended  that  it 
be  made  duty  free.  The  reason  you  gave  was  that  the  ockers  in  this 
country  are  very  inferior.  Do  you  mean  that  the  grade  of  the  American 
article  is  inferior  to  the  foreign  ? — A.  Oh,  very  much  so.  The  ochers  of 
this  country  almost  entirely  present  a greenish  appearance,  and  when 
they  are  ground  to  the  necessary  fineness  for  painting,  that  greenness 
comes  out,  and  you  cannot  get  the  proper  shade  required  in  a line  class 
of  oil  cloths  for  house-painting,  <&c.  I have  never  found  a single  Ameri- 
can ocher  not  subject  to  that  defect,  and  we  have  had  samples  from 
every  little  mine  everywhere.  I always  examine  those  that  are  sent,  to 
see  if  they  are  good;  but  I have  never  yet  found  one  that  was  good. 
The  foreign  ochers  are  sold  sometimes  as  High  as  9 or  10  cents  a pound, 
and  I know  of  no  ocher  in  this  country  that  will  bring  more  than  a cent 
a pound. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  American  yellow  ochers  at  the  Centennial? — A. 
Ko,  sir. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  There  were  some  very  line  specimens  there. 

The  Witness.  They  might  look  very  fine,  but  when  you  came  to  use 
them  practically  then  their  merits  would  be  disclosed.  The  lowest 
quality  of  ocher  costs  about  g of  a cent  a pound,  and  then  you  must  add 
at  least  g for  the  very  lowest  freight  and  expenses.  That  would  bring 
it  to  1 cent  a pound  for  the  poorest  quality. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  any  samples  of  porcelain  earth  from  the  State 
of  Georgia  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  they  rank  ? — A.  Some  are  good,  but  there  always  seems 
to  be  some  practical  difficulty  in  getting  hold  of  it.  I believe  there  is 
one  kind  that  makes  very  good  china,  but,  as  a rule,  all  the  very  best 
china  is  made  from  foreign  clay. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  correspondence  with  a man  in  Georgia 
named  Hoff  on  this  subject  ? — A.  I do  not  remember. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I have  seen  some  specimens  of  very  fine 
ware  made  from  his  clay. 

The  Witness.  Did  he  turn  out  any  quantity? 

Commissioner  Underwood.  He  has  been  shipping  some,  1 think,  to 
Connecticut,  and  perhaps  to  other  places. 

The  Witness.  The  great  mass  of  pottery  is  made  at  Trenton,  ET.  J.,  and 
in  Ohio.  Sometimes  they  will  find  a small  vein  of  clay  but  it  will  run 
out  in  a little  while,  and  the  manufactories  have  to  depend  upon  foreign 
clay,  and  I should  think  it  would  be  an  article  that  ought  to  come  in  free 
of  duty,  because,  I suppose,  90  per  cent,  of  it  is  used  by  the  paper  man- 
ufacturers and  china  and  porcelain  manufacturers.  A great  deal  of 
china  is  imported  to  this  country,  and  we  ought  to  be  able  to  make  it 
here  as  well  as  abroad. 


ROLAND  REDMOND.  J 


LINENS. 


357 


BOLAND  BEDMOND. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  4,  1882. 

Mr.  Boland  Bedmond,  of  New  York,  of  the  firm  of  William  Bedmond 
& Son,  importers  of  linens,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made 
the  following  statement : 

Mr.  President.  I ascertained  on  Saturday  last  that  you  would  like  to 
hear  from  some  manufacturers  of  shirts  and  collars,  who  used  Irish  linen. 
I have  since  received  a letter  from  a very  large  manufacturer  in  which 
he  says  that  they  are  arranging  for  a hearing,  and  I think  it  would  per- 
haps be  well  to  wait  and  hear  from  them. 

As  an  importer,  1 will  say  that  I am  interested  in  seeing  linens  brought 
in  at  a low  rate,  but  as  those  gentlemen  are  the  persons  who  use  the 
goods,  perhaps  it  would  be  better  for  you  to  hear  their  arguments  rather 
than  mine,  as  they  represent  the  manufacturers.  In  Troy,  N.  Y.,  alone 
there  are  some  $7,000,000  worth  of  shirts  and  collars  made  annually,  and 
in  all  the  eastern  cities  there  are  about  $20,000,000  of  these  goods  made 
annually.  The  white  linens  that  they  use  are  not  made  in  this  country, 
and  it  does  not  seem  probable  or  possible  that  they  can  be.  The  duty  as  at 
present  fixed  is  a direct  tax  upon  the  home  consumer,  besides  keeping 
these  manufacturers  out  of  the  foreign  market.  They  all  tell  me  that  if 
the  duty  were  less  than  it  is  at  present  they  could  compete  successfully 
with  English  goods  in  the  great  markets  of  the  world.  But  Mr.  Barbour, 
and  some  gentlemen  who  appeared  hereon  Friday,  are  in  favor  of  advanc- 
ing the  duty;  so  I wrote  to  you  hoping  you  would  hear  from  the  manu- 
facturers of  white  linens. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  You  are  importing  largely;  what  is  your  opinion  in  regard 
to  the  relative  merits  of  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties'? — Answer.  It 
is  very  hard  to  tell  in  our  goods,  because  the  values  are  so  variable. 
For  instance,  the  low  goods  would  have  to  pay  a very  much  higher  per- 
centage than  the  higher  goods.  It  is  a very  difficult  question,  I think. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  in  regard  to  home  valuation,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  foreign  valuation  as  under  the  present  law  ? — A.  I do  not 
understand  you  exactly. 

Q.  I mean  instead  of  taking  the  consular  certificate  as  to  the  value  of 
the  goods,  to  assess  them  in  future  according  to  the  prices  they  are 
worth  in  the  ports  which  they  reach  in  this  country  % — A.  I think  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  arrange  that. 

Q.  Do  you  manufacture  abroad  ? — A.  No,  sir;  goods  are  consigned  to 
us  by  the  manufacturers.  I think  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  arrive  at 
nny  home  valuation  of  the  goods. 


358 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[t.  w.  house. 


T.  W.  HOUSE. 

Long  Branch,  H.  J.,  August  8, 1882. 

Mr.  T.  W.  House,  of  Houston,  Texas,  submited  the  following  state- 
ment: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  Being  deeply  interested 
in  the  production  of  sugar  in  the  State  of  Texas,  I beg  leave  to  submit 
to  your  honorable  body  some  facts  in  regard  to  the  same,  and  hope  that 
you  will  grant  to  that  industry  the  consideration  and  protection  which 
it  deserves. 

A large  area  of  land  in  Texas  is  extremely  well  adapted  to  the  pro- 
duction of  sugar.  The  lands  are  never  overflowed  and  the  sugar  cane 
ratoons  well  for  three  or  four  years. 

The  chief  area  of  production  is  now  on  the  Brazos  Biver,  where  the 
crop  in  1880  was  about  6,500,000  pounds,  and  the  total  area  of  land 
there  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  production  of  sugar-cane  includes  a 
district  of  100  . miles  in  length  by  about  seven  miles  in  width,  or  some 
400,000  acres,  all  of  which  under  fair  protection  against  the  slave  and 
other  low-grade  labor  of  the  tropics,  will  soon  come  into  cultivation 
in  sugar-cane. 

On  the  southern  part  of  the  Colorado  Biver,  known  as  “Old  Caney,” 
there  is  another  sugar  district  in  which  considerable  sugar  was  pro- 
duced before  the  war,  and  where  the  industry  is  now  reviving,  with  a 
production  in  18S0  of  about  1,250,000  pounds.  This  district,  scarcely 
developed  at  all,  is  really  as  great  in  extent  as  the  Brazos  district,  and 
the  two  together  have  the  capacity  of  producing  at  least  one-half  enough 
sugar  to  supply  the  entire  Union,  if  only  protected  sufficiently  to  cover 
the  increased  cost  of  American  labor. 

In  these  two  districts  sugar  cane  is  the  only  certain  crop,  the  lands 
not  being  adapted  to  any  other  profitable  culture.  They  are  capable  of 
supporting  a population  of  nearly  a million  of  people,  and  then  be  no 
more  thickly  populated  than  any  well-cultivated  section  of  the  country. 
Under  anj'  other  conditions  the  population  must  always  remain  small, 
for  the  reason  before  stated,  the  non-adaptation  of  the  lands  to  other 
culture.  It  will  not  require  twenty  years  to  develop  the  industry  to  the 
exvent  I suggest,  and  the  enormous  resulting  trade  with  the  other 
States  would  reach  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.  All  of  the  supplies 
used  in  the  industry,  such  as  machinery,  implements,  tools,  oils,  belting, 
harness,  &c.,  and  all  the  articles  for  general  use,  such  as  furniture, 
woolen  and  cotton  goods,  clothing,  meats,  Ac.,  come  from  the  other 
States.  To  whatever  extent  this  sugar  industry  is  developed,  a cor- 
respondingly increased  demand  for  all  these  articles  will  arise,  of  which 
the  other  States  of  the  Union  producing  them  will  reap  the  benefit,  and 
there  is  now  arising  a rapidly  increasing  trade  in  supplying  the  sugar 
plantations  with  these  articles. 

Our  sugars  are  usually  of  low  grade  and  our  protection  is  in  the  main- 
tenance of  a fair  minimum  duty  on  sugar,  as  we  get  no  protection  from 
the  higher  duties,  which  only  protect  the  refiner.  Any  reduction  in  the 
duties  on  the  low  grades  of  sugar  will  inflict  incalculable  injury  upon  us. 


WILLIAM  M.  BRASHER.  ] 


FLOOR-CLOTH. 


359 


WILLIAM  M.  BRASHER. 

Long  Branch,  2L  J.,  August  9,  1882. 

Mr.  William  M.  Brasher,  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  representing  the  man- 
ufacture of  floor  oilcloths,  made  the  following  statement : 

I wish  to  state,  preliminarily,  that  in  the  year  18G6  there  were  in  this 
country  nine  manufacturers  of  floor  oilcloths  making  the  wide  goods, 
while  at  present  (owing  to  the  terrible  effects  of  the  present  tariff)  there 
are  but  three  of  those  manufacturers  left  in  the  business.  I will  read  a 
memorial  which  has  been  prepared  upon  this  subject,  and  which  gives 
in  a compact  form  the  leading  points  I desire  to  present  to  you : 

The  memorial  of  the  undersigned,  manufacturers  of  floor  oilcloths, 
lignums  and  linoleums  in  the  United  States,  respectfully  represents — 

That  under  the  operation  of  the  present  tariff  of  customs  duties  for- 
eign floor  oilcloths,  lignums,  and  linoleums  are  brought  into  injurious 
competition  with  the  domestic  productions,  and  that  the  manufacturers 
here  no  longer  enjoy  the  measure  of  protection  which  they  had  previous 
to  the  changes  in  the  customs  duties. 

They  further  represent  that  the  materials  they  use  are  almost  without 
exception  such  as  have  in  greater  or  less  degree  been  changed  from  the 
state  of  raw  materials  to  manufactured  articles,  and  that  those  of  foreign 
origin  are  subjected  to  heavy  charges  of  customs  duties,  and  thereby 
greatly  increasing  the  cost  to  us. 

Also,  that  all  the  well-known  and  conceded  arguments  for  the  protec- 
tion of  labor  will  apply  with  peculiar  force  to  our  productions,  it  being 
an  article  which  by  the  preliminary  and  final  processes  has  become  in 
an  unusual  degree  removed  from  the  original  state  of  raw  materials. 

By  reference  to  the  annexed  table  it  will  be  seen  what  the  chief  arti- 
cles used  in  our  manufacture  are,  the  customs  duties  on  each  of  them 
under  the  tariff  of  1857,  and  those  in  force  at  present : 

Materials  used  in  manufacturing  floor  oilcloths,  lignums,  and  linoleums. 


Articles. 

Canvas. 

Linseed  oil. 

Dry 

white'lead. 

Red  lead 
and 

litharge. 

Whiting. 

Ocher. 

Customs  duties,  1857 

Prices,  1882  

15  per  cent. 

15  per  cent 
37.76  cents 

15  per  cent. 
3.91  cents 

15  per  cent. . 
3.65  cents 

15  per  cent, 
f cent  per 
pound. 

1 cent  per 
pound. 
266  per  cent. 

15  per  cent. 
1 cent  per 
pound, 
i cent  per 
pound. 

66  percent. 

Customs  duties,  1882 

Per  cent 

40  percent. 
40  per  cent. 

per  gallon. 
30  cents  per 
gallon. 

79  per  cent. 

per  pound. 
3 cents  per 
pound. 

77  per  cent. 

per  pound. 
3 cents  per 
pound. 

82  per  cent.. 

The  table  shows  the  advance  in  the  customs  duties  upon  the  materials 
used  is  very  large,  while  the  advance  in  customs  duties  on  the  manu- 
factured floor  oilcloths,  lignums,  and  linoleums  has  not  reached  over 
45  tier  cent. 

Labor  has  advanced  about  50  per  cent.,  interest  account  about  50  per 
cent.,  and  general  expenses  about  the  same  ratio.  In  some  cases  labor- 


360 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  M.  BB ASHER. 


ers  are  demanding  advanced  prices  for  tlieir  labor,  and  the  present  agi- 
tation of  the  eight-hour  system  is  likely  to  have  some  weight  in  the 
future. 

In  view  of  the  above-recited  facts,  the  undersigned  believe  it  to  be 
manifest  that  in  the  coming  revision  of  the  tariff  of  customs  duties  they 
should  be  further  protected  by  an  advance  of  the  duties  on  floor  oil- 
cloths, lignums,  and  linoleums  of  at  least  the  following  rates,  viz  : 

To  change  the  duty  on  those  paying  35  per  cent,  to  50  per  cent.,  and 
on  those  paying  45  per  cent,  to  60  per  cent.,  and  also  all  duties  should 
be  removed  from  the  canvas  used  for  the  manufacturing  of  floor  oil- 
cloths, lignums,  and  linoleums. 

W.  M.  Brasher, 

Chairman. 

John  Lapsley, 

Wm.  Potter, 

Committee. 

In  1857  all  the  duties  were  ad  valorem,  at  15  per  cent.  The  percentage 
on  the  canvas,  which  is  one  of  our  principal  goods  at  present,  is  40  per 
cent.;  on  linseed  oil,  79  per  cent.;  on  white  lead,  77  per  cent.;  on  litharge, 
82  per  cent. ; on  whiting,  266  per  cent. ; and  on  ocher,  66  per  cent.  These 
are  the  principal  articles  we  use.  Our  protection,  on  the  average,  is  30 
per  cent.;  sometimes  35  to  40  per  cent. ; depending  on  the  value  of  the 
floor  oilcloth.  But  give  us  free  trade,  and  we  can  export  goods  in  com- 
petition with  all  foreigners. 

We  ask  for  the  removal  of  the  duties  on  floor-cloth  foundations  for 
this  reason.  The  whole  amount  made  in  this  country  is  only  about 
$50,000  in  value.  The  duty  we  pay  on  raw  material  will  average  at 
least  75  ]3er  cent.,  and  all  we  get  at  the  highest  rate  of  protection  is  45 
per  cent.  If  we  can  have  the  same  plane  to  work  on  that  the  English 
manufacturer  has,  this  country  can  export  millions  of  dollars’  worth  of 
these  goods.  We  are  only  shut  out  of  the  Chinese  market  by  about  10 
cents  a yard,  and  out  of  the  Australian  market  by  about  12  cents  a 
yard.  Sweden  would  consume,  and  does  take  from  Great  Britain  at 
the  present  time,  over  a million  dollars’  worth  of  these  goods  annually, 
and  they  ask  us  nearly  every  day  to  send  them  our  goods,  as  our 
styles  are  superior,  and  they  will  be  used  there.  The  government  re- 
ceives to-day  a duty  of  40  per  cent,  on  $50,000  worth  of  goods,  but  at 
the  same  time  shuts  us  out  of  an  export  trade  which  would  amount  to 
$2,000,000.  You  may  be  surprised  to  hear,  but  the  fact  can  be  estab- 
lished, that  when,  during  the  war,  we  shipped  our  goods  to  Great 
Britain,  the  American  manufacturers  of  floor  oilcloth  brought  from  5d. 
to  Id.  sterling  more  in  price  than  the  same  weight  of  goods  made  in 
London.  I am  an  American,  and  feel  a pride  in  thinking  that  our  goods 
are  superior  in  style  to  theirs,  and  they  admit  the  fact.  The  English 
manufacturers  have  been  to  this  country  to  learn  our  methods,  for  they 
could  hardly  believe  that  we  could  make  a superior  article  until  they 
saw  that  such  was  the  case. 

All  we  have  to  say  is  this : We  are  oppressed  and  our  business  is 
being  extinguished,  and  we  shall  have  to  yield.  The  discrimination 
against  us  is  from  50  to  60  per  cent.  If  you  will  give  us  free  trade  we 
can  send  our  goods  to  any  part  of  the  world  and  do  an  enormous  busi- 
ness. England  now  controls  this  trade.  We  ship  some  goods  to  China, 
but  we  cannot  sell  them  at  anything  like  the  prices  the  English  can  sell 
their  goods.  W^e  make  the  best  goods  in  our  line  in  the  world  to-dayT, 
and  the  English  admit  it. 

In  connection  with  this  matter  of  jute  and  the  relief  we  ask  for,  I 


WILLIAM  M.  BRASHER.] 


FLOOR-CLOTH. 


361 


would  state  that  canvas  of  a certain  width  is  not  made  in  this  country 
at  the  present  time,  and  it  never  has  been  made,  except  to  a very  lim- 
ited extent.  I do  not  think  there  is  any  one  now  making  it  in  this 
country.  I mean  burlaps  6 feet  wide.  The  larger  proportion  of  the 
goods  we  manufacture  is  8 feet  wide  and  90  feet  long.  We  ask  reliof 
in  regard  to  this  matter  of  canvas  because  it  is  not  made  here  in  this 
country,  with  the  single  exception  that  I have  named,  where  the  party 
has  a patent  loom,  and  the  extent  of  their  business  only  amounts  to 
$50,000  a year. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  What  is  the  total  value  of  your  manufacture  in  this  coun- 
try ? — Answer.  Our  own  factory  produces  from  350,000  to  400,000  yards, 
and  the  highest  price  we  receive  for  our  goods  is  95  cents  a yard. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  What  is  the  total  value  of  all  that  is  produced  in  the  country  ? — 
A.  I could  not  tell  you  that. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  How  many  hands  do  you  employ  in  your  establishment? — A. 
About  200  altogether. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Would  you  prefer  to  have  the  duty  taken  off  the  articles  which 
you  consume,  or  to  have  the  duty  made  larger  on  oilcloth? — A.  We  are 
willing  to  accept  either.  With  free  trade,  I think  we  could  export,  and 
our  business  would  increase,  so  that  there  would  be  $5,000,000  worth  of 
these  goods  shipped  out  of  this  country  annually. 

Q.  Are  you  speaking  now  simply  of  oilcloth,  or  of  oilcloth  and  lino- 
leum ? — A.  I am  speaking  of  both. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  When  you  say  that  if  you  had  free  trade  you  could  export  your 
goods,  I suppose  you  refer  to  the  materials  used,  and  not  to  the  finished 
cloth  also? — A.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  immaterial  to  us  whether  the  duty  is  in- 
creased on  manufactured  goods,  or  taken  off  on  the  raw  material.  If  we 
have  to  pay  a duty  on  the  raw  material,  give  us  as  much  duty  on  the 
manufactured  goods  as  will  counterbalance  that  duty. 

Q.  Could  you  export  goods  under  those  circumstances? — A.  Yes,  sir, 
largely  j I think  our  business  would  double  in  amount — I know  it  would. 
We  have  already  received  offers  from  London  to  supply  certain  quanti- 
ties of  goods  at  certain  prices,  on  a gold  basis. 

Q.  If  you  were  protected  by  a duty  on  manufactured  goods  which 
would  counterbalance  the  duty  you  pay  on  the  raw  material,  you  think 
that  you  could  export  goods  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  If  we  could  get  the  raw 
materials  we  use  free  of  duty,  I think  we  could  double  our  business  in 
a very  short  time. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  In  that  case,  would  it  not  be  better  for  you  if  you  had  free  trade 
on  all  goods?— A.  Yes,  sir ; it  would  be  better  if  we  had  free  trade  on 
everything. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that,  with  the  advantage  which  would  result 
from  proper  protection  in  furnishing  you  a market  in  this  country,  it 
would  pay  you  better  to  compete  with  the  manufacturers  of  the  rest  of 


362 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| WILLIAM  M.  BRASHER. 


the  world ; that  is  to  say,  with  free  trade,  and  a domestic  and  foreign 
market  to  supply,  you  would  be  better  off  than  you  would  to  simply 
supply  the  home  market  under  a sufficient  rate  of  protection? — A. 
Most  decidedly.  But  of  course  we  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that 
the  government  gets  a revenue  of  some  kind,  and,  under  those  circum- 
stances, we  would  accept  anything  like  a fair  duty  on  the  manufactured 
goods  coming  in  here,  to  counterbalance  the  duty  we  pay  on  the  raw 
material. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  In  other  words,  without  any  duty  on  the  raw  material,  or  any 
protective  duty  on  your  goods,  could  you  compete  in  this  market  with 
the  European  goods? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  we  could  compete  in  the  mar- 
kets of  the  world. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  Of  course  you  are  aware  that  there  is  a drawback  on  all  goods 
exported  which  are  manufactured  of  foreign  materials? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
but  it  would  not  pay  us  to  attempt  to  collect  that. 

Q.  If  you  pay  a duty  on  your  imported  material,  and  manufacture  it 
into  articles  and  exjiort  them,  you  are  entitled  to  a drawback  to  the 
amount  of  the  duty  paid  on  the  raw  material. — A.  Yes ; but  that  would 
not  give  us  one  cent  back.  When  we  sent  our  goods  to  England  during 
the  war  we  never  received  a cent  of  drawback. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  ask  for  it,  or  else  your  goods  were  composed  of 
American  material. — A.  The  custom-house  officers  would  not  discrimi- 
nate in  our  favor  at  all.  We  endeavored  to  get  that  drawback,  and 
petitioned  for  it,  but  never  received  anything. 

Q.  Did  you  claim  that  the  goods  were  made  exclusively  of  imported 
articles  on  which  a duty  had  been  paid? — A.  We  did  that;  but  they 
said  we  paid  the  duty  in  labor;  and  then  again  this  difficulty  came  in, 
that  we  were  then  using  some  of  the  American  canvas  made  on  the 
patent  loom;  and  that  shut  us  out. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Very  well;  that  was  the  reason.  The  law 
provides  that  you  shall  receive  a certain  drawback  for  the  duty  that 
you  pay  on  the  raw  material  when  the  manufactured  article  is  made  ex- 
clusively of  imported  material.  But,  as  you  state  the  case,  Ido  not 
see  that  you  were  entitled  to  the  drawback. 

The  Witness.  We  could  not  swear,  in  point  of  fact,  whether  the 
goods  were  made  on  American  or  foreign  canvas. 


JOHN  LAPSLEY.  J 


FLOOR-CLOTH. 


363 


JOHN  LAPSLEY. 

Lono  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  9, 1882. 

Mr.  John  Lapsley,  representing  D.  Powers  & Son,  of  Lansingburg, 
N.  Y.,  manufacturers  of  floor  oilcloth,  made  the  following  statement : 

The  facts  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  our  business  as  affected  by  the 
tariff  are  simply  these : The  articles  used  in  the  manufacture  of  floor 
oilcloths  were,  in  the  present  tariff*,  made  to  pay  a very  heavy  rate  of 
duty,  for  the  reason  that  at  the  time  the  law  was  passed  the  govern- 
ment needed  a very  large  revenue,  and  at  that  time  these  goods  would 
stand  it.  Of  course,  Cougress  did  not  take  into  consideration  our  inter- 
ests as  manufacturers  at  all,  as  they  did  in  many  other  cases,  and  there- 
fore these  duties,  which  are  all  very  heavy,  have  been,  as  it  were,  a dead 
weight  on  our  trade.  In  the  prosperous  times  of  the  war,  and  immedi- 
ately succeeding  the  war,  we  did  not  feel  these  burdens  very  much;  but 
now  when  we  are  coming  down  to  very  small  margins  and  there  is  a 
keen  competition  existing,  so  much  so  that  we  are  shut  out  entirely 
from  all  the  markets  of  the  world  where  we  formerly  had  a trade,  we 
find  that  the  tariff  law  has  a very  injurious  effect  upon  our  business. 
We  therefore  bring  this  matter  to  your  notice,  hoping  that  this  injustice 
may  be  rectified  and  you  may  be  able  to  recommend  such  relief  as  will 
be  just  and  fair,  and  at  the  same  time  give  to  our  business  the  needed 
protection.  It  would  occupy  too  much  of  your  time  to-day  to  go  into 
details  and  state  all  we  should  like  in  regard  to  the  workings  of  our 
business.  But  we  desire  to  lay  the  principal  facts  before  you  so  that 
you  may  act  upon  this  matter  with  full  knowledge.  I think  the  Commis- 
sion will  see  the  iujustice  of  taxing  so  heavily  these  materials  which  we 
are  obliged  to  use,  thereby  enhancing  the  cost  of  the  domestic  as  well 
as  of  the  imported  article,  because  the  domestic  manufacture  is  gov- 
erned entirely  by  the  prices  of  the  foreign  manufacturers.  If  we  could 
get  free  raw  materials,  or  anything  approaching  it,  we  could  compete 
with  other  nations  in  supplying  the  markets  of  the  world.  This  is  what 
we  ask  your  Commission  to  do  for  us. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Do  you  include  in  your  statement  linoleum  ? — Answer.  Yes, 
sir.  All  these  fabrics  are  made  in  this  country,  to  a limited  extent;  but 
they  are  handicapped  by  these  high  duties  on  our  raw  materials. 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  that  a number  of  oilcloth  manufacturers  have 
gone  out  of  the  business.  Has  not  that  partly  been  caused  by  the  fact 
that  there  was  a large  increase  in  the  production  of  lipoleum  in  this 
country? — A.  No,  sir;  not  at  all.  That  particular  branch  of  business 
— the  “wide  goods”  branch — has  been  injured  by  the  importation  of  the 
foreign  article.  The  English  goods  have  come  in  here  in  competition 
with  ours,  and  have  taken  the  place,  to  a very  great  extent,  of  the  do- 
mestic goods,  so  much  so  that  these  concerns  have  given  up  the  business. 
They  were  wealthy  business  concerns,  the  most  of  them  ; but  at  the  pres- 
ent time  Mr.  Brasher  and  ourselves,  and  one  or  two  others,  comprise  all 
the  manufacturers  of  wide  goods  in  this  country.  The  rest  of  the  de- 
mand is  sui^plied  by  the  foreign  article  of  English  manufactured  goods, 


364 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  LAFSLEY. 


and  of  course  they  can  compete  with  us  so  long  as  our  foundations — the 
raw  materials — are  taxed  to  this  enormous  degree,  and  the  manufactured 
article  only  to  a limited  exti  nt. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  What  is  the  cloth  used  as  the  foundation  in  the  manufacture  of 
your  goods  made  from? — A.  It  is  made  from  jute,  and  therefore  I sup- 
pose that  we  really  ought  to  commence  with  free  jute,  so  that  our  man- 
ufacturers here  can  manufacture  this  foundation  to  the  same  advantage 
that  the  English  manufacturer  can.  We  have  to  pay  30  per  cent,  duty 
on  jute.  It  is  a very  bulky  article,  and  the  foundations  are  not  practi- 
cally made  here  at  all.  One  concern  has  a patent  loom  whereby  they 
can  weave  these  goods  better  than  anybody  else,  and  they  have  a lim- 
ited trade  in  that  direction.  But,  with  that  exception,  nobody  attempts 
to  make  the  article  at  all. 

The  total  amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  manufacture  of  floor  oil- 
cloth in  this  country,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  is  about  $6,000,000. 
The  manufactured  article  is  all  consumed  in  this  country,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a few  exportations  to  Cuba,  Mexico,  and  occasionally  to  the 
East  Indies.  We  have  sent  our  goods  frequently  to  Hong-Kong  and 
Yokohama,  but  these  were  peculiar  styles  which  we  make,  and  for  which 
the  people  there  are  willing  to  give  the  extra  prices  that  we  ask  on 
accouut  of  their  style  and  the  superiority  of  the  goods.  But  the  busi- 
ness in  that  direction  is  so  small  that  it  is  hardly  worth  speaking  about. 
We  had  a fair  trade  with  Cuba  and  Mexico;  but  at  present  there  is  only 
a small  export  trade,  and  that  is  gradually  drying  up.  I would  state, 
in  reference  to  this  export  trade,  that  this  article  is  used  all  over  the 
world,  particularly  in  the  South  American  market,  and  Great  Britain 
has  the  entire  control  of  that  trade.  What  little  trade  we  had  abroad 
arose  on  account  of  our  peculiar  styles  of  goods;  but  we  are  shut  out 
from  those  markets  now  by  the  higher  price  we  are  compelled  to  charge, 
and  one  reason  why  we  are  compelled  to  ask  a higher  price  has  already 
been  stated;  that  is,  we  are  handicapped  by  these  very  high  duties  on 
the  raw  materials. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Are  you  not  also  handicapped  by  the  fact  that  freights  from  Great 
Britain  to  the  South  American  ports  are  lower  than  from  the  United 
States  to  the  South  American  ports? — A.  Yes,  to  some  extent;  but  the 
price  is  the  chief  difficulty  in  the  way;  that  is  the  principal  thing. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  is  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in  this  manufacture  in  the 
United  States? — A.  It  must  be  somewhere  about  four  or  five  million 
dollars. 

Q.  What  number  of  operatives  are  employed  in  the  United  States  in 
the  business? — A.  I have  never  investigated  that  subject.  I believe 
Mr.  Brasher  has  all  those  figures.  Our  business  has  declined  now  so 
that  we  only  manufacture  a very  cheap,  common  article,  such  as  is  not 
made  in  foreign  countries  at  all,  and  which  sells  for  a very  low  price. 
The  quantity  which  we  manufacture  of  course  is  much  larger,  but  the 
value  is  less. 


THADDEUS  FIRTH.  | 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


365 


THADDEUS  FIRTH. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  9,  1882. 

Mr.  Thaddeus  Firth,  of  Maspeth,  NT.  Y.,  manufacturer  of  musical 
nstruments,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following 
statement : 

Though  the  industry  for  which  I appear,  that  of  small  musical  mer- 
chandise, particularly  flutes,  fifes,  clarionets,  flageolets,  &c.,  may 
seem  insignificant,  such  would  not  have  been  the  case  had  it  received 
protection  at  a proper  time.  Not  many  years  since,  when  music  in  this 
country  was  in  its  infancy,  the  instruments  named  were  in  higher  favor 
than  the  piano-forte,  and  might  have  remained  so  had  they  received  sim- 
ilar protection  to  that  which  nature  in  our  trying  climate  has  afforded 
the  makers  of  that  instrument  (foreign  pianos  will  not  stand  the  cli- 
matic influences  of  this  country),  and  given  employment  to  great  num- 
bers of  people.  Your  attention  is  directed  to  the  piano  industry  to 
show  what  might  have  been  done  for  the  one  herein  advocated,  by  pro- 
tection. 

The  reasons  I have  to  give  for  the  proposed  change  in  the  tariff  are, 
first,  that  it  would  enable  American  manufacturers  to  successfully  com- 
pete with  foreigners,  give  employment  to  a large  number  of  people,  and 
induce  the  emigration  of  a superior  class  of  mechanics  ; second,  as  the 
manufacture  of  musical  goods  requires  peculiar  skill  and  knowledge  of 
materials  in  order  to  combine  and  suitably  put  them  together,  it  is  an 
aid  in  advancing  other  manufacturing.  Many  manufacturers  of  fine 
work,  either  of  wood  or  metal  or  wood  and  metal  combined,  have  ob- 
tained valuable  knowledge  from  musical  instrument  makers.  Third,  as 
the  superiority  of  the  American  piano  has  caused  advancement  in  music, 
so  the  superiority  of  other  instruments  (all  American  instruments  being 
superior  to  foreign)  will  lead  to  a further  advancement  of  that  science. 
Fourth,  the  practice  of  music  is  healthful,  particularly  on  wind  instru- 
ments, as  it  strengthens  the  lungs  and  invigorates  the  system. 

How  shall  we  encourage  their  manufacture  ? Only  by  placing  the 
business  on  a footing  with  foreign  goods,  either  by  a permanent  pro- 
tective tariff  until  the  market  is  restored  or  by  free  trade  on  all  imported 
articles.  Any  half-way  revenue  tariff  is  ruinous. 

As  a proof  that  protection  would  answer,  attention  is  directed  not 
only  to  the  instance  of  natural  protection  afforded  to  the  piano  trade, 
but  to  the  time  when  gold  was  200  percent,  premium  and  over.  Duties 
were  payable  in  gold,  and  therefore  increased  the  tariff  that  percentage. 
Asa  consequence,  manufacturers  of  many  articles  enjoyed  a prosperity 
such  as  they  never  can  hope  for  again  short  of  prohibitory  tariff,  and 
the  credit  for  this  prosperity  was,  and  is  now,  wrongfully  attributed  to 
the  greenback  currency.  When  this  prosperity  ended  by  gold  return- 
ing to  par,  and  the  business  revulsion  of  1873,  the  demand  for  luxuries 
ceased.  Mechanics  in  our  line  sought  other  employment,  and  some 
of  them,  being  Germans,  returned  to  their  own  country,  and  have  now 
the  same  facilities  that  we  have.  Consequently,  we  can  no  longer  com- 


366 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THADDEUS  FIRTH. 


pete  with  foreign  goods,  as  foreigners  are  using  our  own  inventions, 
with  lower  wages,  to  deprive  us  of  our  own  market ; and  there  is  not  at 
the  present  time  a regularly  organized  factory  operating  in  the  coun- 
try. Such,  1 am  informed,  has  been  the  fate  of  many  industries,  and 
the  highest  protection  therefore  is  required  to  restore  to  us  the  market 
of  our  country  in  many  things.  Should  we  regain  it  again  in  our  line 
for  a few  years,  the  superiority  of  our  goods,  with  the  improved  facilities 
that  an  increased  business  would  warrant,  would  enable  us  to  retain 
the  market  with  but  little  or  no  protection. 

Therefore,  for  my  business,  give  me  either  a protective  tariff  or  free 
trade;  and,  much  as  a general  free  trade  policy  is  to  be  deprecated,  it 
would  in  my  opinion  be  far  better  than  a revenue  tariff  which  would 
cause  high  prices,  and,  as  a consequence,  high  wages,  without  a market 
either  at  home  or  abroad,  whilst  free  trade  might  afford  a possible 
chance  for  a market  of  the  world.  Hence,  if  we  are  to  have  the  great- 
est general  prosperity,  such  as  we  once  had  through  the  indirect  tariff 
which  gold  afforded,  it  must  be  through  protection. 

If  a strictly  revenue  policy  is  adopted,  much  of  American  manufac- 
turing will  be  destroyed  and  the  prices  of  foreign  articles  will  be  increased ; 
for  the  obvious  reason  that  revenue  is  only  obtained  when  imports  are 
admitted,  and  when  such  is  the  case  American  manufacturing  is  pro- 
portionately decreased,  and  foreigners  demand  higher  prices  when  not 
held  in  check  by  American  competition. 

If  a strictly  free  trade  policy  is  adopted,  our  mechanics  will  be  reduced 
to  the  level  of  the  labor  of  Europe,  and  though  we  would  have  a doubt- 
ful chance  in  the  market  of  the  world,  it  would  not  be  so  desirable  as  a 
certain  market  at  home. 

If  a protective  policy  is  inaugurated  on  all  goods  susceptible  of  being 
manufactured  in  this  country,  you  restore  to  the  country  numerous 
industries  driven  from  us  by  force  of  circumstances,  create  others 
equally  important,  induce  the  best  emigration,  obtain  sufficient  revenue 
from  goods  that  cannot  be  produced  here,  and  reduce  prices  by  home 
competition,  until  we  can  successfully  compete  in  the  market  of  the 
world. 


By  the  President  : 

Question.  Do  I understand  you  that  the  manufacture  of  musical  in- 
struments like  these  flutes  and  clarionets  is  not  continued  at  present  in 
this  country? — Answer.  They  are  manufactured  only  to  a very  limited 
extent.  The  Germans  have  the  same  facilities  that  we  had  formerly  in 
the  manufacture.  I have  superior  facilities  now  for  their  manufacture, 
and,  if  I had  the  market  for  a year  or  two,  I could  compete  with  the 
German  manufacturers  successfully.  But  I need  protection,  for  a time 
at  any  rate,  to  enable  me  to  regain  the  market.  The  difficulty  of  man- 
ufacturing small  instruments  like  these  is  greater  than  you  would  prob- 
ably suppose.  You  might  send  me  the  most  capable  machinist  that  you 
could  find,  and  I would  give  him  all  the  necessary  tools  to  manufacture 
them,  and  he  would  not  be  able  to  make  one  of  them  unless  he  had 
previous  experience  in  this  line  of  manufacture. 


JOSEPH  W.  GREEN.] 


ELASTIC  FABRICS. 


367 


JOSEPH  W.  GREEK. 

Long  Branch,  K.  J.,  August  9,  1882. 

Mr.  Joseph  W.  Green,  Jr.,  treasurer  of  the  Glendale  Elastic  Fabric 
Company,  of  East  Hampton,  Mass.,  representing  the  manufacture  of 
elastic  fabrics,  made  the  following  statement : 

The  goods  we  manufacture  are  elastic  fabrics,  and  consist  of  such 
articles  as  elastic  goring  or  webbing  for  boots,  shoes,  and  other  pur- 
poses, suspender  webbing,  suspenders,  narrow  elastic  woven  fabrics, 
such  as  loom  webs,  car  webs,  &c.  They  are  union  goods.  One  kind  is 
pomposed  of  silk,  cotton,  and  rubber,  another  of  cotton  and  rubber, 
and  another  of  wool,  worsted,  mohair  or  similar  yarns,  cotton  and  rub- 
ber. These  three  kinds  of  stock  run  through  all  the  fabrics  in  all  the 
different  varieties. 

The  present  rates  of  duties  on  these  classes  of  goods  are  as  follows  : 
On  elastic  goring  or  webbing  for  boots,  shoes,  and  other  purposes,  com- 
posed of  cotton  and  rubber,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  the  same  goods, 
composed  of  silk,  cotton,  and  rubber,  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  the 
same  goods,  composed  of  wool,  worsted,  mohair,  or  similar  yarns,  cot- 
ton, and  rubber,  50  cents  per  pound  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on 
elastic  cords,  braids,  and  narrow  elastic  woven  fabrics  composed  of  cot- 
ton and  rubber,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  elastic  cords,  braids,  and 
narrow  elastic  woven  fabrics  composed  of  silk,  cotton,  and  rubber,  50  per 
cent,  ad  valorem ; on  elastic  braces,  suspenders,  suspender  webbing  com- 
posed of  cotton  and  rubber,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; on  the  same  goods 
composed  of  silk,  cotton,  and  rubber,  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  the 
same,  composed  of  wool,  worsted,  mohair  or  similar  yarns,  cotton  and 
rubber,  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  35  cents  per  pound. 

Our  industry  has  been  in  a specially  precarious  position  from  the 
ambiguous  terms  used  to  specify  or  not  to  specify  our  goods  in  the  pres- 
ent tariff.  And  as  a result,  ours  has  been  a very  fertile  field  for  sharp 
or  shrewd  lawyers  desiring  to  build  up  a profit  for  themselves  and  im- 
porters of  foreign  fabrics  by  instituting  proceedings  against  the  govern- 
ment, causing  decisions  to  be  made  reducing  duties  and  allowing  draw- 
backs or  refunds  bn  no  less  than  three  of  our  fabrics,  viz,  suspender 
webbing,  silk,  cotton,  and  rubber  shoe  webbing,  and  wool  or  worsted, 
cotton,  and  rubber,  owing  to  the  vague  wording  of  clauses  in  the  tariff*. 
Our  industry  has  been  built  up  on  the  protection  named.  But  wliat 
we  desire  is  a relative  protection  now  in  proportion  to  other  goods  made 
of  similar  materials. 

At  various  times  during  the  last  few  years  there  have  been  importers 
who  have  protested  against  the  rate  of  duties  charged,  and  lawyers 
who  have  worked  in  their  interest  have  carried  the  cases  through  the 
regular  process  to  enable  them  to  obtain  what  they  considered  their  law- 
ful rights.  First,  they  have  been  referred  to  the  appraiser,  then  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  and  in  each  case  it  was  decided  in  favor  of 
the  government,  and  we  finally  have  carried  the  cases  into  the  courts. 
Some  of  the  cases  have  been  decided  in  the  lower  courts  against  us,  and 
some  for  us.  Of  three  notable  cases,  the  first  was  in  regard  to  sus- 


368 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  W.  GREEN. 


pencler  webbing,  which  case  came  up  in  New  York  City.  That  was  not 
a case  of  ours,  but,  at  all  events,  it  was  decided  finally  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  that  the  goods  should  come  in  at  a 35  per 
cent,  duty,  whereas  before  they  had  paid  a duty  of  50  per  cent.  Our 
own  individual  case,  the  first  one,  was  in  regard  to  union  webbing, 
spoken  of  here  as  shoe  goring,  or  webbing,  in  which  the  article  of  chief 
value  was  silk.  There  were  also  cotton  and  rubber  in  the  goods.  In 
the  lower  court,  which  was  the  district  court  in  Boston,  Judge  Lowell 
decided  in  favor  of  the  government  and  against  the  manufacturers. 
That  case  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
there  the  judgment  was  reversed.  The  last  case  which  we  had  was  a 
case  of  worsted  webbing,  or  goring,  on  which  our  protection  is  50  cents 
a pound  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  ground  that  the  importers 
and  their  counsel  took  was  that  the  goods  should  be  admitted  at  35  per 
cent,  duty,  instead  of  50  per  cent.  In  that  case,  which  came  up  in  the 
United  States  district  court  in  Boston,  under  the  same  judge  (Judge 
Lowell),  he  decided  against  the  government  and  in  favor  of  the  manu- 
facturers; vffiereas  in  the  former  case  he  decided  in  favor  of  the  gov- 
ernment. That  case  is  now  carried  up  to  the  Supreme  Court.  It  has 
not  yet  come  up  before  the  Supreme  Court,  and  I presume  that  it  will 
not  at  present.  But  the  difference  there  is  quite  marked.  It  amounts 
to  fully  20  cents  a yard,  and  if  the  case  is  successful  it  would  of  course 
ruin  our  industry  completely  in  that  particular  branch  of  the  business. 

But  the  point  which  I want  specially  to  make  is,  that  we  have  no  com- 
plaint to  make  or  fault  to  find  about  the  rate  of  duty  under  which  we 
have  been  protected,  and  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  stand  any  reduc- 
tion which  is  in  proportion  to  reductions  made  in  other  directions.  All 
we  ask  is  that  we  shall  be  put  on  the  same  footing  with  others,  and 
that  we  shall  know  exactly  what  our  status  is.  We  want  our  case  to 
be  stated  so  clearly  in  the  new  tariff  that  there  can  be  no  doubt,  when 
the  question  comes  up,  as  to  what  the  rate  is.  The  difficulty  seems  to 
have  been  that  our  goods  were  not  mentioned  clearly  and  fully  in  the 
original  tariff',  or  in  the  revision  in  1875.  I suppose  there  was  a reason 
for  that.  In  the  first  place,  the  goods  have  not  been  manufactured  a 
great  many  years.  This  is  comparatively  a new  industry,  although  it 
has  grown  very  materially  during  the  last  eight  or  ten  years.  Yet,  when 
the  tariff  under  which  the  duties  have  been  charged  was  first  in  force, 
our  industry  was  a very  small  one,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  we  should 
have  been  partially  overlooked.  We  have  been  classed  in  with  “web- 
bing,” which  may  mean  a great  many  different  things.  That  word 
“webbing”  has  always  been  the  word  on  which  the  doubt  has  seemed 
to  exist  as  to  just  what  it  meant,  as  to  whether  it  should  include  shoe 
goring  or  not.  We  call  it  in  our  business,  and  have  always  called  it, 
goring,  because  it  is  used  for  a gore  in  the  shoe,  and  it  seems  to  us  that 
it  is  a much  more  proper  name  for  it  than  to  call  it  webbing,  which  may 
mean  almost  anything. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Have  you  with  you  a piece  of  the  fabric  of  which  you  are 
speaking? — Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I have;  and  I will  show  it  to  the  Com- 
mission at  the  close  of  my  statement.  We  do  not  ask  any  addition  in 
the  rate  of  protection  to  that  upon  which  we  started  our  industry,  and 
on  the  faith  of  which  we  put  our  capital  into  the  business. 

Q.  In  short,  you  want  the  rates  of  duty  maintained  which  were  under- 
stood to  exist  at  the  time  when  you  commenced  your  business  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 


JOSEPH  W.  GREEN.] 


ELASTIC  FABRICS. 


369 


Q.  Your  case  is  something  like  the  case  of  the  knit-goods  manufact- 
urers, is  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir 5 it  is  very  similar  to  the  knit-goods  case. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Will  you  please  furnish  us  with  the  technical  terms  that  you  pre- 
fer to  have  employed  in  the  tariff  in  designating  the  articles  you  manu- 
facture?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I will  give  the  Commission  a memorandum  on 
that  point.  There  has  been  great  difficulty  owing  to  the  ambiguous 
terms  used  in  respect  to  webbing.  I really  do  not  know  what  the  com- 
mercial name  properly  is.  The  manufacturers  of  elastic  shoe  webbing 
in  Leicester,  England,  call  this  “elastic  webbing.”  There  is  a firm  of 
T.  W.  Hodges  & Sons  in  England  who  call  themselves  “elastic-webbing 
manufacturers,”  and  the  great  bulk  of  the  manufactures  which  they 
have  exported  to  this  country,  in  years  past,  has  been  elastic  shoe  goring, 
or  webbing. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  extent  of  this  manufacture  in  this  country  gen- 
erally?— A.  Including  the  item  of  shoe  goring,  I should  say  it  would 
amount  to  at  least  $500,000;  and  including  the  suspender  webbing  and 
suspenders,  it  would  be  very  much  larger.  The  industry  altogether  is 
a very  large  one. 

H.  Mis.  6 24 


370 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[8.  8.  SARGENT. 


S.  S.  SABGENT. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  S.  S.  Sargent,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  representing  the  Sargent  Man- 
ufacturing Company,  manufacturers  of  saddlery  hardware,  made  the 
following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : I heartily  indorse 
what  has  been  said  on  the  subject  of  duties  on  saddlery  hardware  by 
the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me.  Our  company  does  not  manu- 
facture the  same  class  of  goods  manufactured  by  other  factories  rep- 
resented by  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  to  you,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  we  found  the  profit  was  so  small  in  the  commoner  lines  of 
goods  that  we  gave  up  that  branch  of  the  business.  Formerly  we  did 
manufacture  some  of  these  goods,  but  the  prices  became  reduced  to 
such  a point  that  we  concluded  to  abandon  their  manufacture,  and  we 
have  to-day  a large  stock  of  some  of  these  goods  which  we  are  hold- 
ing, hoping  that  prices  may  advance  so  that  we  can  dispose  of  them. 
If  we  sold  them  at  the  prices  ruling  to-day,  we  should  have  to  sell  them 
at  cost  or  a trifle  under  cost.  If  any  change  at  all  is  made  in  the 
tariff,  I should  recommend  that  the  present  rate  be  advanced  at  least 
5 or  10  per  cent.,  for  the  reason  that  on  the  class  of  goods  made  by  the 
company  which  I represent,  hand  labor  is  employed  to  a very  large  ex- 
tent. They  are  the  finer  grades  of  goods,  and  the  difference  in  the  price 
of  labor  here  and  abroad  is  so  great  that  if  the  present  rate  of  duty 
was  reduced  the  foreign  manufacturers  could  bring  their  goods  in  here 
and  undersell  us  without  difficulty.  They  do  so  now  to  a certain  extent, 
but  if  the  duty  should  be  reduced,  the  importations  would  be  largely 
increased.  So  that  I wish  to  be  recorded  as  requesting  an  advance 
rather  than  a reduction  in  the  present  tariff. 


D.  MCKEEVER.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


371 


D.  McKEEVEE. 

Long  Branch,  IT.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  D.  McKeever,  of  New  York,  importer  of  dry  goods,  made  tiie 
following  statement: 

My  object  in  appearing  before  the  Commission  this  morning  is  not  so 
much  to  offer  suggestions  in  regard  to  reductions  in  the  tariff* on  the  goods 
we  are  interested  in,  as  to  request  that  you  will  endeavor  to  have  more 
equitable  rates  of  duty  imposed;  that  you  will  endeavor  to  remove  many 
of  the  absurdities  and  ambiguities  that  exist  in  the  present  tariff*.  We 
feel,  although  we  are  importers,  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  en- 
titled to  a certain  amount  of  protection,  that  is,  to  fair  protection.  We 
think  that  he  should  have  his  raw  materials  free  as  far  as  he  possibly 
can  get  them,  and  that  the  difference  in  wages  between  the  two  countries 
should  be  offset  by  giving  him  a fair  protection.  We  import  cotton 
goods,  stuff*  goods,  and  woolens.  As  tar  as  cotton  goods  are  concerned, 
it  is  a general  impression  that  they  pay  a duty  of  85  per  cent.  But  the 
cotton-goods  section  of  the  tariff  is  one  of  the  most  ambiguous  of  any 
of  the  provisions  of  the  tariff  act.  The  rates  are  various,  running  from 
25  to  100  per  cent,  on  manufactures  of  cotton.  The  present  rates  are 
both  ad  valorem  and  specific,  separate  and  together.  We  would  sug- 
gest that  the  duty  on  cotton  cloths  be  changed  so  as  to  make  any  man- 
ufacture of  cotton,  or  of  which  cotton  is  the  component  part  of  chief 
value,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  We  think  that  if  the  American  manu- 
facturer got  his  material  free,  that  would  offset  the  difference  in  wages 
between  the  two  countries. 

At  present  the  duty  on  linens  is  30,  35,  and  40  per  cent.  If  a manu- 
facture of  cotton  has  a little  linen  in  it,  it  only  pays  at  present  40  per 
cent.,  whereas  if  it  was  all  cotton  it  would  make  tbe  duty  close  on  to  100 
per  cent.  We  think  that  the  whole  thiug  should  read  that  all  manufac- 
tures of  cotton  and  flax  should  pay  one  uniform  rate  of  duty  of  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 

We  are  also  interested  in  stuff  goods,  known  more  familiarly  as  dress 
goods,  alpacas,  and  materials  for  ladies,  and  chiklreifs  dress  goods.  The 
present  rate  of  duties  on  these  goods  is  exorbitant,  and  prohibitory  in 
very  many  instances.  We  think  that  if  the  American  manufacturer 
can  receive  his  dye  stuffs  and  his  raw  materials  free,  which  he  is  cer- 
tainly entitled  to,  that  would  be  in  itself  a great  protection.  According 
to  my  experience,  if  the  American  manufacturer  can  receive  his  wools, 
dye-stuffs,  and  everything  that  goes  into  his  manufacture,  free,  a rate  of 
35  or  40  per  cent,  would  be  a fair  and  equitable  rate  of  duty.  The  rates 
at  present,  consisting  of  ad  valorem  and  specific  duties,  affect  very  inju- 
riously all  the  lower  grades  of  goods,  that  is  to  say,  goods  such  as  the 
mechanic  or  the  farmer  and  workingman  needs.  Such  goods  have  to 
pay  a duty  of  80  to  100  per  cent.,  whereas  the  finer  grades,  which  he 
cannot  afford  to  touch,  would  not  pay  a duty  equal  to  40  or  50  per  cent. 
So  that  if  the  rates  were  all  made  uniform  it  would  equalize  the  matter 
and  be  fairer  towards  all  parties. 

We  are  also  interested  in  the  importation  of  manufactured  wroolens. 
I suppose  the  gentlemen  of  the  Commission  are  all  aware  that  the  duties 


372 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[D.  MCKEE VER. 


on  woolen  goods  are  very  heavy,  for  the  reason  that  they  are  ad  valorem 
and  specific,  the  specific  rates  being  50  cents  a pound,  which  keeps  out 
all  the  lower  grades  of  woolens.  The  importers  have  to  pay  a rather 
high  duty  on  the  goods,  but  1 think  175  to  200  percent,  protection  is 
more  than  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  should  ask.  We  do  not 
see  why  any  workingman  or  farmer  cannot  get  his  heavy,  cheap  stuff 
in  at  40  to  50  per  cent.,  which  is  about  the  rate  that  is  paid  for  the 
higher  quality  of  goods  that  we  use.  We  suggest  that  the  specific  rate 
be  stricken  off  the  manufacture  of  woolens  and  an  ad  valorem  duty  put 
upon  them. 

in  regard  to  the  subject  of  specific  duties  rather  than  ad  valorem 
duties,  as  far  as  our  experience  enables  us  to  judge,  we  think  that  the 
specific  rates  should  be  removed  altogether.  A specific  rate  is  not  a 
fair  rate  of  duty;  that  is  to  say;  it  discriminates  against  the  poorer 
consumer.  Any  specific  rates  of  duty  imposed  must  necessarily  op- 
press the  poorer  classes  who  use  the  coarser  grades  of  goods.  It  has 
been  claimed,  I know,  that  a specific  rate  of  duty  has  a tendency  to  pre- 
vent frauds  upon  the  revenue,  but  it  is  my  opinion  that  if  a custom- 
house examiner  can  be  induced  to  shut  his  eyes  to  the  fact  as  to 
whether  an  article  cost  10  or  20  francs,  he  can  also  be  induced  to  shut 
his  eyes  to  the  fact  as  to  whether  it  weighs  10  or  20  pounds,  or  as  to 
the  number  of  yards  contained  in  the  package.  If  the  duty  is  assessed 
on  goods  by  the  yard,  they  can  easily  be  undervalued  by  a misstate- 
ment of  the  quantity.  So  that  specific  rates  are  really  injurious  to  the 
lower  grades  of  goods,  ox>pressive  to  the  workingman  and  farmer,  and 
should,  we  think,  be  removed. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Question.  I understand  that  your  business  is  that  of  an  importer? — 
Answer.  Yes,  sir;  we  are  importers  of  dry  goods. 

Q.  You  are  not  concerned  in  any  manufacturing  establishment? — A. 
Ho,  sir. 

Q.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  you  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  home 
and  foreign  valuations.  Do  you  think  that  the  home  valuation  or  tbe 
foreign  valuation  is  the  proper  standard  of  assessing  duties? — A.  If  I 
may  be  permitted  to  state  it  strongly,  I would  say  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  a home  valuation,  that  is  if  you  mean  by  that  the  American  valua- 
tion, and  there  can  never  be  such  a thing  as  an  American  valuation. 
We  import  goods  to-day  that  cost  us  26  cents,  including  the  duty,  aud 
we  call  that  the  American  valuation,  aud  we  try  to  sell  them  at  27  cents. 
Our  neighbor,  who  may  be  overstocked  with  these  goods  and  who  has 
other  reasons  for  selling,  will  offer  these  same  goods  at,  say,  22J  cents, 
or  even  a lower  price.  How  can  we  get  the  true  American  valuation 
under  these  circumstances  ? Such  a thing  does  not  exist. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Would  there  not  be,  possibly,  the  same  variation  in  values  abroad 
that  occurs  here ; that  is  to  say,  may  not  a manufacturer  there  be  over- 
stocked, and  as  a consequence  sell  out  at  much  less  than  the  cost  price  ? — 
A.  No,  sir.  Our  experience  shows  that  the  English  manufacturer  con- 
ducts his  business  on  a different  basis  from  the  American  manufacturer. 
In  the  first  place,  he  has  more  of  a market  to  supply;  that  is  to  say,  he 
has  the  world  before  him,  and  he  does  not  consequently  become  over- 
stocked so  readily  as  his  American  brother.  If  the  American  manu- 
facturer had  the  raw  materials  he  would  not  be  overstocked  so  much 
either. 


D.  MCKEE  VER.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


373 


By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  The  manufacturer  in  Europe  sends  an  agent  here  and  he  consigns 
his  goods  to  that  agent.  He  has  a monopoly  of  the  manufacture  of  that 
particular  class  of  goods,  and  when  he  consigns  them  to  that  agent,  he 
puts  any  value  that  he  sees  proper  on  them,  and  we  never  can  get 
behind  that  valuation,  because  there  is  no  one  but  the  man  who  sends 
them  here  to  fix  the  price,  and  he  fixes  the  price  to  suit  his  own  pur- 
poses. Does  not  that  condition  of  things  exist? — A.  Yes,  sir,  it  does 
to  a certain  extent  in  regard  to  certain  articles,  particularly  in  regard 
to  kid  gloves.  But  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  if  the  examiner  here  is 
a proper  officer,  he  can  tell  the  value  of  those  goods  in  comparison  with 
other  goods  that  are  coming  in  here  that  are  not  exactly  consigned  by 
this  special  man.  Take  the  article  of  kid  gloves  ; if  a kid  glove  impor- 
tation comes  here,  it  is  of  a certain  quality,  consigned  by  this  man  to 
his  agent.  The  examiner  has  dozens  of  invoices  of  other  gloves,  prop- 
erly invoiced,  of  equal  value,  and  he  can,  according  to  his  own  judg- 
ment, put  a proper  value  on  these  goods. 

Q.  We  cannot  predicate  legislation  on  the  fact  that  the  officer  is  not 
an  honest  man.  We  always  take  the  ground  that  the  inspector  is 
honest,  no  matter  what  system  we  adopt.  If  you  leave  the  man  to  put 
the  value  on  his  goods,  he  will  necessarily  put  them  at  the  lowest  possi- 
ble value,  in  order  to  pay  a less  amount  of  duty  upon  them.  Of  course 
the  foreign  manufacturer  would  be  in  a position  to  exercise  that  right 
of  putting  his  own  value  on  the  goods. — A.  You  are  quite  right  in  sup- 
posing that  the  manufacturer  will  put  his  goods  in  at  the  lowest  possi- 
ble valuation ; but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  officers  to  see  that 
the  manufacturers  do  not  put  their  goods  in  at  too  low  a rate. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  think  the  government  officers  are 
able  to  detect  every  attempt  at  undervaluation? — A.  That  would  be 
rather  a broad  assertion,  if  I should  say  that  they  detected  every  at- 
tempt, but  I think  there  are  very  few  cases  of  undervaluation  that  the 
government  officers  do  not  look  after  and  investigate.  I do  not  know 
whether  it  would  be  in  the  province  of  your  Commission,  or  whether  it 
would  have  anything  to  do  in  the  formation  of  a tariff  bill,  but  there 
is  one  fact  in  connection  with  the  matter  of  the  inspection  of  these  goods 
by  custom-house  officers  in  New  York  that  I may  be  allowed  to  refer  to, 
and  that  is,  that,  as  a rule,  these  men  are  decidedly  underpaid.  We 
think  that  if  the  government  would  pay  these  men  proper  salaries  for 
their  services,  there  would  be  very  much  less  danger  of  importers 
getting  in  their  goods  at  an  undervaluation.  It  seems  almost  absurd 
for  the  government  to  appoint  men  to  these  responsible  positions,  where 
there  is  so  much  at  stake,  and  yet  give  them  such  paltry  salaries  as 
they  receive.  1 think  the  usual  salary  paid  to  these  expert  officers  is 
only  about  $2,500  a year. 

Q.  Then  I understand  you  that  it  is  your  opinion  that  there  are  very 
few  successful  attempts  at  undervaluation  ? — A.  That  is  so,  according 
to  my  experience.  Of  course  I have  no  official  information  upon  that 
subject,  but  am  only  speaking  of  what  I have  heard  and  seen  of  such 
things,  when  I say  that  I think  there  are  not  many  successful  attempts 
at  undervaluation. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Are  you  aware  whether  the  importers  in  your  line  in  New  York 
have  ever  made  complaint  that  a different  valuation  is  put  on  goods  im- 


374 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[D.  MCK.EEVEU. 


ported  at  different  ports ; that  is  to  say,  that  one  value  is  put  upon  them 
at  the  port  of  New  York,  another  at  the  port  of  Boston,  another  at  Bal- 
timore, Philadelphia,  Chicago,  and  other  places? — A.  Yes,  sir;  there 
was  a question  of  that  kind  came  up  a few  years  ago  in  regard  to  cotton 
Italians.  We  were  paying  at  that  time  a rate  of  duty  equal  to  about  00 
per  cent.,  and  we  understood  that  they  were  admitted  into  Chicago  at 
35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Q.  But  I am  speaking  of  cases  where  the  duty  is  fixed,  and  you  are 
alluding  to  cases  where  it  comes  in  on  the  question  of  classification.  I 
am  speaking  of  cases  where  there  is  no  question  about  the  classification 
of  the  goods,  but  only  in  regard  to  valuation? — A.  I could  not  answer 
that,  except  to  say  that  I have  never  heard  of  anything  of  that  kind. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  general  understanding  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of 
every  reputable  importer  to  assist,  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  the  govern- 
ment officers  in  detecting  frauds  in  regard  to  the  valuation  of  goods; 
is  it  not  to  their  interest  as  importers? — A.  Most  decidedly  it  is  to  their 
interest.  If  we  import  goods  on  which  we  pay  according  to  the  invoice 
100  cents  on  the  dollar,  and  50  cents  duty,  it  is  our  interest  to  see  that 
nobody  else  can  get  the  same  class  of  goods  in  at  a total  cost  of  $1.25. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  My  question  was  directed  to  that  same  point; 
that  it  is  your  interest  to  see  that  the  valuation  on  goods  imported  by 
other  parties  is  the  same  as  on  goods  imported  by  yourself,  whether 
the  valuation  is  placed  upon  them  in  Baltimore,  or  Charleston,  or  New 
York. — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  for  our  interest  to  see  that  that  is  done. 


SAMUEL  T.  SNOW.] 


METAL  SHEATHING. 


375 


SAMUEL  T.  SNOW. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  Samuel  T.  Snow,  of  Boston,  Mass.,  treasurer  of  the  Revere 
Copper  Company,  made  the  following  statement : 

In  presenting  our  case,  which  concerns  the  yellow-metal  manulacturers 
alone,  we  desire  first  of  all  to  have  it  distinctly  understood  that  we  do  not 
in  any  way  propose  to  disturb  any  other  interest  whatever.  We  do  not 
appear  as  high  protectionists,  or  for  the  purpose  of  advocating  protec- 
tion in  the  least,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  as  favoring  free  trade — neither 
one  nor  the  other  policy — but  simply  and  solely  to  urge,  as  we  have 
never  for  a moment  in  the  past  ten  years  ceased  doing,  that  a palpable 
error  and  gross  incongruity  in  the  present  tariff  may  be  corrected.  And 
we  have  a right  to  expect  that  it  will  be,  as  every  committee  before 
whom  the  matter  has  been  brought,  and  every  individual  member  of 
Congress  also,  has  acknowledged  the  wrong,  and  promised  that,  when- 
ever an  opportunity  were  presented  in  any  adjustment  of  duties,  this 
should  certainly  be  set  right.  And  now,  more  than  any  other  body, 
this  Commission  should  present  the  subject  in  its  true  light. 

We  assume,  of  coarse,  that  the  Commission  understand  the  mixture 
of  which  yellow  metal  is  the  product.  It  consists  finally  of  six  parts  ot 
copper  and  four  parts  of  spelter.  A larger  proportion  of  spelter  is 
necessarily  used  to  provide  for  the  inevitable  wastage  which  takes  place 
in  the  process. 

By  the  act  of  June  6,  1872,  section  10,  it  was  provided  that  certain 
enumerated  materials,  including  “ copper  and  composition  metal,”  neces- 
sary for  the  construction  and  equipment  of  vessels  built  in  the  United 
States  for  the  purpose  of  being  employed  in  the  foreign  trade,  could  be 
used  in  bond  without  the  payment  of  any  duty  thereon  ; and,  further, 
that  all  articles  of  foreign  production  needed  for  the  repair  of  American 
vessels  engaged  exclusively  in  foreign  trade  might  also  be  so  used. 

At  the  same  time  a duty  of  3 to  5 cents  per  pound  on  copper,  accord- 
ing to  condition,  and  of  1J  cents  per  pound  on  spelter  was  allowed  to 
remain,  and  has  been  unchanged  since. 

The  Treasury  Department  ruled  that  “ copper”  in  the  act  meant  copper 
in  any  form  required,  and  that  u composition  metal”  must  also  be  under- 
stood as  meaning  “yellow  metal  ” in  any  form  wanted  by  the  ship- 
builder. The  department  also  ruled  that  it  was  intended  to  permit 
vessels  repairing  under  this  act  to  engage  in  the  trade  between  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  ports  of  the  United  States,  as  had  been  allowed  for 
new  vessels,  and  accordingly  that  was  done.  These  rulings  were  legal- 
ized by  section  5 of  the  act  of  February  8,  1875. 

We  make  no  special  mention  of  copper  manufactures,  because  their  use 
for  vessels  is  now  so  exceedingly  rare.  The  use  of  yellow  metal  has 
almost  universally  supplanted  the  use  of  copper. 

In  the  first  place,  it  never  was  intended  that  anything  more  than  the 
raw  materials  should  be  admitted  free  of  duty  for  these  purposes.  By 
turning  to  Mr.  Lynch’s  committee’s  report  on  this  very’  subject,  made  to 
the  Forty-first  Congress,  second  session,  Doc.  II.  R.  No.  28,  it  will  be 
found  that  the  committee  took  that  ground  clearly  and  distinctly,  and 


376 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[SAMUEL  T.  SNOW. 


proposed  as  the  method  to  revive  the  interest  of  American  tonnage  that 
a drawback  on  raw  materials  so  imported  and  used  should  be  allowed. 
And  the  bill  introduced  by  it  at  that  time  begins  with  the  same  enume- 
ration as  the  one  finally  passed,  excepting  only  that  the  word  “ copper” 
was  afterward  added.  It  will  be  observed,  too,  that  in  this  last  act  “ lum- 
ber, timber,  hemp,  manila,  copper,  and  composition  metal”  are  all  alike 
raw  material.  Lumber  does  not  mean  finished  work,  timber  does  not 
mean  a completed  vessel,  hemp  and  manila  do  not  mean  cordage,  nor 
do  copper  and  composition  metal  mean  sheathing  or  bar  any  more  than 
any  other  lorm  of  their  manufacture.  When  anything  more  than  the 
raw  material  was  intended  it  was  so  stated,  as,  for  instance,  “ iron  and 
steel  rods,  bars,  spikes,  nails,  and  bolts,”  in  the  same  enumeration. 
And  it  has  always  seemed  to  us  that  the  Treasury  Department,  instead 
of  being  prompt  to  rule  against  the  manufacturer  in  this  country,  should 
have  rather  leaned  the  other  way ; and,  further,  should  have  decided,  if 
looking  for  intentions  at  all,  that  in  the  second  part  of  the  act  “articles 
of  foreign  production”  were  also  only  raw  materials.  To  be  consistent 
with  the  purpose  originally  manifest,  and  with  the  clear  reading  of  the 
first  part,  no  manufactured  article  should  have  been  used. 

This  position,  so  far  as  the  intention  was  concerned,  is  fully  stated  in 
a report  made  by  Mr.  Frye,  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  to 
the  Forty-sixth  Congress,  second  session,  Report  No.  1261,  in  which 
this  subject  is  thus  set  forth : 

“ The  purpose  of  this  bill  is  to  correct  an  incongruity  in  the  existing 
tariff  laws,  whereby  a manufactured  article,  yellow-metal  sheathing,  is 
admitted  free  of  duty,  while  the  raw  materials  composing  it,  copper  and 
spelter,  are  required  to  pay  a duty.  The  effect  of  the  piesent  law  is  a 
discrimination  against  our  own  citizens  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
sheathing  metal,  and  in  favor  of  the  foreign  manufacturer.  This  result, 
which  is  in  conflict  with  the  spirit  of  the  existing  laws,  comes  from  an 
oversight  in  legislation,  and  which  your  committee  believe  was  never 
intended.  It  has  not  been  the  purpose  of  Congress  to  make  our  mar- 
kets free  to  the  foreign  manufacturers,  and  tax  those  in  this  country  en- 
gaged in  the  same  industry  with  a duty  upon  the  raw  materials  neces- 
sarily entering  into  the  product.  A competition  of  this  kind,  created 
by  law,  is  unfair  to  our  citizens,  and  could  end  only  in  the  destruction 
of  their  manufacturing  enterprises. 

“ The  provisions  of  law  which  work  this  hardship,  and  which  are  sought 
by  this  bill  to  be  remedied,  are  found  in  Revised  Statutes,  sections 23 13 
and  2514,  which  were  enacted  June  6,  1872,  and  a part  of  section  5 of 
the  act  of  February  8,  1875  (Forty-third  Congress,  second  session,  ch. 
36,  sec.  5). 

“A  brief  historical  statement  of  this  legislation  will  explain  how  the 
error  occurred  which  is  now  sought  to  be  corrected. 

“On  the  17th  of  February,  1870,  a special  committee  on  the  causes 
of  the  reduction  of  American  tonnage  reported  to  the  House  that  one 
remedy  was  ‘the  remission  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  the  rate  material 
entering  into  the  construction  of  vessels  and  steamers,  limiting  the 
amount  to  the  minimum  of  duties  per  ton  collected  on  the  material  re- 
quired for  certain  classes  of  vessels,  and  where  American  iron  is  used 
in  the  construction  of  iron  vessels,  an  amount  per  ton  equivalent  to  the 
duties  on  a like  amount  of  imported  raw  materials,  limiting  the  amount 
to  be  paid.’  The  bill  offered  by  the  committee  provided  ‘that  upon  all 
imported  lumber,  timber,  hemp,  manila,  and  composition  metal,  and  upon 
iron  not  advanced  beyond  plates,  rod,  bars,  and  bolts,  which  may  be 
used  or  wrought  up  into  the  construction  of  steam  or  sail  vessels,  * * # 


METAL  SHEATHING. 


SAMUEL  T.  SNOW.] 


377 


drawbacks  shall  be  allowed  # * * equal  to  the  duties  which  may  have 
been  paid  on  such  materials.7 

“ This  bill  and  the  suggestions  of  the  committee  obviously  were  intended 
to  protect  manufacturers,  while  at  the  same  time  the  shipping  interests 
were  aided.  The  bill  carefully  limited  the  right  of  drawback  on  metals 
to  ‘ composition  metal,7  and  ‘iron  not  advanced,7  &c.,  to  a completed 
manufacture.  ‘Composition  metal7  was  a phrase  defining  a compound 
of  copper  and  zinc,  well  known  by  ship  builders,  and  distinct  from  yellow 
metal  or  its  manufactures,  which  were  also  well  known.  The  report 
of  the  committee  was  based  upon  testimony  from  merchants  and  ship- 
builders. 

“The  act  of  June  6, 1872,  entitled  an  act  ‘to  reduce  duties  on  imports 
and  internal  taxes,7  was  the  first  enactment  which  embodied  the  above- 
mentioned  bill.  In  the  section  of  the  act  which  provides  for  the  draw- 
back, the  words  used,  when  the  bill  passed  the  House,  were  ‘lumber, 
timber,  hemp,  manila,  iron,  and  steel  not  advanced  beyond  rods,  bars, 
bolts,  copper , and  composition  metal.1  In  the  Finance  Committee  of  the 
Senate,  or  in  the  conference  committee,  the  words  ‘not  advanced  be- 
yond7 were  stricken  out  and  ‘spikes  and  nails7  inserted.  These  articles, 
either  rawr  materials  or  partly  manufactured  articles,  could  be  used  in 
the  construction  and  equipment  of  vessels  employed  in  the  foreign 
trade,  including  trade  between  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ports.  The  next 
section  provides  that  all  articles  of  foreign  production  needed  for  the 
repair  of  American  vessels  engaged  exclusively  in  the  foreign  trade  may 
receive  the  drawback. 

“This  bill  shows  that  the  purpose  of  Congress  was  to  give  drawbacks 
on  metal  tMinanufactured  (or  not  completely  manufactured)  and  on  raw 
materials;  especially  does  this  appear  when  we  notice  that  the  word 
‘plates,7  which  was  in  the  first  bill,  is  omitted,  as  if  that  were  a too 
far  advanced  state  of  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel  to  allow  the  draw- 
back upon. 

“It  was  proposed  at  the  time  of  the  original  legislation  on  this  subject 
to  grant  further  privileges  to  vessels  engaged  exclusively  in  the  foreign 
trade,  extending  drawbacks  to  ships’  stores,  &c.,  but  Congress  was  con- 
servative and  sought  to  save  domestic  manufacturers  from  unnecessary 
discrimination  in  favor  of  foreign  manufacturers. 

“The  act  of  1872,  fairly  interpreted,  did  little  injury  to  the  sheathing 
manufacturers.  The  Treasury  Department,  however,  had  given  various 
interpretations  to  the  phrase  ‘composition  metal,7  and  in  some  instances 
had  decided  that  under  this  phrase,  in  cases  of  the  equipment,  construc- 
tion, or  repairs  of  American  vessels,  yellow-metal  sheathing  should  be 
allowed  the  drawback.  At  the  request  of  the  Treasury  Department,  the 
act  of  1875  was  passed  which  gave  a legislative  definition  of  yellow 
sheathing  metal  for  the  purposes  of  revenue.  It  did  more  than  this  by 
providing  a drawback  for  the  manufactured  yellow  metal,  putting  it  in 
the  same  category  as  raw  materials , and  by  its  terms  making  the  duty 
higher  than  ever  on  the  manufactured  articles.  This  drawback  is  al- 
lowed in  the  construction,  equipment,  or  repair  of  vessels  built  in  the 
United  States  employed  in  foreign  trade,  including  the  trade  between 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ports,  without  the  two  months7  limitation  in  the 
act  of  1872,  thereby  cutting  off  any  faint  possibility  of  finding  a market 
for  this  industry. 

“Your  committee  recommend  the  passage  of  the  accompanying  bill  as 
a substitute  for  the  bill  referred,  which,  if  passed,  will  correct  the  evil 
now  existing  in  the  positive  discrimination  made  against  the  American 
manufacturer  in  favor  of  the  European  manufacturer,  and  which  w ill,  it 


378 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[SAMUEL  T.  SKOW. 


is  believed,  transfer  to  this  country  the  manufacture  of  raw  materials 
now  manufactured  in  Europe.  The  drawback  allowed  on  the  raw  mate- 
rials which  are  used  will  give  the  purchasers  the  same  advantages  they 
now  have  in  price  and  quality  of  the  manufactured  articles.  If  copper 
and  spelter  were  furnished  to  our  manufacturers  free  of  duty,  they  could 
make  and  sell  yellow-metal  sheathing  to  vessels  engaged  iu  foreign 
trade  as  cheaply  as  the  English  sheathing  can  be  furnished  here,  even 
after  the  allowance  of  the  drawback  which  is  now  granted  to  the  Eng- 
lish sheathing.” 

No  one  ever  asked,  nor  was  it  ever  proposed  as  at  all  necessary,  that 
vessels  repairing  should  have  any  such  peculiar  privileges.  The  object 
of  the  whole  movement  from  its  very  inception  was  to  encourage  sliip- 
building  in  this  country,  and  with  this  we  are  in  the  fullest  possible 
sympathy.  We  are  ready  to  assent  to  almost  anything,  however  it  may 
affect  us,  likely  in  the  least  to  increase  the  facilities  for  building  vessels 
here,  and  to  put  ship  builders  in  as  good  a position  here  as  anywhere 
else  in  the  world;  giving  them  all  their  materials  for  construction  and 
equipment,  manufactured  even,  if  it  m ust  be*o,  absolutely  free.  But  when 
once  a vessel  has  been  constructed  and  equipped,  when  ready  to  com- 
pete with  any  others  iu  ail  parts  of  the  world,  then  she  should  take  her 
chances  with  them.  We  fail  to  see  any  reason  why  she  should  have 
her  supplies  cheaper  than  if  in  the  coastwise  trade,  or  cheaper  than  a 
foreigner  if  making  repairs  here.  No  foreigner  can  use  anything  in 
bond  under  these  laws.  No  foreigner  can  in  that  way  supply  his  own 
vessel,  but  he  may  come  here  and  furnish  an  American  vessel  with 
sheathing  copper  or  sheathing  metal,  or  bars,  provided  the  article  is 
of  foreign  manufacture,  free  ot  duty,  whi  n we  cannot.  If  that  is  really 
intended,  then  it  is  simply  a law  to  protect  foreign  manufacturers 
against  home  manufacturers  in  our  own  market. 

Practically,  then,  we  have  been  deprived  of  our  business  in  this 
direction  excepting  for  coastwise  vessels  and  for  foreigners  thrown 
upon  our  shores  in  distress. 

When  a vessel  has  been  constructed  and  equipped,  fostered  and  en- 
couraged thereto  by  special  legislation,  must  she  for  all  time  thereafter 
be  subsidized  to  keep  her  afloat*?  Are  we  ready  to  acknowledge  that, 
possessing  the  ship,  we  are  unable  to  compete  successfully  with  other 
flags  lor  the  carrying  trade  open  to  all  alike  ? If  so  the  fault  is  not  here 
but  elsewhere. 

The  remedy  has  already  been  sufficiently  indicated.  Not  by  removing 
the  duties  on  copper  and  spelter,  which,  however,  would  be  a complete 
and,  to  us,  satisfactory  cure,  as  then  we  could  successfully  compete  with 
any  foreign  manufactures  therefrom,  anti  could  reduce  tbe  prices  of  our 
manufactured  articles  not  only  to  vessels  engaged  iu  the  foreign  trade 
but  to  all  others  as  well;  nor  by  depriving  ship  builders  of  the  advan- 
tages they  now  possess  under  the  present  laws.  As  said  at  the  outset, 
we  antagonize  neither  one  interest  nor  the  other.  But  by  restoring  the 
act  to  the  form  given  it  at  first,  so  that  the  raw  materials  from  which  our 
manufactures  are  made  may  be  manufactured  and  used  in  bond  for  the 
construction  and  equipment  of  vessels;  not  permitting  the  foreign  manu- 
factured article  to  be  used  in  bond,  and  not  including  their  use  even  of 
the  raw  material  for  repair  at  all,  and  putting  it  in  such  unmistakable 
terms  that  it  cannot  again  be  perverte  . by  the  Treasury  Department, 
whose  tender  mercies  toward  us  have  been  cruel  in  the  extreme.  But 
if  our  condition  is  so  deplorable  and  desperate  that  our  vessels  cannot 
be  sailed  in  an  open  and  equal  competition  with  others,  then,  too,  the 
raw  materials  alone  should  be  used  in  bond. 


SAMUEL  T.  SNOW.] 


METAL  SHEATHING. 


379 


The  Commission  will  not  certainly  fail  to  appreciate  the  claim  that, 
so  long  as  the  same  end  can  be  reached  by  the  use  of  raw  materials  in 
bond,  the  admission  of  the  foreign  manufactured  articles  free  of  duty  is  a 
wrong  incapable  of  justification,  and  we  are  sure  of  having  shown  that 
it  was  never  so  intended. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  Will  you  please  put  in  writing  the  precise  form  of  change 
in  the  tariff  which  you  desire ? — Answer.  I will  do  so. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I understand  your  position  to  be  this:  that 
if  you  manufacture  these  goods  out  of  the  raw  material  you  are  allowed 
a drawback  on  them  ? 

The  Witness.  We  import  no  copper  into  this  country,  and  we  im- 
port no  spelter,  or  substantially  none.  All  the  copper  that  is  used  in 
this  country  is  mined  here,  and  all  the  spelter  substantially  that  is  used 
is  obtained  in  this  country.  So  far  as  copper  is  concerned,  we  go  a step 
beyond  that.  We  produce  some  years  more  than  we  can  sell,  and,  for 
the  purpose  of  adjusting  the  market  so  that  the  duty  on  imported  copper 
can  be  availed  of,  a certain  portion  of  our  production  is  shipped  abroad 
at  any  price  it  can  bring,  so  that  the  quantity  to  be  disposed  of  here  is 
reduced  to  the  requirements  of  the  market,  the  price  of  which  can  be 
kept  up  to  the  point  made  by  the  addition  of  the  duty  on  the  importa- 
tions, if  any  are  made.  So  that  in  fact  we  do  not  import  any  copper 
or  any  spelter. 

Q.  You  make  yellow  sheathing  and  yellow-metal  bolts  fit  for  ship- 
building use  out  of  domestic  materials? — A.  Yes,  sir;  a certain  quantity 
of  yellow  metal  for  ship  building  is  imported  as  a manufactured  article 
under  this  law.  Now  we  want  to  have  that  imported  in  the  raw  mate- 
rial, and  have  the  copper  and  the  spelter  imported  and  manufactured  and 
used  in  bond.  There  is  no  provision  for  that. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  is  yellow  metal  composed  of? — A.  Ultimately  of  six  parts  of 
copper  and  four  parts  of  spelter.  There  is  a larger  proportion  of  spelter 
used  in  the  composition,  for  there  is  a large  wastage  in  it  in  the  pro 
cess  of  manufacture ; but  the  result  is  as  I have  stated. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  want  the  raw  material  as  well  as  the  finished  article  imported 
in  bond? — A.  We  do  not  wish  the  finished  article  here  at  all;  we  want 
to  make  it  ourselves;  we  want  the  manufacturing  of  it  here. 

Q.  Out  of  our  own  product? — A.  No;  out  of  the  foreign  product.  It 
is  brought  in  manufactured  now.  We  want  the  raw  material  to  be 
brought  in  and  manufactured  and  used  in  bond.  Now  it  is  simply  used 
in  bond,  but  not  manufactured. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  YVliat  effect  would  that  have  upon  the  price  of  the  manufactured 
article  in  this  country? — A.  The  price  would  be  the  same  as  the  foreign 
article  is  now.  We  can  take  the  imported  copper  and  spelter  free  of 
duty  and  can  furnish  the  manufactured  article  as  low  as  the  English 
manufactured  article  is  sold.  I may  add  that  when  this  business  was 
commenced  in  1843  there  was  no  duty  either  on  the  raw  material  or 
on  the  manufactured  article,  and  we  built  the  business  up  without 
any  protection.  But  we  were  importing  then  copper  and  spelter  with- 
out paying  any  duty  on  them.  Under  those  conditions  we  built  up 
the  business  and  secured  the  markets  for  this  country.  We  did  more 


380 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[SAMUEL  T.  SNOW. 


than  that;  we  supplied  some  other  markets  of  the  world.  For  instance, 
we  used  to  ship  bars  and  sheathing  metal  to  China  and  Chili  in  large 
quantities  and  compete  with  the  English  manufactured  article  there. 
Give  us  the  raw  material  to-day,  without  the  payment  of  duty,  and  we 
will  do  the  same  thing  again — not  immediately,  but  in  a very  short  time 
we  can  do  it.  We  have  done  more  than  that.  We  came  very  neaT  doing 
a very  handsome  thing  in  our  line  of  business,  although  we  did  not  quite 
succeed,  owing  to  circumstances  which  we  could  not  control.  We  sold 
a suit  of  metal  to  be  taken  from  Boston  and  put  upon  a vessel  at  Liver- 
pool at  the  price  at  which  the  English  metal  was  sold  in  Liverpool.  We 
made  that  agreemeut ; but  at  the  last  moment  it  was  found  that  the  ves- 
sel did  not  require  it.  If  she  had  we  would  have  taken  our  metal  and 
carried  it  to  Liverpool  and  put  it  on  the  vessel  at  the  same  price  the 
English  were  selling  their  metal  for  there. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  When  did  you  do  that;  under  the  present  tariff? — A.  No,  sir;  it 
was  before  there  was  any  duty  on  either  copper  or  spelter. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  To  enable  you  to  do  that  did  you  not  furnish  the  material  at  a 
cheaper  rate  than  you  would  ordinarily  furnish  it  in  this  country? — A. 
No,  sir.  When  Muntz’  metal  was  first  patented,  of  course  it  was  sent 
into  this  market,  because  previous  to  that  time  they  were  selling  copper 
sheathing  for  vessels,  and  it  immediately  took  the  place  of  copper  in  the 
market.  We  had  to  drive  that  out.  We  did  not  succeed  immediately, 
but  after  a while  we  did  succeed  in  driving  it  out  completely,  and  we 
secured  this  market  for  our  material  and  went  on  with  its  manufacture. 
We  also  supjdied  markets  elsewhere  which  had  before  been  supplied  by 
England,  and  came  very  near,  as  I have  stated,  sending  the  metal  to 
England  to  be  used  there  in  the  repair  of  this  vessel. 


JOSEPH  BALDWIN.} 


SADDLERY  HARDWARE. 


381 


JOSEPH  BALDWIN. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  Joseph  Baldwin,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  of  tlie  firm  of  Joseph  Bald- 
win & Co.,  manufacturers  of  saddlery  hardware,  made  the  following 
statement: 

I represent  one  of  the  oldest  firms  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
saddlery  hardware  in  this  country.  Our  specialty  is  the  manufacture 
of  fine  goods,  principally  wrought  goods  of  a fine  grade;  but  we  find 
many  difficulties  in  tbe  way  of  their  manufacture.  The  manufacture  of 
fine  goods  of  this  descriptiou  was  only  commenced  in  this  country  a few 
years  ago.  Formerly  we  could  not  attempt  their  manufacture,  but  since 
the  present  tariff  has  been  in  operation  we  have  been  able  to  manufact- 
ure certain  kinds  of  these  goods.  We  sent  to  England  and  got  the 
best  workmen  we  could  find ; and,  in  order  to  keep  these  men  in  our 
employment,  we  have  to  allow  them  fully  as  high  wages,  or  higher 
wages  than  they  were  receiving  in  England.  The  reason  for  this  is 
that  the  cost  of  living  in  this  country  is  much  greater.  Men  who  are 
able  to  make  five  shillings  a day  in  England  want  to  make  here  at  least 
$20  a week.  We  have  men  in  our  employment  who  make  from  $27  to 
$30  a week.  The  reason  for  this  difference  in  wages  is  on  account  of 
the  scale  of  living.  In  England  they  are  content  to  live  on  plain  food 
and  ale  and  cheese,  and  the  families  all  assist  in  the  labor,  while  here 
the  children  do  not  want  to  work — society  is  different,  and  they  are  sent 
to  school;  and  the  larger  salaries  are  based  upon  these  different  social 
conditions.  The  laborers  in  this  country  have  to  pay  more  rent,  and 
the  cost  of  living  in  every  way  is  greater;  therefore  they  must  have 
larger  wages.  The  result  is  that  our  goods  cost  us  double  the  amount 
as  far  as  the  labor  is  concerned.  We  had  a filer  in  our  establishment 
who  made  $27  last  week,  and  lost  one  day’s  work  during  the  week. 
That  same  man  in  England  would  work  for  one-half  that  sum  and  be 
fully  satisfied  with  it,  because  he  would  be  able  to  live  on  the  same 
scale  with  his  neighbors.  But  here  he  is  not  satisfied  with  lower  wages. 

There  is  another  element  which  outers  into  this  matter,  and  that  is  that 
in  England  they  can  finish  these  goods  better  than  we  can,  and  for  this 
reason : that  the  father,  the  grandfather,  and  the  great-grandfather  have 
followed  a certain  line  of  business,  and  workmen  are  consequently,  as  a 
rule,  more  expert,  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  and  their  ancestors  have 
been  so  long  engaged  in  the  same  business.  It  is  so  with  most  other 
trades.  Take  a chain-maker  or  a bit-maker,  and  you  will  find  that  all 
his  ancestors  have  been  chain-makers  or  bit-makers.  We  have  a bit- 
maker  in  our  factory  who  earns  $30  a week,  and  I found,  upon  inquiry, 
that  for  several  generations  all  his  family  had  been  in  that  same  line  of 
business.  This  man  will  not  work  for  the  same  amount  that  he  would 
work  for  in  England,  for,  as  I have  said,  the  cost  of  living  and  all  the 
other  conditions  require  that  he  should  receive  a higher  rate  of  wages. 
Not  only  is  the  rate  of  wages  higher,  but  the  cost  of  material  and  every- 
thing is  greater  in  this  country.  If  I should  go  to  the  man  I have 
spoken  of  and  say  to  him,  “You  were  only  receiving  $10  a week  wages  in 


382 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  BALDWIN. 


England,  and  you  should  work  at  that  rate  for  us,”  he  would  prefer  to 
go  back  to  England,  where  he  could  live  at  a reduced  rate,  rather  than 
to  try  and  live  here  on  the  same  wages. 

Mr.  Gwinnell  spoke  about  the  importation  of  goods  from  abroad.  On 
certain  styles  of  goods  we  are  compelled  to  ask  just  double  the  price 
they  can  be  imported  for  from  England.  One  of  the  largest  importers 
in  this  country,  of  fine  articles  in  our  line,  used  to  buy  of  us  hundreds 
of  dollars  worth  of  goods,  and  said  to  me  not  long  since  that  he  would 
like  to  continue  to  buy  his  goods  of  us,  but  that  he  had  visited  England 
last  year,  and  found  that  he  could  buy  at  a much  cheaper  price,  and,  con- 
sequently, he  imports  nearly  all  his  goods  at  present.  In  this  country 
we  manufacture  many  new  styles  of  goods,  but  I have  discovered  that 
a new  article  is  not  in  the  market  two  months  before  it  is  imitated  in 
England  and  imported  to  this  country.  This  importer  of  whom  I have 
spoken,  for  instance,  will  take  an  improved  bit  and  send  it  to  the  manu- 
facturers in  England,  and  they  will  imitate  it  and  send  it  back  here,  and 
under  the  present  tariff  we  cannot  begin  to  compete  with  them  to  save 
our  lives.  Any  gentleman  present  can  buy  certain  articles  in  our  line  in 
New  York  which  have  been  imported  from  England,  10  per  cent,  cheaper 
than  we  can  manufacture  them.  These  dealers  would  prefer  to  buy  of 
American  manufacturers,  but  they  cannot  do  it  because  of  the  difference 
in  price.  I think  this  importer  has  spent  fully  $20,000  within  the  last 
year  in  purchasing  imported  goods;  whereas  formerly  he  spent  $99 
out  of  every  $100  in  New  York  City  in  purchasing  American  goods. 
You  may  ask  why  this  is  so.  We  have  skilled  workmen,  but  the  condi- 
ditions  of  labor  are  different.  Abroad,  the  whole  family  labors,  while 
here  it  is  not  the  custom  to  do  so.  The  employes  are  not  willing  to  live 
under  the  same  conditions  that  they  do  abroad.  In  this  country  every 
laboring  man  wants  to  live  lixe  a gentleman,  while  abroad  he  does  not 
have  any  such  expectation.  If  I should  offer  to  give  a man  $15  a week 
for  his  labor,  he  would  not  work,  although  it  would  be  a higher  rate  of 
wages  than  lie  was  receiving  abroad.  We  have  men  coming  to  us  to- 
day— harness-makers — and  they  say  to  us,  “We  would  like  to  have 
you  make  us  bits  and  stamp  them  ‘Daniels’”.  Why  do  they  do  this? 
Because,  although  the  goods  are  made  in  this  country,  and  they  are 
satisfied  with  them,  yet  they  want  the  stamp  of  a foreign  manufacturer 
upon  them.  This  is  a great  drawback  to  our  business. 


M.  S.  KERRIGAN.] 


MOROCCO, 


383 


M.  S.  KEEEIGAN. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  M.  S.  Kerrigan,  of  New  York,  chairman  of  the  executive  com- 
mittee of  the  Morocco  Manufacturers’  National  Exchange,  made  the  fol- 
lowing statement : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission: 
The  executive  committee  of  the  Morocco  Manufacturers’  National  Ex- 
change, being  the  duly  authorized  representatives  of  the  morocco  man- 
ufacturing interest  of  the  United  States,  respectfully  ask  your  consider- 
ation of  the  following  facts  in  relation  to  our  interest  as  affected  by 
the  present  tariff. 

Under  the  act  of  1872,  entitled  “An  act  to  reduce  the  duties  on  im- 
ports and  internal  taxes,”  occurs  this  paragraph : 

On  bend  or  belting  leather  and  on  Spanish  or  other  leather,  15  per  centum  ad  valo- 
rem. On  calf-skins , fanned,  or  tanned  and  finished,  25  per  centum  ad  valorem.  On  up- 
per leather  of  all  other  kinds,  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  20  per  centum  ad 
valorem.  On  all  skins  for  morocco,  tanned,  hut  unfinished,  10  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

The  exceptional  character  of  this  discrimination  between  tanned  and 
finished  morocco  will  be  apparent  to  any  one  who  will  examine  the 
schedule  of  duties  upon  other  kinds  of  leather. 

While  we  acknowledge  that  the  manufacturers  of  calf-skins  are  en- 
titled to  protection  equally  with  us,  we  see  no  just  reason'  why  a dis- 
crimination should  be  made  against  us,  as  the  extent  of  business  and 
number  of  establishments  and  hands  employed  in  each  industry  is 
nearly  equal,  morocco  predominating  about  10  per  cent.  We  claim  and 
request  that  the  duty  on  “goat  and  sheet)  skins,  tanned,  or  tanned  and 
finished,”  be  placed  at  the  same  rate  as  now  levied  on  calf-skins,  viz: 
25  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; and  that  “on  all  skins  for  morocco,  tanned  but 
unfinished,  the  duty  also  be  placed  at  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem.” 

There  are  about  one  hundred  and  twenty -five  establishments  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  goat  and  sheep  skins  into  morocco  leather  in  this 
country,  employing  a capital  of  about  $10,000,000,  giving  employment 
to  about  12,000  operatives,  and  the  value  of  whose  combined  produc- 
tion amounts  to  over  $30,000,000  annually. 

Since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1872,  which  reduced  the  duty  on  all 
skins  for  morocco  tanned,  but  unfinished,  to  10  per  cent.,  the  imports  of 
these  skins  into  this  country  have  increased  between  400  and  500  per 
cent.,  as  shown  by  the  records  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics.  A very 
large  proportion  of  these  skins  for  morocco  tanned,  but  unfinished, 
probably  95  per  cent.,  is  brought  here  from  the  East  Indies,  where  they 
are  tanned  very  cheaply  with  native  gambier.  The  raw  stock  goes  into 
the  hands  of  English  capitalists  in  Calcutta  and  Madras,  who  have  built 
large  factories  employing  Sepoy  labor,  which  is  among  the  cheapest 
known,  averaging  for  this  class  of  labor  only  10  cents  per  day.  These 
skins,  as  brought  here  tanned,  are  for  many  purposes  virtually  finished, 
and  for  any  purpose  for  which  they  are  used  here  require  but  little 
labor.  A comparison  of  the  rates  of  wages  in  tue  United  States  with 
those  paid  in  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Germany,  prepared  by  Hon. 
Josej)h  Nimmo,  jr.,  and  read  last  spring  before  the  Senate  committee, 


384 


TARIFF  ■ COMMISSION. 


[M.  8.  KKItRIGAN. 


shows  that  leather  dressers  or  finishers  are  paid  35^  per  cent,  more  in 
the  United  States  than  in  Great  Britain,  66|  more  per  cent,  than  in 
France,  and  93§  per  cent,  more  than  in  Germany. 

East  India  produces  the  largest  number  of  goats  of  any  country  in 
the  world,  as  shown  by  the  accompanying  diagram  of  the  “Live  Stock  of 
the  World,”  compiled  from  the  latest  census  of  the  various  countries  by 
Mr.  Noreross,  of  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Reporter.  It  is  considered  as 
accurate  as  any  compilation  of  the  kind  can  be;  it  is  there  shown  that 
the  production  in  India  of  goats  is  20,000,000,  an  excess  over  any  other 
country  of  13,500,000.  The  present  duty  upon  these  skins,  tanned  by 
the  cheap  labor  of  India,  is  so  low  that,  notwithstanding  the  raw  skins 
are  free,  there  is  more  profit  to  the  Calcutta  merchants  to  export  to  this 
country  the  skins  tanned. 

A serious  additional  injury  is  caused  to  our  trade  by  the  fact  that  the 
inferior  or  rejected  skins  are  sent  here,  the  best  being  selected  for  tan- 
ning in  India.  Consequent  upon  such  selection  the  quality,  of  India 
goods  sent  to  this  country  in  the  raw  state  has  been  so  poor  for  the  past 
few  years  that  in  many  cases  they  have  been  almost  worthless  to  those 
manufacturers  who  buy  the  raw  skins  and  convert  them  into  the  finished 
goat  and  kid  morocco,  which  are  such  important  materials  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  ladies’  and  children’s  shoes  in  this  country. 

In  conclusion,  we  ask  that  the  clause  in  the  law  be  made  to  read:  “On 
calf,  goat,  and  sheep  skius,  tanned,  or  tanned  and  dressed,  and  on  all 
skins  for  morocco  tanned,  but  unfinished,  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 


ARCHIBALD  M.  HOWtt.J 


METAL  SHEATHING. 


385 


ARCHIBALD  M.  HOWE. 

Long  Branch,  K J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  Archibald  M.  Howe,  of  Boston,  Mass.,  attorney  for  the  yellow- 
metal  sheathing  manufacturers,  made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I desire  to  make  a brief  prelimi- 
nary statement  in  introducing  the  representatives  of  the  yellow-metal 
sheathing  manufacturers.  This  industry  is  confined-  to  the  common 
wealth  of  Massachusetts,  so  far  as  I have  been  able  to  learn.  There 
are  but  four  corporations  which  make  this  product.  It  is  a compound 
of  copper  and  spelter,  composed  of  six  parts  of  copper  and  four  parts 
of  spelter,  and  it  is  used,  I believe,  almost  exclusively  on  the  bottoms  of 
vessels.  This  product  originated  with  a Mr.  Muntz,  an  Englishman, 
some  forty  years  ago,  and  very  shortly  after  his  compound  had  been 
successful  in  England  the  manufacture  of  it  was  begun  in  this  country  , 
and  without  any  protection  whatever.  Our  manufacturers  did  a good 
business  in  yellow-metal  sheathing  for  about  twenty  to  twenty-five 
years.  Of  course  our  business  is  dependent  largely  on  the  shipping- 
interest,  therefore  we  have  to  come  before  you,  stating,  as  briefly  as  we 
may,  our  connection  and  relation  to  ship-builders  and  ship-owners. 

The  law  which  alfects  our  case  seriously,  and  which  has  led  us  to 
come  before  you,  and  before  Congress  for  the  last  ten  years  (for  we  have 
appeared  there  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  and  various 
other  committees  since  1872),  is  a portion  of  the  tariff  act  of  June,  1872, 
which  resulted  from  the  investigation  of  navigation  interests  by  Hon. 
John  Lynch’s  Congressional  committee,  which  made  their  report  in 
Eebruary,  1870.  That  act  was  subsequently  interpreted  by  the  United 
States  Treasury  Department  to  our  disadvantage,  and,  as  we  believe, 
contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  law.  The  Treasury  Department  ruling- 
becoming  a law  by  the  act  of  February,  1875,  placed  our  product  on  the 
list  of  articles  to  be  taxed  a definite  sum,  and  the  result  is  being  taxed 
very  heavily,  and  also  being  discriminated  against  by  this  law  of  1872, 
which  was  in  behalf  of  the  shipbuilder,  and  which  allowed  the  remission 
of  duties  on  these  particular  articles,  we  are  placed  between  two  fires. 
My  client,  Mr.  Samuel  T.  Snow,  the  treasurer  of  the  Revere  Copper  Com- 
pany, who  has  this  matter  very  much  at  heart  and  is  thoroughly  familiar 
with  it,  will  speak  more  in  detail  than  I can.  We  merely  ask  you  to  con- 
sider our  case  as  one  that  neither  affects  the  question  of  a high  protective 
tariff  or  a low  protective  tariff*  or  free  trade.  W e merely  wish  to  be  put  in 
the  same  category  with  every  other  material  that  is  used  in  ship  building, 
as  we  view  it,  and  as  Mr.  Lynch’s  committee  viewed  it.  As  far  as  our 
interests  are  concerned  we  think  that  legislation  can  be  had  which  will 
give  us  proper  protection  without  interfering  with  the  interests  of  any 
other  manufacturer.  I have  had  personal  conferences  with  members  of 
the  Forty-sixth  Congress  at  various  times,  and  also  with  gentlemen 
H.  Mis.  6 25 


386 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f ARCHIBALD  Jl.  HOWIt. 


representing  the  Lake  Superior  mining  interests  and  Maine  interests, 
and  know  their  views  upon  these  questions,  and  that  they  do  not  oppose 
our  claim.  The  bill  we  presented  to  the  House  was  projected  upon  it 
and  passed  through  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Frye,  of  Maine,  who,  as  the  Com- 
mission well  know,  is  interested  in  shipbuilding.  So  that  we  feel  that  we 
come  here  as  business  men  having  no  contest  with  anybody,  but  occu- 
pying a position  where  we  can  claim  the  same  protection  as  is  now  given 
to  the  producers  of  other  materials  used  in  the  construction  of  ships. 


SAMUEL  BRACE.] 


SADDLERY  HARDWARE. 


387 


* 


SAMUEL  BBACE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Air.  Samuel  Brace,  representing  the  firm  of  O.  B.  North  & Go.,  of 
New  Haven,  Conn.,  manufacturers  of  saddlery  hardware,  made  the 
following  statement : 

The  time  given  us  for  preparation  since  the  notice  reached  us  of  your 
willingness  to  hear  our  statements  has  been  very  short,  and  we  have  not 
access  in  New  Haven  to  the  statistics  that  it  would  be  desirable  for  us 
to  lay  before  you.  But  I will  occupy  a few  moments  in  stating  such  facts 
as  occur  to  me  on  this  subject.  One  thing  is  quite  certain,  that  the 
amount  invested  in  the  manufacture  of  saddlery  hardware  in  this  coun 
try  is  large.  The  business  represents  a capital  of  many  millions  of  dol- 
lars, and  necessarily  we  employ  a large  number  of  workmen.  Our  in- 
vestments in  this  business  have  been  wholly  made  because  of  the  pro- 
tection we  have  received  under  the  present  tariff.  A large  portion  of 
the  money  now  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  our  goods  has  been  invested 
during  the  last  few  years,  in  consequence  of  the  continuance  of  the  pre- 
sent tariff,  and  under  the  abiding  faith  we  have  had  that  it  would  still 
be  maintained.  Our  confidence  in  the  continuance  or  increase  of  these 
tariff  duties  has  been  so  great  that  we  have  not  hesitated  to  invest 
money  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  supply  the  wants  of  our  own  country  in 
this  department.  At  the  same  time,  as  already  stated  by  Mr.  Litchford, 
the  margin  of  profit  is  very  close  indeed,  owing  to  the  importation  of  these 
goods  from  abroad.  This  importation  continues  at  the  present  time,  and 
I think  the  only  reason  why  it  has  not  increased  of  late  is  that  foreign 
manufacturers  have  been  led  to  believe  that  the  policy  of  this  govern- 
ment was  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  manufacturers  here.  Although 
it  might  be  to  the  advantage  of  English  manufacturers,  even  under  the 
present  tariff,  to  flood  this  country  with  their  goods  in  the  belief  that 
they  could  overcome  and  drive  out  the  manufacturers  here,  they  have 
not  been  led  to  do  it  because  they  believe  the  policy  of  this  government 
is  to  protect  our  home  industries.  Let  our  tariff  decline  even  five  per 
cent.,  or  let  the  English  and  Germans  see  that  there  is  a tendency  to- 
wards free  trade,  and  immediately  they  would  perceive  that  it  was  a 
wise  investment  for  them  to  put  their  goods  into  this  country,  even  at 
cost  price,  until  they  could  control  the  market  and  shut  up  our  manu- 
factories here  and  prevent  competition.  The  35  per  cent,  duty  at  present 
existing  on  imported  goods  does  not  represent  the  actual  difference  in 
the  price  of  labor  and  wages  paid  in  England  and  America. 

Statistics  on  this  subject  can  be  best  obtained  from  those  who  have 
practical  knowledge  of  the  work  done  in  the  shops.  A foreman  whom 
we  had  emjdoyed  a number  of  years,  and  who  was  quite  familiar  with 
our  business,  had  occasion  to  take  employment  in  a factory  in  England. 
He  became  very  thoroughly  conversant  with  their  operations  there, 
and  he  tells  me  that  the  work  on  these  goods  is  done  by  workmen  in 
English  factories  at  a price  so  much  lower  than  the  price  paid  here,  that 
it  is  equivalent  to  the  amount  of  duty  imposed  on  the  imported  article. 
Further  than  that,  a number  of  the  articles  supplied  by  our  trade  are 


388 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[SAMUEL  BRACE. 


made  in  England  by  people  who  live  in  garrets.  Our  goods  do  not 
require  complicated  machinery  in  their  manufacture.  We  have  many 
machines,  but  they  are  simple  and  cheap  in  construction,  and  the 
English  laborer  can  have  these  little  machines  in  his  garret  and  put  his 
wife  and  his  children  of  eight  or  ten  years  of  age  to  work  on  these 
goods.  A very  large  share  of  the  work  is  done  in  that  way. 

In  this  country  the  conditions  of  labor  are  different.  Instead  of  put- 
ting children  at  work  in  manufactories,  as  is  done  in  England,  they  are 
sent  to  school.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  Englishman  can 
manufacture  at  a much  lower  price  than  we  in  this  country  can.  It  is 
utterly  impossible  for  us  to  attempt  to  compete  with  such  labor  as  they 
employ.  It  is  my  opinion  that  even  a slight  reduction  in  the  present 
tariff  on  the  goods  imported  in  our  line  would  result  in  closing  the  most 
of  our  factories.  There  is  another  consideration  besides.  Sot  only  is 
the  price  of  American  labor  higher,  but  our  money  is  more  valuable ; 
interest  on  money  in  this  country  is  much  greater  than  in  England,  and 
it  is  in  greater  demand.  So  that  our  investment  of  money  is  made  at  a 
sacrifice  in  the  rate  of  interest,  because  the  rate  here  is  so  much  higher 
than  it  is  there.  The  manufacturers  have,  of  course,  been  protected 
under  the  present  tariff,  to  a considerable  extent,  and  the  business  has 
been  built  up  and  our  money  has  been  mostly  invested  in  it  within 
the  last  few  years.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  have  the  people  who  use 
the  articles  we  make  suffered  in  any  way?  It  is  a very  common  belief 
that  if  this  35  per  cent,  tariff  was  taken  off  the  foreign  article  the  har- 
ness maker  of  this  country  would  get  his  trimmings  35  per  cent,  cheaper 
than  he  does  now.  But  if  we  look  at  the  history  of  tariff  legislation,  we 
shall  see  that  that  is  not  to  be  expected.  Before  the  present  tariff  was 
adopted,  and  when  the  duties  were  lower  than  they  are  now,  English 
goods  were  sold  in  this  country  at  a vastly  higher  price  than  they  are 
selling  for  to-day. 

The  effect  of  a higher  tariff  has  not  been  to  increase  the  price  of  these 
goods  to  the  consumer.  They  are  delivered  to  the  harness -maker  in  all 
parts  of  the  United  States  to-day  cheaper  than  ever  before.  The  pres- 
ent tariff,  although  it  gives  us  a close  margin  on  which  to  compete  with 
the  English  manufacturer,  has  not  been  such  as  to  euable  our  manufact- 
urers to  produce  their  goods  at  a high  profit.  The  profit  on  saddlery 
hardware  to-day  in  this  country  is  less  than  it  is  on  any  other  class  of 
manufactured  iron  goods,  and  the  home  competition  is  so  close  and  severe 
that  there  is  no  danger  that  any  tariff  will  cause  the  prices  of  these  goods 
to  be  any  higher  than  they  should  be.  All  the  skill  and  ingenuity  of 
active,  earnest  manufacturers  in  this  country,  who  are  engaged  in  this 
line  of  business,  is  in  the  direction  of  a reduction  of  price,  and  these 
goods  are  put  on  the  market  to-day  at  a mere  nominal  profit  to  the  man- 
ufacturer. So  that  no  one  is  suffering  in  any  respect  on  account  of  the 
present  tariff,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  very  easy  for  this 
Commission,  by  recommending  a reduction  in  the  tariff  on  our  goods,  to 
blot  us  out  of  existence  effectually  $ and  the  moment  the  English  man- 
ufacturers saw  a tendency  in  that  direction  they  would  have  every  mo- 
tive to  induce  them  to  put  their  goods  here  at  even  the  cost  price. 

There  is  another  fact  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  that  is,  that 
the  freight  from  England  on  these  goods  is  very  light.  They  are  brought 
in  sailing  vessels,  and  they  can  deliver  them  in  New  Orleans  cheaper 
than  we  can  our  own  goods.  It  is  only  at  a few  ports  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  our  manufacture  that  we  have  any  advantage  over  the 
English  manufacturer  in  the  matter  of  freight. 


SAMUEL  BRACE.] 


SADDLERY  HARDWARE. 


389 


By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  What  is  the  number  of  factories  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facure  of  saddlery  hardware  in  this  country? — Answer. 'That  is  a diffi- 
cult question  to  answer.  There  are  quite  a number  of  manufacturers 
of  general  hardware  who  have  taken  different  articles  belonging  to 
saddlery  hardware  and  added  them  to  their  stock.  The  number  of  fac- 
tories engaged  exclusively  in  manufacturing  saddlery  hardware,  I pre- 
sume, is  50  or  60  altogether.  That  is  rather  an  estimate  of  my  own, 
however,  than  actual  knowledge. 

Q.  What  amount  of  capital  is  invested  in  the  business,  according  to 
the  best  information  you  have? — A.  At  a rough  estimate,  I should  say 
in  the  neighborhood  of  $10,000,000,  possibly  more.  .There  is  more 
capital  actually  invested  in  the  business  than  is  represented  by  the 
manufacturers  of  these  goods. 

Q.  Can  you  give  me  an  idea  of  the  number  of  operatives  employed 
in  your  business? — A.  1 should  not  be  able  to  give  you  the  number  with 
a sufficient  degree  of  accuracy  to  make  it  of  value  to  you. 


31)0 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f IfF.N'RY  HERRMANN. 


HENRY  HERRMANN. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  Henry  Herrmann,  of  the  lirm  of  H.  Herrmann,  Sternbach  & 
Co.,  of  New  York , importers  of  dry  goods,  made  the  following  statement: 

I desire  to  state  that  I have  been  engaged  in  the  importation  of  dry 
goods  to  this  country  for  nearly  a third  of  a century,  and  I think  I can 
say  that  I know  from  practical  experience  the  difficulties  under  which 
the  government  and  the  importers  labor.  I heard  the  question  asked 
by  one  of  tlie*Commissioners  to-day,  as  to  whether  there  is  a difference 
in  the  valuation  of  the  same  goods  at  different  ports.  I can  state  from 
my  own  knowledge  that  there  is  such  a difference.  I know  that  goods 
have  been  imported  into  Milwaukee  and  Cincinnati,  that  have  only 
paid  a duty  of  35  per  cent.,  while  we  have  paid  in  New  York  on  the 
same  class  of  goods  a duty  of  nearly  90  to  100  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  Do  you  mean  by  that  that  the  goods  were  wrongly  classi- 
fied?— Answer.  They  were  not  classified  at  all;  they  were  put  under 
the  35  per  cent,  clause.  I know  these  facts  that  I have  stated  from 
my  own  personal  knowledge.  I think  these  internal  ports  should  be 
done  away  with,  and  that  there  would  be  less  fraud  if  they  were 
abolished.  There  is  less  fraud  attempted  in  Philadelphia,  New  York, 
and  Baltimore,  than  in  these  interior  centers,  where  appraisers  are  ap- 
pointed who  do  not  know  the  difference  between  cotton  and  silk,  or 
linens  and  wool;  that  is  to  say,  they  have  no  actual  experience  in  those 
matters.  If  the  Commission  desire  to  ask  me  any  questions  in  regard 
to  this  matter  I shall  be  happy  to  answer  them. 


JOHN  L.  GWIN'NELL.J 


SADDLERY  HARDWARE. 


391 


JOHN  L.  GWINNELL. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  John  L.  Gwinnell,  representing  Peter  Hayden,  of  New  York, 
manufacturer  of  saddlery  hardware,  made  the  following  statement : 

I occupy  a somewhat  different  position  from  the  gentlemen  who  have 
already  addressed  you  on  this  subject,  in  this  respect.  We  are  importers 
as  well  as  manufacturers  of  saddlery  hardware.  If  we  consulted  simply 
our  own  personal  interests,  so  far  as  our  Newark  manufactory  is  con 
cerned,  we  should  be  in  favor  of  abolishing  or  lowering  the  present  tariff 
on  these  imported  goods,  because  we  could  make  more  money  by  im- 
porting the  goods  than  we  could  by  manufacturing  them,  in  case  the 
tariff  should  be  removed  or  reduced,  for  it  would  open  a very  wide 
door,  and  the  business  of  importation  would  be  largely  increased  in  this 
country.  But  our  interest  does  not  lie  that  way,  properly  considered, 
because  this  particular  factory  represents  only  a minimum  part  of  our 
business.  We  have  manufactories  at  Auburn,  N.  Y.,  Columbus,  Ohio, 
Newark,  N.  J.,  and  are  interested  in  factories  at  other  places  as  well ; 
and  the  house  I represent  feels  that  its  interest  would  be  subserved  if 
the  present  tariff  should  stand  where  it  is  to-day,  for  the  reasons  as- 
signed, and  for  other  reasons  which  could  be  mentioned. 

As  remarked  by  Mr.  Brace,  the  present  tariff,  although  regarded  by 
some  persons  as  too  high  upon  our  class  of  goods,  has  not  had  the  effect 
of  increasing  the  price  of  the  manufactured  article  in  this  country.  I 
think  I am  safe  in  saying  that  the  goods  we  manufacture  were  never 
sold  at  so  low  a price  or  presented  to  the  public  at  so  cheap  a rate  as 
at  the  present  time,  without  exception,  not  even  when  the  tariff  was 
much  lower  than  it  is  to-day.  You  may  ask  how  that  can  be  so.  The 
answer  is,  simply  because  the  cost  of  manufacturing  the  goods  has 
been  greatly  lessened  by  the  introduction  of  machinery,  and  the  great 
competition  which  exists  between  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  has 
tended  greatly  to  lower  the  selling  price.  Competition  is  so  close  that 
it  has  really  driven  out  all  the  profit  there  is  in  the  business,  so  that  at 
present,  with  the  low  prices  prevailing,  the  interest  on  the  capital  in- 
vested is  very  small  indeed. 

Our  experience  leads  us  to  this  conclusion,  that  if  the  tariff*  was  low- 
ered we  could  import  largely  many  kinds  of  goods  in  our  line  which 
now  we  are  prohibited  from  importing,  owing  to  the  existing  tariff.  The 
principal  goods  imported  to-day  are  specialties.  The  American  manu- 
facturer is  endeavoring,  as  rapidly  as  he  can,  to  produce  these  special- 
ties here,  and  we  are  gradually  learning  to  manufacture  some  goods  of 
that  kind.  But  the  moment  we  have  our  tariff  lowered,  if  it  should  be 
lowered,  we  should  be  unable  to  continue  that.  I might,  if  it  would 
not  occupy  too  much  of  your  time,  give  you  one  single  item  as  an  illus- 
tration of  what  the  general  result  would  be.  Every  gentleman  present 
knows,  probably,  what  a harness-buckle  is ; he  has  seen  it  upon  harnesses. 
If  we  introduce  to-day  a brass  harness-buckle  made  in  England,  the 
price,  with  the  duty  added  and  the  expenses  of  importation,  would  make 
it  cost  us  about  $2.40  per  gross  to  lay  it  down  in  America.  The  Arneri 
can  manufacturer  last  year,  when  we  received  what  we  supposed  was  a 


392 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  L.  GWINNELL. 


fair  compensation  for  our  labor,  and  nothing  but  a fair  compensation, 
presented  these  same  goods  to  the  trade  at  $3.30  a gross.  But  with 
only  a fair  profit  to  the  American  manufacturer,  the  importer  was  able, 
as  you  see  at  a glance,  to  import  them  and  undersell  us.  To-day  we 
are"  selling  these  goods  at  less  than  $3.30,  so  as  to  keep  the  importer  out 
of  our  market  if  we  can. 

I could  illustrate  this  subject  still  further  by  giving  you  facts  in  re- 
gard to  the  manufacture  of  a bit.  We  could  go  to  work  to-day  and  make 
what  we  would  call  a common  polished  bit,  and  lay  it  down  in  this 
market,  with  the  present  existing  duty,  for  $2.59  per  dozen.  With  a 
fair  profit,  and  only  a living  profit,  we  are  forced  to  ask  the  trade  for 
the  same  bit  $2.89.  We  are  not  getting  $2.89  to-day,  because  we  desire 
to  prevent  the  importation  of  these  goods  and  are  selling  them  at  a 
lower  figure.  But  the  inference  I wish  to  draw  from  this  is,  that  if  you 
lower  the  tariff  it  enables  the  foreign  manufacturer  to  import  the  article 
at  a still  lower  price,  and  thus  prevents  the  American  manufacturer,  who 
can  hardly  sustain  himself  under  the  present  tariff,  from  being  able  to 
sustain  himself  at  all. 

Last  year,  when  there  was  a boom  in  the  prices  of  all  kinds  of  metal, 
the  prices  of  saddlery  hardware  goods  went  up,  and  the  English  im- 
porters began  to  bring  in  goods  in  much  larger  quantities  than  had  been 
done  for  years.  A large  variety  of  articles  in  our  line  were  imported 
into  this  country. 

The  article  of  roller  buckles,  used  largely  in  the  West  and  South  in  the 
manufacture  of  harness,  would  afford  another  illustration  of  this  sub- 
ject. We  imported  roller  buckles  largely  last  year,  because  the  advance 
in  iron  and  other  materials  was  such  that  the  saddlery-hardware  trade 
put  prices  up  and  made  a much  better  profit,  I believe,  than  they  were 
able  to  make  before  or  since,  owing  to  the  competition  which  exists.  As 
I have  said,  the  lowering  of  the  duty  would  open  the  door  very  widely 
to  the  importation  of  all  classes  of  English  goods.  Some  10  or  15  years 
ago  there  was  a very  great  change  made  in  the  styles  of  saddlery-hard- 
ware  manufactures.  New  styles  were  introduced,  and  this  gave  us,  for 
the  time  being,  a good  market.  At  present  all  these  new  styles,  upon 
which  we  spent  so  much  money  and  time,  hoping  to  be  able  to  make  a 
little  money  from  them,  are  imitated  by  the  English  manufacturers,  and 
they  are  able  to  produce  many  of  them  to-day  at  prices  which  cannot  be 
competed  with  in  this  country.  To-day  there  are  large  quantities  of 
English  goods  being  imported  into  this  country.  The  English  manu- 
facturers are  sending  out  their  traveling  agents  all  through  the  United 
States,  endeavoring  to  increase  their  business.  There  is  one  concern — 
Messrs.  Owen  & Co.,  of  Birmingham — which  within  the  last  three 
months  has  sent  an  agent  to  this  country,  who  will  visit  all  our  leading 
cities  from  New  York  to  San  Francisco,  and  he  is  offering  these  same 
goods  very  cheaply  indeed — many  of  them  at  prices  much  lower  than 
we  are  able  to  offer  them  to  the  trade.  * 

I might  relate  another  instance  showing  just  what  the  foreign  manu- 
facturer is  attempting  to  do  in  this  country.  A newspaper  was  sent  to 
me  from  Elmira,  N.  Y.,  and  in  it  I found  an  article,  filling  a quarter  of 
a page  or  so,  in  which  it  was  stated  that  Weeden  & Son,  harness 
makers  at  Elmira,  had  a large  quantity  of  saddlery  goods  on  hand, 
which  the  public  were  invited  to  examine,  imported  from  Messrs.  Fair- 
banks & Co.’s  manufactory  at  Walsall,  England.  Fairbanks  & Co.  have 
an  office  in  Montreal,  Canada,  and  for  two  or  three  months  in  the  year 
their  agents  come  to  New  York  to  dispose  of  their  goods;  and  when 
they  find  they  cannot  sell  to  the  New  York  trade,  they  travel  through- 


JOiLN  L.  GW1NNELL.] 


SADDLERY  HARDWARE. 


393 


out  the  State  selling  to  the  smaller  customers.  So  that  to-day  these 
importers’  names  are  better  known  among  the  retail  trade  than  the 
names  of  our  own  manufacturers. 

I think  when  the  Commission  comes  to  consider  all  the  interests  in- 
volved, and  notices  the  present  depressed  condition  of  the  trade,  it  will 
be  convinced  that  it  would  be  an  error  to  lower  the  present  tariff  on 
these  goods.  Nevertheless,  I think  the  tariff  might  be,  to  a certain 
extent,  equalized.  For  instance,  the  duty  on  general  saddlery  hardware 
is  35  per  cent.  On  specialties,  such  as  steel  bits,  and  a variety  of  goods 
in  the  steel  line,  it  is  40  per  cent.  You  will  find  that  serge  lias  to  pay 
a duty  of  45  to  50  per  cent.  Some  items  like  these  might  possibly  be 
equalized  somewhat ; but  taking  the  duty  as  a whole,  I think  it  would 
be  very  severe  on  the  manufacturers  to  put  it  even  5 per  cent,  below  the 
present  rate.  These  bits  1 have  referred  to,  paying  35  per  cent,  duty, 
cost  $2.59  to  make  and  put  upon  the  market  here ; and  if  you  make  the 
duty  25  per  cent,  they  could  be  imported  for  $2.31  per  dozen. 

There  is  just  one  single  item  that  I wish  to  refer  to  in  addition  to  what 
I have  already  said,  as  it  shows  one  of  the  advantages  that  the  English 
market  has  over  ours.  During  the  last  year  there  were  about  20,000 
pounds  of  copper  sent  out  of  this  country  by  the  copper  mines,  at  a price 
about  5 cents  a pound  less  than  we  can  go  in  the  market  and  buy  it  for 
to-day.  It  was  sent  over  to  England  with  the  positive  understanding 
that  it  should  not  be  brought  back  here  again  in  that  form.  This  gave 
them  an  advantage  of  5 cents  a pound  on  the  material  they  used^  and  it 
went  into  articles  of  brass  which  they  made  out  of  this  copper.  Again, 
nickel  is  used  very  largely  by  manufacturers  of  saddlery  hardware.  We 
make  many  nickel-plated  goods.  Every  bit  of  nickel  that  comes  into 
this  country  has  a 30  per  cent,  duty  added  to  it;  consequently  Wharton 
& Co.,  of  Philadelphia,  make  us  pay  a pretty  good  price  for  the  nickel 
we  require  in  our  manufacture.  We  do  not  complain  of  these  duties; 
but  it  is  one  of  the  elements  that  tend  to  make  our  manufactures  more 
expensive,  and  the  carrying  on  of  the  business  more  difficult.  We  are 
less  able,  also,  to  maintain  our  competition  against  the  prices  that  the 
English  manufacturers  can  produce  their  goods  for. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Would  it  be  possible  to  make  the  duties  on  this  class  of 
goods  specific  rather  than  ad  valorem? — Answer.  I think  that  would 
be  a very  difficult  matter.  The  articles  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
saddlery  hardware  are  almost  infinite  in  their  number  and  character. 
Our  business  is  a comparatively  small  one  compared  with  some  other 
lines  of  manufacture  in  this  country,  but  the  articles  we  use  are  divided 
up  into  a great  variety  of  kinds.  It  would  take  this  Commission  a great 
while  to  enumerate  them  all  and  fix  a duty  for  each  article,  even  if  it 
had  any  inclination  to  undertake  such  a labor. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Is  it  your  opinion,  based  on  experience,  that  imported  goods  are 
improperly  invoiced  by  the  importer? — A.  fhave  never  seen  anything 
to  indicate  that  goods  are  improperly  invoiced;  I do  not  think  there  is 
any  cause  to  suspect  the  importers  of  undervaluing  their  goods. 


394 


TARIFF  COMMISSION, 


[ JOejIAH  L1TCHFORP. 


JOSIAH  LTTCHFORD. 

Lono  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  Josiah  Litchford,  of  Buffalo,  New  York,  manufacturer  of  sad 
dlery  hardware,  made  the  following*  statement  : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : I do  not  feel  prepared  to 
present  the  claims  of  the  saddlery -hard ware  manufacturers  to  the  Com- 
mission to-day,  as  the  notice  given  me  was  very  brief  and  I had  not 
sufficient  time  for  preparation.  But  I may  say  in  general,  that  the  gen- 
tlemen with  me  to-day  represent  a very  large  proportion  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  saddlery  hardware  in  the  country  at  the  present  time.  We 
feel  a deep  interest  in  the  subject  of  the  tariff,  because  we  have  suffered 
very  much  in  the  past  from  unwise  tariff  legislation,  as  we  think.  I can 
remember,  as  a boy,  when  almost  all  the  saddlery  hardware  used  in  this 
country  was  imported  from  England.  Even  castings  were  shipped  in 
the  rough  from  England  and  finished  up  in  this  country.  But  that  has 
ended,  and  at  the  present  time  the  importing  of  English  goods  has  been 
reduced,  owing  to  the  present  tariff  duties.  Yet  a large  proportion  of 
the  goods  in  our  line  of  business,  called  common  goods,  would,  no  doubt, 
if  even  a slight  reduction  in  the  present  tariff  were  made,  be  brought 
into  this  country  in  very  great  quantities  from  abroad. 

/ We  represent  here  to  day  the  manufacturers  of  saddlery  hardware. 
We  employ  among  us  a great  many  workmen  who  are  dependent  for 
their  daily  bread  on  the  employment  we  give  them  in  the  production  of 
these  goods,  and  we  should  regard  it  as  a very  great  misfortune  to  our 
business  if  the  present  tariff  was  reduced  even  five  per  cent.,  because 
it  would  cause  an  increase  in  the  importation  of  foreign  goods,  our 
business  would  be  reduced,  and  a large  number  of  our  workmen  thrown 
out  of  employment. 

There  are  in  this  country  a large  number  of  importers  whose  business 
it  is  to  import  these  goods.  They  buy  them  from  English  manufacturers, 
bring  them  into  New  York,  Saint  Louis,  New  Orleans,  and  Cincinnati, 
and  sell  them  in  competition  with  the  goods  we  manufacture.  That  is 
done  very  largely.  If  there  should  be  even  a slight  reduction  in  the 
present  tariff,  of  course  these  goods  would  be  imported  to  a much  greater 
extent  than  they  are  at  the  present  time. 

I think  I speak  the  unanimous  sentiment  of  all  the  parties  engaged 
in  this  branch  of  business  when  I say  that  we  desire  no  change  to  be 
made  in  the  present  tariff  on  our  class  of  manufactures,  or  if  there 
should  be  a change  made,  that  it  should  be  in  the  direction  of  a higher 
tariff.  As  I have  stated,  I do  not  feel  prepared  to  enter  into  this  sub- 
ject as  fully  as  I could  wish,  because  1 have  not  with  me  the  facts  which 
1 think  necessary  to  present  to  your  consideration,  but  I trust  that  some 
of  the  other  gentlemen  who  are  with  me  can  present  these  facts  to  you 
more  in  detail  than  I have  been  able  to  do. 


L F.  JUDD.] 


SADDLERY  HARDWARE. 


395 


L.  F.  JUDD. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  10,  1882. 

Mr.  L.  F.  Judd,  of  the  iirm  of  North  & Judd,  New  Britain,  Conn., 
manufacturers  of  saddlery  hardware,  made  the  following*  statement : 

1 simply  desire  to  say  that  a year  or  two  ago,  happening  to  he  in  Eng- 
land, as  a manufacturer  of  saddlery  hardware  (which  has  been  my  bus- 
iness for  years)  I naturally  looked  into  the  business  as  it  was  carried 
on  there,  and  in  Germany,  France,  and  other  countries.  While  in  Eng- 
land I went  to  Walsall,  which  is  the  great  center  of  the  manufacture 
of  saddlery  hardware,  and  having  letters  of  introduction  to  the  largest 
manufacturers  and  exporters  of  these  goods  I had  all  the  necessary 
facilities  for  examining  into  their  manufacture.  The  manufacturers 
showed  me  through  their  establishments,  and  almost  the  first  article 
that  I picked  up  after  I went  into  one  of  them  was  a rein-snap,  made 
by  North  & Co.,  and  called  the  Andrews  rein-snap.  I said  to  them, 
u Where  did  you  get  this  V7  They  said,  u We  have  sent  one  of  our  men 
to  New  York  to  pick  up  these  things,  and  whenever  there  is  anything 
new  invented  he  sends  us  a sample  of  it  and  we  make  a similar  article 
in  this  country.  We  are  going  to  fill  Canada  with  these  goods ; we  are 
not  going  to  let  your  people  sell  to  the  Canadians.” 

I found  imitated  goods  there  which  had  been  produced  at  our  factory 
not  six  months  before.  They  had  procured  them  through  their  agent, 
imitated  them,  and  were  going  to  send  them  into  this  country.  I in- 
vestigated their  methods  of  manufacture,  and  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  we  were  the  originators  of  most  of  the  improvements  made  in 
machinery  in  this  country.  These  English  manufacturers  pick  up  our 
ideas  and  send  the  goods  they  manufacture  into  Canada;  and  if  they  do 
not  send  them  into  this  country  we  feel  quite  fortunate. 

I indorse  all  that  Mr.  Gwinnell  has  said  on  this  subject.  We  are 
selling  the  roller-buckles  to-day  at  a profit  of  only  3 per  cent,  on  the 
cost  of  production.  Our  factory  has  made  50,000  gross  of  them  within 
the  last  six  months,  and  I do  not  believe  we  have  made  over  3 per  cent, 
on  them. 

If  you  should  take  off  the  small  tariff  that  we  now  have  upon  goods 
in  our  line,  we  shall  have  to  stop  the  manufacture  of  them,  although 
we  have  been  in  this  business  for  forty  years.  The  price  of  labor  is  so 
high  in  this  country  that  if  it  were  not  for  a moderate  tariff  we  should 
not  be  able  to  continue  the  business. 


396 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ F.  H.  CATLIN. 


F.  H.  CATLIN. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  14,  1882. 

Mr.  F.  H.  Catlin,  president  of  the  Northfield  Knife  Company,  North- 
held,  Conn.,  representing  the  manufacture  of  pocket  cutlery,  made  the 
following  statement : 

I think  the  gentleman  who  proceeded  me  (Mr.  Thomas  W.  Brad- 
ley) has  stated  the  facts  correctly  in  regard  to  the  difference  in  the 
price  of  cutlery  now  and  ten  years  ago.  Our  estimate  is  that  the  selling 
price  to-day  is  fully  one-third  less  than  it  was  ten  years  ago,  and  the 
price  is  lower  than  it  was  twenty-five  years  ago.  He  was  asked  a ques- 
tion in  regard  to  the  gold  premium ; whether  the  price  would  he  less  in 
gold.  I have  not  at  present  in  mind  what  the  amount  of  premium  on 
gold  was  in  1872,  but  I think  it  was  not  so  large,  but  that  the  present 
price  of  American  pocket  cutlery  in  gold  is  fully  one-third  less  than  it 
was  in  1872. 

In  regard  to  the  figures  given  in  the  table  presented  by  us,  I will  say 
that  they  were  compiled  by  the  president  of  our  association,  Mr.  W.  F. 
Kockwell,  and  that  they  are  taken  from  actual  cost  prices,  as  found  on 
their  books  on  goods  of  their  own  manufacture.  They  have  the  means 
and  facilities  for  manufacturing  at  as  low  a price  as  any  one  in  the 
country.  I have  been  connected  with  this  business  about  nineteen 
years,  and  have  been  through  most  of  the  factories  in  this  country  en 
gaged  in  this  line  of  business,  and  my  experience  is  that  theirs  is  the 
most  complete  factory  in  the  way  of  machinery  and  all  the  facilities  for 
making  goods  at  low  prices.  Therefore  I think  that  a statement  made 
from  their  books  is  a fairer  one  than  if  taken  from  the  books  of  some 
other  concern  where  they  manufacture  on  the  old  plan,  but  are  not 
able  to  manufacture  as  cheaply  or  economically  as  Mr.  Rockwell’s  firm 
does.  We  avoided  taking  our  figures  from  the  books  of  any  such  firm 
as  that  for  a basis. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  About  how  many  companies  are  there  in  this  country  en- 
gaged in  the  manufacture  of  pocket  cutlery? — Answer.  At  least  twenty- 
five. 

Q.  How  many  hands  do  they  employ  altogether  ? — A.  About  eighteen 
hundred. 

Q.  How  much  money  is  invested  in  the  plant  ? — A.  About  $1,600,000, 
as  stated  in  the  paper  we  have  presented. 

Q.  That  is  the  amount  of  capital  invested.  I want  to  know  how  much 
is  invested  in  the  plant,  not  how  much  stock  you  have  made. — A.  I 
could  not  give  you  that  information  at  present. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  annual  product  of  this  business  is  very 
small  compared  with  the  amount  of  capital  invested  ? — A.  T think  it  is. 
I know  of  no  other  business  in  which  the  annual  production  is  so  small 
in  proportion  to  the  capital  invested  as  it  is  in  this.  It  is  a very  diffi- 
cult matter  in  our  business  to  make  the  annual  production  exceed  or 
even  equal  the  capital  invested  in  it,  and  there  are  very  few  companies 
in  this  country  who  have  been  able  to  do  it, 


) 


EDWARD  S.  MORRIS.] 


PALM  OIL. 


397 


EDWARD  S.  MORRIS. 

Lonh  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  14,  1882. 

Mr.  Edward  S.  Morris,  of  Philadelphia,  resident  Liberian  consul, 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  : Having  visited  the  Christian  Republic  of  Liberia  on  the 
west  coast  of  Africa  with  a view  to  business  in  its  broadest  significa- 
tion, I think  you  will  be  pleased  to  learn  of  a new  industry  I have  there 
inaugurated,  viz,  the  refining  of  palm  oil.  I know  of  no  such  effort  in 
all  Africa.  This  oil  is  sent  to  me  in  casks  for  soap-making,  and  in  bot- 
tles (air-tight)  for  hospital  purposes,  as  well  as  for  a more  perfect  soap. 
No  oil  is  said  to  have  greater  healing  properties,  in  cases  of  wounds  and 
all  skin  affections,  than  palm  oil. 

Palm  oil  is  free  of  duty.  Shooks  are  sent  to  Liberia,  where  they  are 
put  into  casks  or  hogsheads,  to  receive  the  oil.  No  import  duty  is 
charged  by  the  United  States  uj)on  the  shooks  or  casks,  but  a duty  of 
30  per  cent,  is  charged  upon  the  bottles. 

Last  year  the  first  importation  on  record  (I  believe)  of  palm  oil  in 
bottles  was  received  by  me  direct  from  Liberia  to  the  port  of  New  York. 
I had  to  pay  30  per  cent,  duty  on  the  bottles.  I did  so  under  protest, 
and  an  answer  was  received  by  me  from  the  United  States  Treasury 
Department  at  Washington,  which  you  will  find  printed  in  “ Synopsis 
of  Decisions,”  Nos.  4731  to  5084,  p.  206,  Treasury  Department. 

You  will  observe  the  law  as  it  now  stands  is  substantially  as  follows: 
Bottles  exported  empty  and  returned  empty  will  be  free  of  import  duty 
under  the  present  statute.  All  comment  is  unnecessary,  only  adding 
that  1 give  Congress  credit  for  appointing  a Tariff  Commission  composed 
of  business  men  to  consider  business  questions. 

I have  just  received  from  my  refinery  in  Liberia  over  7,000  bottles  of 
pure  and  sweet  palm  oil.  The  bottles  received  by  me  last  year  and  now 
were  made  by  Messrs.  Whitall  & Tatum,  of  Philadelphia.  I am  again 
obliged  to  pay  30  per  cent,  duty  on  American-made  bottles,  which  I do 
under  written  protest,  useless  as  it  may  seem. 

Continue  the  present  law  and  I will  be  driven  to  England  to  purchase 
bottles,  and  at  a price  30  per  cent,  less  than  American  prices,  to  say 
nothing  of  a weekly  transport  between  England  and  Liberia.  Continue 
the  present  law  and  the  United  States  Government  will  receive  the 
thanks  of  bottle-makers  in  all  foreign  countries. 

In  the  name  of  bottle  and  glass  manufacturers,  I respectfully  ask  for 
the  present  statute  to  be  changed  to  the  end  that  all  American -made 
bottles  shall  be  free  of  all  duty.  If  a cask  containing  palm  oil  is  free  of 
duty,  why  not  an  American-made  bottle*? 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Are  you  buying  the  American-made  bottles  ? — Answer.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Do  they  cost  you  more  than  the  English  or  French  bottles  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why,  then, do  you  buy  them? — A.  Simply  because  I can  get  them 
to  Liberia  easily  in  vessels  sailing  from  New  York,  and  I prefer  taking 
the  American-made  bottles.  I think  it  is  better  than  to  get  my  bottles 
in  England.  There  they  are  less  in  price,  and  there  is  communication 


398 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWAHP  S.  MORRIS. 


from  England  to  Liberia  almost  weekly.  But  if  the  duty  of  30  per  cent, 
is  removed  from  American-made  bottles,  I shall  continue  to  get  them 
and  send  them  to  my  refinery  in  Liberia.  If  it  remains  as  it  is,  it  will 
be  cheaper  to  buy  them  in  England.  The  collectors  of  the  ports  of  New 
York  and  Philadelphia  said  they  would  join  me  in  protesting  against 
paying  a duty  on  American-made  bottles.  As  I have  said,  if  a cask 
can  come  in  free  of  duty,  why  cannot  an  American  bottle?  I think  it 
is  well  to  have  a duty  placed  upon  bottles  made  in  foreign  countries 
but  not  on  bottles  made  in  America. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Did  you  know  when  you  sent  out  your  American-made  empty  bot- 
tles that  there  would  be  a duty  on  them  on  their  return? — A.  Not  when 
I made  my  first  consignment,  but  I did  when  I made  my  second  con- 
signment. 

Q.  Did  you  know  when  you  made  your  second  consignment  that  you 
could  get  bottles  cheaper  from  England? — A.  I did;  but  I hoped  that 
the  protest,  that  the  collector  of  the  port  asked  me  to  write,  would  be 
listened  to,  and  that  I would  get  them  in  free  on  my  importation  of  1882. 

Q.  Paragraph  No.  1468  of  HeyPs  Digest  reads : 

American  manufactures  of  casks,  barrels,  or  carboys  and  otkei  vessels,  and  grain 
bags,  if  exported  containing  American  produce,  and  declaration  be  made  of  intent  to 
return  the  same  empty,  under  such  regulations  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury. 

These  are  admitted  free  of  duty.  They  are  to  be  exported  containing 
American  produce  and  to  be  returned  empty.  It  was  held  in  this  case 
that  they  were  not  returned  in  the  same  condition  as  when  exported. — A. 
If  I had  brought  them  back  empty,  having  sent  them  out  empty,  there 
would  have  been  no  duty  upon  them,  of  course. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I believe  that  petroleum  barrels  come  back 
free  of  duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Yes ; that  is  under  a special  act.  Para- 
graph 1487,  HeyPs  Digest,  says  : 

Barrels  of  American  manufacture,  exported  filled  with  domestic  petroleum  and  re- 
turned empty,  under  ^ucli  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  Treasury  may  pi  escribe,  and 
without  requiring  the  filing  of  a declaration  at  time  of  export  of  intent  to  return  the 
same  empty. 

They  are  upon  the  free  list.  There  has  been  some  mistake  in  the  cod- 
ification of  the  law. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  A bottle  sent  out  empty  and  returned 
empty  is  admitted  free  of  duty ; but  when  filled  with  palm  oil,  which  is 
free  of  duty,  the  bottles  are  charged  with  a duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  is  done  under  paragraph  953,  HeyPs 
Digest,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

Glass  bottles  or  jars  filled  witli  articles  not  otherwise  provided  for,  thirty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

Palm  oil  is  otherwise  provided  for.  We  held  in  New  York  that  that 
clause  did  not  cover  anything  that  was  provided  for,  but  they  held  in 
Washington  that  it  covered  everything  that  was  not  provided  for  in  a 
bottle. 

Commissioner  Garland.  It  is  under  a construction  of  the  law,  then, 
rather  than  a special  provision  of  the  law  itself. 

The  President.  The  law  does  not  seem. to  be  clear. 

The  Witness.  Nevertheless,  1 have  to  pay  the  duty.  The  collector 
of  the  port  said  that  the  simple  insertion  there  of  the  words  “American- 
made  bottles  ” would  cover  the  difficulty. 


WIT.  F.  ROCKWELL.] 


POCKET  CUTLERY. 


399 


WILLIAM  F.  ROCKWELL. 

Lono  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  14,  1882. 

Mr.  William  F.  Rockwell,  treasurer  of  the  Miller  Brothers  Cutlery 
Company,  of  Meriden,  Conn.,  and  president  of  the  American  Pocket 
Cutlery  Association,  made  the  following  statement: 

Our  story  is  not  a very  long*  one,  and  will  not  occupy  much  of 
your  valuable  time.  At  a meeting  of  the  American  Pocket  Cutlery 
Association,  held  in  New  York,  August  2,  1882,  it  was  unanimously 
agreed  to  respectfully  submit  for  your  consideration  such  changes 
in  the  tariff  as  our  experience  suggests  as  more  equitable  than 
the  present  ad  valorem  duty  of  50  per  cent.  The  average  cost 
of  material  used  by  us  is  20  per  cent,  of  our  production,  and  the 
balance,  80  per  cent.,  is  made  up  of  labor.  Our  foreign  competition 
comes  from  both  England  and  Germany.  The  work  in  both  foreign 
countries  is  done  largely  on  the  family  plan,  the  cutlery  being  simply 
inspected  and  packed  in  the  warehouse,  the  workmen  usually  furnish 
ing  such  power,  tools,  and  supplies  as  are  needed.  The  variety  manu- 
factured both  here  and  abroad  is  very  large,  but  we  submit  a printed 
statement  giving  a sufficient  example  of  the  cost  of  the  leading  grades 
to  illustrate  the  request  that  you  will  investigate  the  propriety  of 
recommending  a specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  dozen  blades,  instruments 
or  erasers,  and  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty. 

As  many  foreign  manufacturers  have  a resident  partner  in  this 
country,  it  is  obvious  and  admitted  that  many  goods  are  invoiced  and 
duty  paid  at  the  cost  of  labor  and  material,  while  the  profit  is  added 
in  this  country.  The  amount  of  goods  imported  during  the  last  year 
was  about  $2,000,000,  an  increase  of  50  per  cent,  in  the  last  three  years. 
The  amount  manufactured  here  was  about  $1,350,000,  an  increase  of 
not  over  25  per  cent,  during  the  same  time. 

While  the  quality  of  genuine  American  goods  is  almost  universally 
conceded  to  be  far  superior  to  the  average  German  and  lower  grades  of 
English  wares,  and  perhaps  equal  to  the  best  imported,  still  the  Ameri- 
can good  name  has  been  greatly  compromised  by  foreign  manufacturers 
of  low-grade  cutlery  adopting  American  patterns  and  American  names, 
thus  bringing  an  unfair  competition  on  our  cutlery  that  has  made  the 
trade  devoid  of  profit.  While  we  have  many  specially  skilled  work- 
men who  can  earn  much  more,  the  average  wages  paid  by  us  is  $2 
per  day,  and  we  find  it  difficult  to  retain  good  men  at  that  rate,  as 
other  branches  of  industry  offer  better  remuneration.  The  average 
wages  paid  in  England  is  less  than  one-half,  and  in  Germany  less  than 
one-fourth  the  amount  paid  by  us  for  the  same  class  of  labor.  In  the 
table  referred  to  we  have  given  the  cost  of  material,  labor,  and  inci- 
dental or  factory  expenses  on  American  goods.  We  have  deducted  35 
per  cent,  (average  duty)  from  the  material  on  foreign  imports.  We 
have  estimated  English  skill  at  one-half,  and  German  labor  at  one-fourth 
the  rate  of  our  own. 

I have  had  printed  a statement  embodying  these  facts,  which  1 will 
be  happy  to  furnish  to  the  Commission.  It  is  signed  by  myself  as 
president  of  the  American  Pocket  Cutlery  Association,  by  Mr.  F.  II. 
Catlin,  president  Nortlifield  Knife  Company,  Northfield,  Conn.,  and 


400 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fcWM.  F.  ROCKWELL. 


secretary  of  the  association,  and  by  Mr.  Thomas  W.  Bradley,  presi- 
dent of  the  New  York  Knife  Company,  Walden,  N.  Y.,  chairman  of 
our  executive  committee. 

The  following*  table  shows  the  relative  cost  prices  of  American, 
English,  and  German  pocket  cutlery,  with  50  cents  per  dozen  blades 
specific,  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  added  to  the  foreign  goods : 

GERMAN. 


Description. 

Cost  of  material. 

Cost  of  labor. 

Duty,  50  cents  per 
dozen  blades. 

Duty,  30  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

l 

Total  cost. 

4§-inch  cap  primer,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

$0  39 

$0  53 

$0  50 

$0  27 

$1  69 

4-inch,  cap  pruner,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

35 

47 

50 

25 

1 57 

4-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

24 

32 

50 

16 

1 22 

4-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

33 

45 

1 00 

23 

2 01 

3f-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

21 

30 

50 

15 

1 16 

3|-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

31 

42 

1 00 

22 

1 95 

3^-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering I 

19 

25 

50 

13 

1 07 

3|-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

27  I 

37 

1 00 

19 

1 83 

31-incli  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering ! 

17 

24 

50 

12 

1 03 

26 

35 

1 00 

18 

1 79 

3 £ -inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivorv  or  stag  covering I 

38 

52 

1 00 

27 

2 17 

24-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 1 

52  1 

70 

1 50 

37 

3 09 

24-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

61 

82 

2 00 

43 

3 86 

3-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering I 

44 

60 

1 00 

30 

2 34 

3-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

58 

79 

1 50 

51 

3 38 

3-inch  penkniie,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivorv  or  stag  covering 

68 

92 

2 00 

48 

4 08 

34-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

46 

64 

1 00 

33 

2 43 

34-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

63 

85 

1 50 

44 

3 42 

3Linch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering. ...... 

72 

97 

2 00 

50 

4 19 

34-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

2 26 

1 54 

1 50 

1 14 

6 44 

34-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering ! 

2 37 

1 60 

2 00 

1 19 

7 16 

3|-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 1 

2 85 

1 94 

1 50 

1 43 

7 72 

3|-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering. 

2 96 

2 j)0 

2 00 

1 48 

8 44 

ENGLISH. 


Description. 

Cost  of  material. 

Cost  of  labor. 

Duty,  50  cents  per 
dozen  blades. 

| Duty,  30  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

' Total  cost. 

4§-inch  cap  pruner,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  coveiing 

$0  39 

$1  07 

$0  50  1 

$0  43 

$2  39 

4-inch  cap  pruner,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

35 

93 

50 

38 

2 16 

4-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

24 

64 

50 

26 

1 64 

4-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

33 

91 

1 00 

37 

2 61 

3|-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

21 

59 

50 

24 

1 54 

3|  inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

31 

84 

1 00 

34 

2 49 

3^-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covei  ing 

19 

50 

50 

21 

1 40 

3i-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

27 

73 

1 00 

30 

2 30 

3|-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

17 

47 

50 

19 

1 33 

3i-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

26 

70 

1 00 

28 

2 24 

24 -inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

38 

1 04 

1 00 

42 

2 84 

2|-incli  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 1 

52 

1 41 

1 50 

58 

4 01 

L’Lincli  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

61 

1 65  | 

2 00 

67 

4 93 

3-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering ; 

44 

1 20 

1 00 

49 

3 13 

3-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

58 

1 59 

1 50 

65 

4 32 

3-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  coveiing  

68 

1 83 

2 00 

75 

5 26 

3§-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

46 

1 28 

1 00 

52 

3 26 

3|-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

63 

1 69 

1 50 

70 

4 52 

3£-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

72 

1 94 

2 00 

79 

5 45 

3l-inck  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

2 26  I 

3 07 

1 50 

1 60 

8 43 

3^-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

2 37  1 

3 20 

2 00 

1 67 

9 24 

35-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

2 85  * 

i 3 87 

1 50 

2 00 

10  22 

3§-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

2 96 

4 00 

2 00 

2 08 

11  04 

W M.  F.  ROCKWELL.] 


POCKET  CUTLERY. 


401 


AMERICAN. 


Description. 

Cost  of  material. 

1 

Cost  of  labor. 

Incidental  expenses. 

i Total  cost. 

; 

4g-ineh  cap  primer,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

4-inch  cap  pruner,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering! 

4-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

$0  53 
47 

$2  13 
; 1 87 

$0  66 
58 

$3  32 
2 92 

32 

| 1 28 

40 

2 00 

4-inch  iack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

45 

1 82 

57 

2 84 

3§-incti  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

29 

1 18 

37 

1 84 

3J-inch  jack  knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

42 

! 1 68 

53 

2 63 

3^-inch  jack  knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

25 

99 

31 

1 55 

3£-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

36 

1 46 

45 

2 27 

3J-ineli  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

31-inch  jack  knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

23 

95 

29 

1 47 

35 

1 40 

43 

2 18 

2^-inck  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

52 

1 2 07 

65 

3 24 

2|-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

70 

2 82 

88 

4 40 

2|-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

82 

3 29 

1 02 

5 13 

3-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

59 

2 39 

74 

3 72 

3-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

79 

1 3 17 

99 

4 95 

3-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

92 

! 3 66 

1 14 

5 72 

3^-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

63 

2 55 

79 

3 97 

3^-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

85 

3 38 

1 1 05 

5 28 

34-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  covering 

97 

3 87 

; 1 2i 

6 05 

34-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

3 06 

6 14 

2 30 

11  50 

3|-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering  

3 20 

6 40 

2 40 

12  00 

3|-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

3 86 

7 74 

i 2 90 

14  50 

3f-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering 

4 00 

8 00 

i 3 00 

15  00 

I have  also  the  honor  of  submitting  to  you  a printed  statement  on  this 
subject,  which  is  entitled  “ pocket  cutlery  notes,”  in  which  a few  addi- 
tional facts  are  stated.  It  says : 

“The  average  price  of  pocket  cutlery  in  this  country  is  one-third  less 
than  it  was  ten  years  ago.  Such  companies  as  have  made  a moderate 
profit  have  done  so  by  selling  to  the  smaller  trade,  or  by  combining 
some  other  branch  of  industry  with  the  manufacture  of  pocket  cutlery. 

“ The  sale  of  American  fine  knives  is  greatly  disproportionate  to  the 
whole  amount  of  pocket  cutlery  consumed.  As  the  labor  account  in- 
creases on  fine  knives,  the  difference  in  cost  between  American  and  for- 
eign goods  becomes  more  apparent.  Fifty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty 
upon  wages  75  per  cent,  less  than  ours,  helps  but  little  to  lessen  the 
competition  between  us. 

“Our  workmen  are  mostly  imported.  Necessity  compels  them  to  buy 
cheapest  food  at  home  ; opportunity  enables  them  to  procure  the  best  in 
this  country.  Their  relative  value  to  American  farmers,  whether  in 
this  country  or  in  Europe,  may  be  fairly  represented  by  the  relative 
prices  of  the  staple  items  of  consumption  which  are  largely  exported, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  meat,  vegetables,  milk,  &c.,  which  they  buy  at  good 
prices. 

“The  prices  paid  in  the  New  York  wholesale  markets  for  leading 
articles  of  food  are  as  follows: 


For  export, 
which  the 
same  class 
use  in  Eu- 
rope. 

Best  quality, 
which  our 
men  use 
here. 

Flour,  per  barrel 

$3  50 
18 

$9  00 
35 

Butter,  per  pound 

Cheese,  per  pound 

12 

20 

3 80 

9 55 
3 80 

5 73 

II.  Mis.  6 26 


402 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WM,  F.  ROCKWELL. 


u Showing  a difference  of  250  per  cent,  to  encourage  the  farmer  to 
raise  good  products  for  home  consumption,  and  to  favor  the  immigra- 
tion of  well  paid  mechanics  to  consume  them.” 

The  following  is  the  name  and  address  of  companies  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  pocket  cutlery  in  the  United  States,  August,  1882 : 

American  Knife  Company,  Thomaston,  Conn. 

American  Shear  Company,  Hotchkissville,  Conn. 

Canastota  Knife  Company,  Canastota,  NT.  Y. 

Canton  Cuteery  Company,  Canton,  Ohio. 

Central  City  Knife  Company,  Phoenix,  N.  Y. 

Carter  & Johnston,  Akron,  Ohio. 

Empire  Knife  Company,  West  Winsted,  Conn. 

Excelsior  Knife  Company,  Torrington,  Conn. 

Eayetteville  Knife  Company,  Fayetteville,  N.  Y. 

Erary  Cutlery  Company,  Bridgeport,  Conn. 

Gardner  Manufacturing  Company,  Shelburne  Falls,  Mass. 
Holley  Manufacturing  Company,  Lakeville,  Conn. 

Humason  & Beckley  Manufacturing  Company,  New  Britain, 
Conn. 

John  Russell  Cutlery  Company,  Turner’s  Falls,  Mass. 

The  Miller  Bros.  Cutlery  Company,  Meriden,  Conn. 
Naugatuck  Cutlery  Company,  Naugatuck,  Conn. 

New  York  Knife  Company,  Walden,  N.  Y. 

Northfield  Knife  Company,  Northfield,  Conn. 

Southington  Cutlery  Company,  Southington,  Conn. 

Ulster  Knife  Company,  Ellenville,  N.  Y. 

Union  Knife  Company,  Naugatuck,  Conn. 

Walden  Knife  Company,  Walden,  N.  Y. 

Waterbury  Knife  Company,  Waterbury,  Conn. 

Waterville  Cutlery  Company,  Waterville,  Conn. 

Wr0LFERTz,  C.  F.,  & Company,  Allentown,  Pa. 

Beaver  Falls  Cutlery  Company,  Beaver  Falls,  Pa. 


The  amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  business  is  $1,600,000;  the 
value  of  goods  produced  last  year  was  $1,350,000;  the  number  of  per- 
sons employed  about  1,800,  and  the  average  wages  paid  per  day  was  $2. 

I should  be  glad  to  answer  any  questions  that  any  member  of  the 
Commission  desires  to  put  to  me. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  You  have  stated  that  many  foreign  manufacturers  have  a 
resident  partner  in  this  country,  and  that  goods  are  invoiced  and  the  duty 
paid  a t the  cost  of  labor  and  material,  and  the  profit  added  in  this  coun- 
try. Will  you  give  the  names  of  some  of  those  manufacturers  ? — An- 
swer. They  have  been  given  to  me  at  different  times  in  a confidential 
manner. 

Q.  Are  they  leading  manufacturers  ? — A.  Yes,  sir,  they  are. 

Q.  Are  the  manufacturers  you  refer  to  English  manufacturers — Rog- 
ers & Co.? — A.  No,  sir;  I think  not. 

Q.  Or  George  Wostenhohn? — No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  they  manufacturers  who  make  a good  many  goods  for  this 
market? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  make  many  goods  tor  this  market. 

Q.  Did  the  custom  house  officers,  who  are  bound  by  their  oaths  and 
by  the  law  to  appraise  goods  at  the  actual  wholesale  cost  or  market 


POCKET  CUTLERY. 


WM.  F.  ROCKWELL.] 


403 


value,  know  this,  so  far  as  you  are  aware  ? — A.  I never  brought  it  to 
their  attention. 

Q.  Then  you  assume  that  they  are  either  ignorant  of  the  fact  or 
derelict  in  their  duty  ? — A.  I would  say  that  they  were  ignorant  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a Mr.  McMullen,  who  is  in  the  appraiser’s 
office  at  New  York  ? — A.  I have  heard  of  him.  These  matters  of  which 
I have  spoken  came  out  in  conversation.  I have  an  acquaintance  with 
many  German  manufacturers,  and  in  conversation  these  facts  have 
been  stated  to  me  in  a social  way. 

Q.  But  you  have  put  that  statement  here  in  a printed  form. — A.  Yes, 
sir ; I have. 

The  President.  Are  there  any  of  your  associates  who  desire  to 
address  the  Commission  ? 

The  Witness.  I believe  so. 

The  President.  We  want  to  get  all  the  facts  which  you  desire  to 
present,  and  as  completely  as  possible. 

The  Witness.  I think  we  have  had  more  trouble  with  goods  made 
from  American  patterns  sent  abroad  and  stamped  with  the  name  of  an 
American  manufacturer  than  from  any  other  source. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Then,  if  your  trade-marks  were  protected  by  act  of  Congress,  the 
same  as  the  American  trade-marks  on  watches  are  already  protected, 
would  that  be  protection  enough  for  you? — A.  No,  sir;  and  that  is  not 
the  point  under  discussion.  These  foreign  manufacturers  put  the  stamp 
of  American  manufacturers  on  their  goods,  and  they  are  sold  as  Ameri- 
can cutlery,  and  that  brings  of  course  a direct  competition  with  German 
goods  which  are  manufactured  to  compete  with  us  under  American 
names. 

Q.  Suppose  that  Congress  should  prohibit  the  admission  to  entry  of 
foreign  made  cutlery  stamped  with  an  American  name,  would  that  pro- 
tect you  sufficiently  without  any  other  protection  except  in  regard  to 
the  matter  of  undervaluation  spoken  of  in  your  statement? — A.  Prob- 
ably it  would,  so  far  as  the  undervaluation  is  concerned. 

Q.  But  that  is  not  my  question.  My  question  is  a double  one.  If 
you  are  first  protected  against  undervaluation  by  a better  appraisement 
of  the  wholesale  market  value,  and,  secondly,  by  prohibiting  the  intro- 
duction of  foreign  goods  under  American  names  or  trade-marks,  would 
that  be  sufficient  to  protect  you? — A.  I think  the  protection  of  a specific 
duty  is  a better  protection,  and  that  a better  appraisement  can  be  made 
under  it  than  under  an  ad  valorem  system.  I think  specific  protection 
in  our  line  of  business  is  much  better  than  ad  valorem  protection. 

Q.  Do  you  think  an  appraising  officer  can  estimate  the  value  of  goods 
any  more  closely  and  correctly  when  they  pay  a duty  of  30  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  than  if  they  paid  a duty  of  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem? — A.  I do 
not  think  any  appraising  officer  can  estimate  the  actual  value  of  cutlery 
very  accurately  by  looking  at  it. 

Q.  Can  anybody  do  so? — A.  Yes,  sir,  I think  so;  if  they  take  it  out 
and  examine  every  parcel,  they  might.  But  then  they  must  judge 
whether  it  comes  from  England  or  not,  and  put  their  appraising  value 
on  it. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  When  you  sign  this  paper  as  president,  do  you  sign  as  president 
of  one  of  these  companies  or  as  president  of  an  association  having  the 
same  object  in  view? — A.  I sign  it  personally,  as  a member  of  the  firm 
of  Miller  Bros.  & Co.,  and  also  as  president  of  the  American  Pocket 


404 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WM.  F.  ROCKWELL. 


Cutlery  Association.  The  paper  was  prepared  at  a meeting  of  the 
American  Pocket  Cutlery  Association. 

Q.  As  president  of  that  association,  and  speaking  in  its  behalf,  it  is 
presumed  that  you  have  information  which  justifies  you  in  saying  that 
you  have  a moral  conviction  that  “it  is  obvious  and  admitted  that  many 
goods  are  invoiced  and  duty  paid,  at  the  cost  of  labor  and  material, 
while  the  profit  is  added  in  this  country.” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Acknowledging  that  responsibility  and  speaking  for  a large  num- 
ber of  people,  you  state  that  emphatically? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I state  it 
emphatically.  I might  qualify  it  with  this  additional  statement.  Dur- 
ing the  last  two  or  three  years  I have  had  frequent  conversations  with 
German  manufacturers,  men  who  manufacture  goods  in  Germany  and 
spend  part  of  their  time  in  this  country  and  part  in  Germany,  and  they 
said  that  it  had  been  done,  and  was  customary. 

Q.  Did  they  tell  you  it  was  done  in  Germany  or  did  they  confine  their 
assertions  to  a particular  country,  such  as  France  or  England  ? — A.  They 
said  it  was  done  in  Germany  and  that  the  other  countries  did  the  same. 

Q.  And  the  parties  whom  you  got  that  information  from  impressed 
your  mind  with  the  moral  conviction  of  its  truth? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and 
that  was  done  long  before  the  appointment  of  this  Tariff  Commission. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Why  do  you  recommend  that  a specific  duty  be  put  on  blades ; 
would  it  not  be  simpler  to  make  it  on  the  article  itself? — A.  A specific 
duty  would  be  more  simple  on  the  whole  business  if  we  were  allowed  to 
figure  it  out,  but  it  would  be  cumbersome.  The  blade  is  identical  in  all 
knives,  but  the  covering,  or  handle,  is  different.  Some  handles  are  made 
of  pearl  and  some  of  cocoa,  &c.  So  that  the  blade  is  the  only  thing 
by  which  you  can  arrive  at  the  true  value,  for  it  is  a piece  of  steel  by 
itself  and  is  of  identically  the  same  value  per  blade  whether  in  a one- 
bladed  or  four-bladed  knife. 

Q.  In  adding  an  ad  valorem  duty,  you  get  the  increased  cost  of  cov- 
ering and  finishing.  Suppose  the  duty  was  made  on  so  many  .dozen 
knives  or  instruments? — A.  There  are  combination  knives  which  have 
a large  number  of  blades.  Some  knives  are  made  with  saws,  &c.,  in 
them,  and  that  is  done  to  cover  them  all. 

Q.  It  is  simply  to  place  the  duty  upon  the  article  when  it  is  finished 
and  ready  for  consumption. — A.  That  could  be  done,  but  while  it  would 
be  just  at  one  end  of  the  line,  perhaps  it  would  not  be  sufficient  at  the 
other,  or  it  might  be  too  high  in  one  case.  A two-bladed  jack-knite 
might  be  worth  $2.50,  while  a pearl-handled  knife  might  be  worth  $G. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  scissors  shall  pay  50  cents  per  dozen  and  30 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty? — A.  Yes;  scissors  in  a knife.  We  make 
combination  knives  with  scissors  in  them  and  with  saws  in  them,  &c. 

Q.  Then  you  mean  per  dozen  blades,  instruments,  or  erasers  in  one 
handle?— Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  idea. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  dozens  all  the  different  articles  that  are  in  one 
handle  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  a knife  comes  in  with  a spaying  blade,  saw,  an  eraser,  a nail- 
cleaner,  a tooth-pick,  and  other  articles,  and  there  was  a dozen  pieces 
altogether  in  an  instrument  of  that  kind,  including  the  blades,  you 
would  charge  50  cents  on  one  dozen  of  that  article  complete;  is  that 
the  idea  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Suppose  an  article  comes  in,  and  in  one  handle  there  is  contained 
a dozen  instruments,  how  much  does  that  pay;  50  cents? — A.  Yes,  sir; 


WM.  F.  ROCKWELL.] 


POCKET  CUTLERY. 


405 


take  a one-bladed  knife  (all  knives  are  sold  by  tlie  dozen),  and  it  will 
have  one  dozen  blades  in  the  package,  which  will  be  a duty  of  50  cents. 
If  it  is  a two-bladed  knife,  there  would  be  two  dozen  blades  in  a package, 
and  the  duty  would  be  $1.  If  it  is  a three-bladed  knife,  there  would  be 
three  dozen  blades  in  the  package,  and  the  duty  would  be  $1.50. 

In  regard  to  the  capital  invested  in  our  plant,  I would  say  that  our 
company  has  as  large  a plant  as  any  other  conrpany  interested  in  the 
manufacture  of  pocket  cutlery.  The  firm  I represent,  the  Miller  Bros. 
Cutlery  Com  pan y,  of  Meriden,  Conn.,  was  started  in  1869  or  1870,  with 
the  intention  of  manufacturing  pocket  cutlery  on  an  improved  plan. 
Mr.  Wostenholm  himself  took  $10,000  worth  of  stock,  and  there  was 
$100,000  of  capital  invested,  and  subsequently  $50,000  more  was  put 
into  the  business.  They  put  in  improved  machinery  and  continued  the 
business  until  1873,  when  they  had  to  stop,  having  sunk  $400,000  in 
the  business.  At  that  time  a party  of  us  bought  out  the  business.  The 
machinery  was  estimated  at  $100,000,  and  the  building  account  stood 
at  $50,000,  making  a total  of  $150,000  at  that  time  for  the  conducting 
of  the  business  in  the  making  of  pocket  cutlery.  We  bought  the  estab- 
lishment five  or  six  years  ago,  a gentleman  who  was  interested  with  me 
having  ample  means  to  carry  it  on.  Of  course  we  bought  the  plant  at 
a low  figure,  and  we  have  put  in  every  known  improvement  in  ma- 
chinery, and  the  figures  I have  submitted  are  the  actual  figures  that  we 
pay  for  the  manufacture  of  certain  classes  of  knives.  Our  books  will 
show  the  labor  and  the  material  employed,  and  these  figures  have  been 
collated  in  the  most  careful  manner  from  the  books  of  Miller  Bros. 
& Co.  I know  that  the  different  plants  throughout  the  country  have 
costa  large  per  cent,  more  than  is  invested  in  almost  any  other  business 
in  proportion  to  the  production.  Our  production  is  less  than  $150,000 
a year  on  a plant  valued  at  $200,000.  We  have  spared  no  expense  to 
make  the  business  a success  and  to  find  out  if  there  is  anyT  money  to 
be  made  in  it. 

So  far  as  the  matter  of  stamping  of  American  names  on  foreign  pocket 
cutlery  is  concerned,  it  is  only  mentioned  here  incidentally  to  show  why 
we  need  specific  protection  on  cutlery,  and  not  because  we  are  asking 
to  have  it  prohibited. 


406 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  W.  BRADLEY. 


THOMAS  W.  BRADLEY. 


Long  Branch, K.  J.,  August  14,  1882. 

Mr.  TnoMAS  W.  Bradley,  president  of  the  iiew  York  Knife  Com- 
pany, of  Walden,  Kew  York,  made  the  following  statement: 

The  principal  point  to  which  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Commission  is  the  one  in  regard  to  the  importing  of  foreign  goods,  par- 
ticularly German  goods  stamped  with  American  names.  By  that  I do 
not  mean  that  they  import  goods  stamped  with  the  same  name  of  the 
firm  manufacturing  goods  in  this  country,  but  only  with  some  name  akin 
to  it.  For  instance,  I am  connected  with  the  Kew  York  Knife  Com- 
pany, a firm  which  has  been  in  existence  since  1852.  We  claim  to  make 
a good  quality  of  knife,  like  the  English  knife,  to  compete  with  the  Ger- 
man production.  We  meet  in  the  market  a brand  of  goods  stamped  the 
aKew  England  Knife  Company.”  The  inference  in  the  trade  is  that  it 
is  the  same  class  of  goods  as  ours.  These  goods  are  German  goods  of  a 
very  cheap  class  and  a jmor  quality  of  steel,  but  they  are  put  in  compe- 
tition with  our  steel  by  reason  of  the  use  of  the  words  “Yew  England 
Knife  Company,”  and  the  trade  infer  that  they  are  manufactured  in  Kew 
England  by  American  makers.  In  that  way  our  goods  are  degraded  by 
reason  of  the  importation  from  Germany  of  knives  of  that  description. 
There  are  many  instances  of  that  kind  where  different  brands  are  used. 
We  would  like  to  have  that  business  stopped  if  we  could.  Take  this 
knife  that  I hold  in  my  hand.  It  is  an  imported  German  knife  of  good 
finish  and  appearance,  and,  to  the  appraiser  in  Kew  York,  appears  pretty 
much  of  equal  value  with  ours;  but  the  difference  is  in  the  quality  of 
steel  used.  The  finish  is  nice  and  the  workmanship  fair,  but  the  quality 
of  the  knife  is  not  within  25  per  cent,  of  our  home-made  knife.  If  you 
bring  in  a Wostenholm  or  a Rogers  knife,  we  know  it  at  once ; there  are 
no  better  goods  made  in  the  world.  The  aim  of  the  American  manufac- 
turer is  to  compete  with  the  Rogers  and  Wostenholm  goods.  It  is  an 
honorable  aim,  and  one  that  we  have  endeavored  to  follow  for  many 
years.  I have  been  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  cutlery  since  1 was 
eleven  years  of  age.  My  father  before  me  was  in  the  same  business  for 
twenty-five  years,  and  his  father  was  also  a cutler.  We  come  directly 
from  Sheffield,  the  home  of  the  cutlery  business,  and  we  undertake  to 
compete  with  the  goods  manufactured  by  Crooks,  Wostenholm,  and  Rog- 
ers, which  everybody  acknowledges  to  be  of  the  very  best  quality  of  goods. 
So  far  as  they  are  concerned,  we  can  at  any  time  equal  them  in  finish. 
In  material  Ave  do  equal  them,  because  we  use  the  same  steel  that  they 
use.  We  import  it.  But  before  many  years  I think  we  shall  be  able 
to  use  American  steel.  We  are  making  experiments  in  that  direction  at 
present,  and  in  the  common  grades  of  knives  use  American  steel  to-day. 
We  are  improving  all  the  time,  and  I think  in  a few  years  we  shall  have 
American  steel  equal  to  the  best  English  steel.  Fifteen  to  twenty  years 
ago  all  the  steel  we  used  for  pocket  cutlery  we  imported  from  Sheffield 
direct ; but,  as  I say,  we  are  gradually  substituting  American  steel  for 
the  English  steel. 

The  name  of  Wostenholm  or  Rogers  gives  the  article  a reputation 
which  is  equal  to  25  or  30  per  cent,  profit  over  the  ordinary  manufacture, 


THOMAS  W.  BRADLEY.] 


POCKET  CUTLERY. 


407 


independent  of  the  quality  of  the  goods;  that  is  to  say,  their  name  is 
worth  that  percentage.  But  these  German  goods  we  cannot  compete 
with.  1 have  here  a.  knife  which  we  sell  for  $12  a dozen.  It  cost  the 
New  York  Knife  Company  $12.75  a dozen  to  make  it.  You  may  ask 
why  we  make  it  at  a loss.  We  make  it  and  sell  it  as  an  advertisement, 
because  if  we  were  not  putting  this  class  of  goods  on  the  market  we 
could  not  make  a reputation  for  producing  a good  quality  of  goods.  At 
the  same  time,  knives  of  German  manufacture  can  be  put  on  the  market 
at  $10.40  a dozen  and  give  a good  profit. 

The  tariff  has  been  our  salvation  heretofore.  The  present  tariff  was 
framed  toward  the  latter  part  of  the  war,  and  it  enabled  struggling  con- 
cerns nearly  bankrupt,  as  we  were  ourselves,  to  build  up  the  business  and 
make  it  a profitable  industry.  At  present  we  employ  200  men  in  the  manu- 
facture of  pocket  cutlery,  and  the  whole  business  was  built  up  during 
the  war  at  the  time  when  gold  was  up  to  $2.88  premium.  That  fact  helped 
us  to  build  up  the  industry.  But  for  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years  it  has 
been  a very  hard  struggle  for  us  to  make  a living  out  of  the  business ; 
it  has  not  been  profitable  at  all.  It  has  been  a struggle  to  come  out 
even  and  to  keep  our  factories  and  machinery  in  a fair  state  of  repair. 
The  reduction  of  the  premium  on  gold  of  course  reduced  our  advan- 
tages under  the  tariff  to  that  extent.  As  against  the  better  class  of 
English  goods,  the  present  tariff  is  a good  fair  protection,  but  the  Ger- 
man manufacturers,  as  the  tariff  stands,  can  very  largely  undersell  us. 

As  regards  the  subject  of  undervaluations,  I will  say  this:  VCe  have 
dealings  with  importers  and  become  socially  friendly,  and  we  get 
points  from  them  as  to  what  is  paid  by  them  for  labor,  &c.  We  de- 
rive much  information  of  that  kind  from  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
of  the  water.  I,  myself,  was  born  in  Sheffield,  and  when  I visit  there 
I pick  up  a great  deal  of  information  in  regard  to  wages  and  prices  of 
goods.  Besides,  we  have  had  to  send  over  for  several  operatives,  and 
of  course  they  have  information  on  these  points  also.  We  are  gradu- 
ally bringing  in  American  youths  to  learn  our  business.  Some  of  the 
best  mechanics  we  have  are  Americans  who  have  grown  up  in  the  bus- 
iness, and  have  been  engaged  in  it  since  they  were  boys.  But  it  is 
necessary  for  us  to  bring  some  of  our  operatives  from  the  old  country. 
In  a few  years  I think  we  shall  outgrow  that,  as  we  are  now  introduc- 
ing machinery  to  take  the  place  of  hand  labor.  Our  business  is  a com- 
plicated one,  and  it  takes  several  years  to  learn  the  different  portions 
of  it.  If  we  are  fairly  assisted  by  a judicious  tariff  for  eight  or  ten 
years,  I think  we  shall  obtain  a firm  footing  in  this  country. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  an  American  manufacturer  of  pocket 
cutlery  putting  on  his  wares  names  similar  to  the  names  of  Eogers  and 
Wostenholm  ? — Answer.  No,  sir;  I never  knew  of  such  a case.  I know 
of  cases  where  American  manufacturers  have  been  asked  to  do  so,  but 
in  all  cases  they  have  refused. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  there  are  German  goods  which  come  into  our 
market  which  imitate  the  better  grades  of  English  goods,  where  they 
use  a deceiving  term  as  to  trade  marks1? — A.  I do  not  know  absolutely 
of  a case.  When  Mr.  Wostenholm  was  living,  he  came  to  this  country, 
about  eight  years  ago,  and  his  principal  business  at  that  time  was  to 
prosecute  a paity  who  was  stamping  “Wostenholm  & Sons”  on  some 
German  goods.  I do  not  know  who  made  the  goods.  Mr.  Wostenholm 
was  a guest  at  our  house  for  a time,  and  he  told  me  that  was  his  business. 

Q.  Then  there  was  one  instance,  at  least,  where  the  best  English 


408 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  W.  BRADLEY. 


manufacturers  have  to  complain  of  the  same  thing  you  complain  of? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  that  the  price  of  cutlery  is  about  two  thirds 
what  it  was  ten  years  ago.  Is  it  not  two-thirds  less  than  the  gold 
price? — A.  That  I cannot  answer.  Our  sales  have  always  been  made 
in  currency. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  notified  the  custom-house  officers  of  your  knowl- 
edge of  undervaluations  ou  the  part  of  importers  ? — A.  No,  sir;  because 
I never  have  had  any  personal  knowledge  which  I could  supplement 
by  a sworn  statement. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  However,  you  have  signed  this  paper,  and  in  that  paper  you 
state  as  to  these  undervaluations.  Are  you  satisfied  of  the  correctness 
of  that  statement  ? — A.  I am  satisfied  of  the  correctues  of  it  from  in- 
formation derived  from  the  president  of  our  manufacturers’  association. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  it  is  not  within  our  province  to 
recommend  any  law  to  Congress  preventing  the  foreigner  from  stamp- 
ing his  goods  with  any  name  that  he  sees  fit  to  put  upon  them?  You 
complain  that  some  parties  stamp  on  their  knives  the  words  “New  En- 
gland Knife  Co.,”  which  resembles  your  stamp,  the  uNew  York  Knife 
Co.”  Ho  you  suppose  Congress  could  pass  a law  which  would  have  any 
effect  on  that  ? — A.  I think  it  would  have  an  effect  if  Congress  should 
pass  such  a law,  but  whether  they  could  do  it  or  not,  I couldn’t  say.  It 
is  done  on  a grade  of  goods  acknowledged  to  be  of  a lower  grade  than 
the  American  manufacture,  made  over  in  Germany  and  coming  into  this 
country  with  a duty  not  sufficient  to  bring  them  up  to  our  price.  That 
is  the  reason  I suggested  that  a specific  duty  in  connection  with  an  ad 
valorem  duty  should  be  placed  on  the  goods.  For  instance,  a Rogers 
knife  costs  $12  a dozen  to  import  to  this  country,  while  a German  knife 
of  similar  appearance  can  be  imported  for  $8.  If  the  duty  was  put  on, 
as  has  been  suggested,  at  50  cents  a dozen  blades,  the  German  knife 
would  pay  nearer  the  amount  of  duty  paid  on  the  English  knife,*  and 
that  would  equalize  it  somewhat. 

Q.  Suppose  the  inferior  German  knife  was  stamped  the  “New  York 
Manufacturing  Co.,”  lor  instance.  Ho  you  imagine  any  law  of  Congress 
could  prevent  that  being  done? — A.  No,  sir;  but  I think  that  if  we 
could  get  a specific  duty  it  would  partly  remedy  the  evil. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  Mr.  Wostenholm  visited  this  country  for  the 
purpose  of  prosecuting  parties  who  were  stamping  inferior  goods  with 
the  name  of  “Wostenholm  & Sons.”  You  say  that  you  found  some 
goods  stamped  in  that  way.  Was  that  done  by  American  manufac- 
turers ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  the  goods  made  in  America? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  they  made? — A.  1 think  in  Germany. 

Q.  Who  had  been  doing  this  stamping,  the  importers  or  the  German 
manufacturers? — A.  The  German  manufacturers,  I think. 

Q.  Then  it  was  a similar  case  to  your  own  which  you  complain  of? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 


FREDERICK  B.  HAWLEY.] 


SCIENTIFIC  PROTECTION. 


409 


FREDERICK  B.  HAWLEY. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  14,  1882. 

Mr.  Frederick  B.  Hawley,  of  New  York,  addressed  the  Commis- 
sion as  follows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission: 
You  have  been  appointed  in  order  that  our  present  tariff  laws  might 
receive  from  you  a more  discriminating  and  scientific  consideration  than 
could  be  well  given  to  them  by  Congress;  and  you  are  authorized  to 
submit  an  advisory  report,  as  to  what  changes  in  these  laws  are  just 
and  desirable.  Your  object  is  to  determine,  as  nearly  as  ascertainable 
facts,  and  reasoning  founded  upon  such  facts,  will  allow,  which  of  our 
national  industries  can  be  artificially  fostered  to  the  benefit,  not  so  much 
of  those  engaged  in  such  industries  as  to  the  enrichment  of  our  wliole 
population. 

1 do  not  understand  that  you  are  expected  to  consider  the  advisa- 
bility of  a protective  policy,  but  rather  liow  such  a policy  can  be  wisely 
applied.  An  argument  in  its  favor  is  not  therefore  entitled  to  any 
special  consideration  from  you,  unless  it  affords  economic  principles 
which  will  aid  you  in  its  practical  application  to  the  subjects  under 
discussion.  The  only  theoretical  principles  of  interest  to  you  in  your 
corporate  capacity  are  such  as  are  capable  of  indicating,  in  each  indi- 
vidual instance,  the  gain  or  loss  that  arises  from  that  special  industry 
being  protected. 

I think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  none  of  the  arguments  commonly 
advanced  in  favor  of  protection  possess  the  scientific  precision  that  will 
enable  you  to  properly  utilize  the  statistics  at  your  command.  None 
of  them  are  capable  of  yielding  any  formula  that  can  be  practically 
applied  to  the  resolution  of  the  difficult  and  complicated  problems  you 
are  expected  to  solve.  Without  some  such  formula,  it  is  impossible  for 
the  most  critical  and  accurate  investigation  to  arrive  at  any  but  empir- 
ical results.  But  the  social  and  economic  effects  of  a protective  tariff* 
are  altogether  too  complicated  for  empirical  results  to  possess  the  least 
value  in  what  is  your  especial  duty,  the  determination  of  particular 
cases.  Of  all  this  you  are  doubtless  aware;  indeed,  two  members  of 
your  Commission  have  substantially  stated  the  same  to  me  personally. 
You  will  not  accuse  me  therefore  of  too  strong  a statement  when  I affirm 
that  the  very  first  requisite  to  the  success  of  your  efforts  is  the  discov- 
ery of  some  such  formula,  based  upon  undeniable  scientific  truth,  and 
its  consistent  application  and  use  in  your  investigations. 

It  is  because  1 have  such  a formula  to  propose  to  you  that  I venture 
to  obtrude  my  views  upon  your  consideration.  It  is  an  unpleasant 
task  to  do  so,  because  it  is  an  ungraceful,  and  somewhat  immodest, 
thing  for  an  author  to  dilate  in  person  upon  ideas  already  published  to 
the  world.  It  is  wiser  and  in  better  taste  for  him  to  let  his  work  speak 
for  itself,  in  the  certainty  that,  if  worthy  of  it,  it  will  finally  win  approba- 
tion and  consent.  In  my  case,  however,  my  book  has  not  been  published 
for  a sufficient  length  of  time  for  any  decisive  verdict  to  be  pronounced 
upon  the  principles  it  contains;  and  those  principles,  if  correct,  are 
so  essential  to  your  success  that  I hope  to  be  pardoned  for  any  apparent 
egotism.  When  it  is  remembered  that  ftliat  you  are  appointed  to  deter- 


410 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FREDERICK  B.  HAWLEY. 


mine  and  recommend  can  only  be  ascertained  with  the  aid  of  such  a 
formula  as  I am  about  to  present  to  you,  and  that  no  other  formula 
has  ever  been  proposed,  I have,  I hope,  established  a claim  to  a very 
careful  consideration  of  my  views,  especially  as  I am  able  to  state  that 
what  criticism  my  treatise  has  recived  has  been  unexpectedly  favorable. 

I do  not  propose  a full  presentation  of  my  argument;  that  can  be 
found  in  my  book,  “Capital  and  Population,”  more  fully  elaborated 
than  would  be  possible  in  the  limited  time  at  my  command.  What  I 
desire  to  do  to-day  is  to  indicate  how  the  economic  principles  there  es- 
tablished can  be  applied  to  the  resolution  of  the  special  questions  that 
will  come  before  your  Commission.  It  will  only  be  necessary  to  state 
here  that  the  economic  law  I have  enunciated  is  simply  this:  that 
there  is  a persistent  tendency  for  capital  to  press  upon  its  limits,  which 
are  acknowledged  by  all  economists  to  be  population  and  the  state  of 
the  arts  That  is,  a community  cannot  continue  its  accumulation  of 
capital  beyond  the  amount  that  can  be  profitably  utilized  in  the  em- 
ployment of  its  labor.  To  allow  of  any  permanent  addition  to  this 
amount,  there  must  be  au  increase  in  the  number  of  laborers,  or  there 
must  occur  a diversion  of  some  of  its  labor  from  industries  using  little 
to  those  able  to  utilize  a greater  amount  of  capital,  in  proportion  to  the 
labor  employed.  For  if,  without  either  of  these  contingencies  happen- 
ing, a further  addition  is  made  to  capital,  i.  c.,  to  the  funds  actively  en- 
gaged in  or  reserved  for  productive  employment,  the  competition  of 
such  capital  lowers  the  rate  of  profit ; and  as  profit  is  the  sole  induce- 
ment to  produce,  it  also  lessens  the  industrial  activity,  amount  of  em- 
ployment, and  total  production  of  the  nation.  It  follows  from  this  that 
any  policy  which  opens  up  new  avenues  for  investment,  by  sustaining 
the  rate  of  profit  and  the  amount  of  employment  and  productive  effici- 
ency, allows  such  accumulations,  as  the  new  investments  justify,  to  be 
saved  from  the  products  of  labor  that  would  not  otherwise  have  been 
employed  at  all.  Considered  from  a national  point  of  view,  such  ac- 
cumulations are  a saving  from  what  would  otherwise  be  wasted.  . The 
profits  which  they  afford  are  wholly  an  addition  to  national  income, 
when  such  diversion  of  industry  arises  from  natural  causes.  When, 
however,  they  are  the  artificial  result  of  a protective  policy,  a price  is 
paid  for  the  benefit  derived,  namely,  the  additional  cost  to  the  consumer 
of  the  protected  article.  This  loss  to  the  consumer  may  be  greater, 
equal  to,  or  less  than  the  gain  to  the  producer.  There  is  no  invariable 
relation  between  the  two  sums.  The  amounts  of  each  can,  however,  be 
quite  accurately  ascertained  and  compared  for  each  protected  industry. 

Free-traders  claim  that  to  ascertain  the  loss  or  gain  to  the  commun- 
ity on  any  protected  article,  the  money  cost  at  which  it  could  be  im- 
ported must  be  compared  with  the  money  cost  at  which  it  is  produced 
and  sold  at  home.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  this  comparison  invariably 
indicates  a loss;  and  as  needless  to  assert  that  the  principles  upon 
which  it  is  founded  ignore  the  fact  that  the  amount  of  capital  a nation 
can  and  will  accumulate  depends  wholly  upon  the  nature  and  require- 
ments of  its  industries.  If  they  are  such  as  will  enable  a large  capital 
to  be  profitably  employed,  there  need  be  no  fear  but  that  the  capital 
required  will  shortly  be  present  to  fulfil  its  mission.  Production  and 
accumulation  may  safely  be  trusted  to  go  on,  as  long  as  the  promise  or 
hope  of  profit  remains. 

This  being  so,  to  enable  us  to  determine  the  loss  or  gain  due  to  the 
protection  of  any  specified  industry,  we  have  only  to  compare  the  im- 
ported cost  of  the  commodity  produced  with  the  money  value  of  tbe 
agricultural  products  which  the  diverted  labor  might  have  produced. 
The  result  will  be  an  accurate  determination  of  the  gain  or  loss  of  pro- 


FREDERICK  B.  HAWLEY.] 


SCIENTIFIC  PROTECTION. 


411 


tecting  such  industry,  except  as  the  result  is  modified  by  the  fact  that 
the  money  cost  of  imported  commodities,  duty  free,  would  have  been 
greater,  and  the  money  price  of  exported  commodities  lower,  under 
tree  trade.  This  result  follows  from  the  action  of  the  economic  law 
known  as  “The  Equation  of  International  Demand,”  and  is  acknowl- 
edged by  all  free-traders  of  any  scientific  standing,  though  few  of  them 
recognize  the  importance  of  the  admission.  Whatever  its  influence  is, 
however,  it  is  wholly  an  addition  to  the  gain,  or  a subtraction  from  the 
loss,  due  to  protection,  as  ascertained  by  the  above  comparison. 

With  this  very  imperfect  statement  of  the  scientific  principles  in 
volved,  I ask  your  attention  to  their  practical  application,  which  I will 
illustrate  by  an  attempt  to  ascertain  the  gain  or  loss  that  has  accrued 
to  the  community  from  the  protected  industry  to  the  cotton  manufact- 
ure. 

The  first  point  to  be  determined  for  the  consideration  of  this,  as  for 
all  other  protected  industries,  is  the  money  value  of  the  product  of  an 
average  day’s  work  of  an  ordinary  laborer,  when  employed  on  the  poor- 
est land  that  can  be  profitably  cultivated.  This  product  will  be  divided 
between  the  laborer  w7ho  lias  produced  it  and  the  farmer  who  has  em- 
ployed him.  As  the  land  under  consideration  bears  no  rent,  none  of  it 
goes  to  the  landlord.  The  laborer’s  share  is  well  known,  being  what 
is  called  the  price  of  common  day  labor.  Its  average  throughout  the 
United  States  is  about  $1.25  per  day  where  steady  employment  is  given. 
As  the  capital  employed  in  farming,  exclusive,  of  course,  of  the  value 
of  the  land,  is  not  very  large,  an  addition  of  20  per  cent,  to  the  laborer’s 
wages  will  perhaps  cover  the  remuneration  of  the  farmer.  We  cannot 
be  more  than  a few  cents  out  of  the  way  in  assuming  that  a common 
agricultural  laborer  on  the  average  produces  a total  value  of  about  $1.50 
per  diem. 

Turning  now  to  the  Census  Deport  Statistics  of  Manufactures  for 
various  cities,  June  1, 1879,  to  May  31,  1880,  let  us  ascertain  what  value 
labor  produces  in  the  manufacture  of  cotton  goods. 

These  statistics  are  not,  of  course,  such  as  you,  with  your  greater 
facilities,  w ould  use,  but  I have  availed  myself  of  them  for  the  purpose 
of  illustration,  as  being  those  on  which  I could  most  readily  lay  my 
hands.  They  show  the  results  only  of  such  part  of  the  cotton  manufact- 
ure as  is  carried  on  in  the  cities  named.  As,  however,  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  there  is  any  great  advantage  or  disadvantage  in  city  as 
compared  with  country  factories,  the  result  arrived  at  through  these 
statistics  can  differ  to  no  great  extent  from  that  obtainable  from  the 
statistics  of  the  whole  industry. 


Statistical  table  of  cotton  manufacture. 


N ame  of  city. 

Men,  sixteen  years 
and  over  em- 
ployed. 

Women,  above 
fifteen  years  em- 
ployed. 

| 

Children  employed. 

1 

1 

H 

Value  of  material. 

Value  of  products. 

1 

Boston 

64 

145 

80 

$74,  200 

$389,  000 

$550,  000 

Cincinnati 

103 

275 

20 

99, 147 

298,  405 

684, 158 

Newark 

305 

894 

155 

433,  955 

545,  402 

1,598,397 

Philadelphia 

4,  033 

5,  541 

1,880 

3,  440,440 

9,  020,  672 

16,  349,  238 

Providence 

524 

1,  020 

202 

420,  242 

1,  025,  57 1 

2,  004,  788 

Sa  nt  Louis 

1 10 

171 

163 

80,  325 

318,156 

453,  295 

New  York 

140 

104 

52 

96,  704 

337, 188 

532,  512 

5,  279 

8, 150 

2,  558 

4,  657,013 

11,940,514 

22,  172,418 

412 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FREDERICK  B.  KAWLEY. 


Employed  in  agriculture  we  find  that  the  above  labor  would  have  pro- 
duced the  following  value: 


5,279  men,  300  days,  at  $1.25 $2, 076, 625 

8, 150  women,  of  whom  not  over  one-quarter  would  have  been  productively 
engaged  in  agriculture,  or  2,038;  300  days,  at  say  two-thirds  men’s  wages, 

or  83£  cents 509,400 

2,558  male  and  female  children,  of  whom  half  or  1,278  would  have  been  em- 
ployed at  say  300  days,  at  50  cents 191, 700 


2, 777, 824 

To  this  amount  are  to  be  added  the  profits  of  the  farmers,  which  at  20  cents 

on  the  above  sum  equal 555,565 

Also  cost  of  the  material  used  in  the  cotton  manufacture,  as  above 11, 940, 514 


This  gives - 15,273,903 


as  the  real  cost  to  the  country  of  the  products  of  the  cotton  factories  in 
these  seven  cities,  and  which  products  were  sold  by  them  for  $22,172,418. 
From  this  real  cost,  however,  there  are  several  deductions  to  be  made. 

First.  Some  of  the  supplies  and  materials  used  by  this  manufacture 
are  protected,  and  higher  in  price  on  that  account.  If  the  protection 
afforded  is  wise,  as  it  probably  is,  this  higher  price  is  no  detriment  to 
the  country,  and  must  be  deducted  from  the  real  cost.  What  this  really 
amounts  to,  can  be  ascertained  by  you.  I can  only  estimate  it,  which 
I will  do  at  5 per  cent,  of  the  material  consumed,  which  amount  will  not 
seem  large  when  it  is  remembered  how  considerable  a proportion  of  the 
cotton  yarn  woven  in  Philadelphia  is  not  spun  there,  but  in  innumerable 
small  yarn  mills  scattered  throughout  the  country.  At  5 per  cent,  the 
amount  of  this  deduction  will  be  $597,025. 

Second.  If  the  above  laborers  had  been  engaged  in  agriculture,  they 
could  only  have  been  employed  in  the  cultivation  of  poorer  lands  than 
those  now  tilled.  And  the  same  is  true  of  all  other  laborers  in  protected 
industries.  This  w-ould  have  lowered  what  economists  call  the  margin 
of  cultivation ; and,  as  this  margin  is  the  only  determinant  of  the  money 
wages  of  unskilled  labor,  and  the  main  determinant  of  real  wages, .both 
money  and  real  wages  would  have  been  lowered  also.  That  is,  if  our  leg- 
islators had  allowed  the  United  States  to  remain  as  it  was,  a purely 
agricultural  country,  and  our  population  had  attained  its  present  num- 
bers, the  laborers  now  employed  in  manufacturing  could  not  have  found 
as  good  land  to  work  upon  as  the  poorest  now  in  use.  The  land  they 
would  have  been  obliged  to  cultivate  would  be  more  sterile  by  a very 
considerable  percentage,  probably  by  at  least  10  per  cent.  That  is  to 
say,  that,  supposing  the  poorest  land  that  can  be  now  cultivated  with 
jrnofit  to  yield  ten  bushels  to  the  acre,  wages  would  be  lowered  to  the 
point  at  which  nine  bushels  would  afford  a profit  to  the  farmer.  What 
deduction  should  be  made  on  this  account  from  the  above  real  cost  can 
only  be  approximated.  The  statistics  by  which  it  could  be  accurately 
ascertained  do  not  exist.  I am,  however,  undoubtedly  within  the  limit, 
in  my  assumption  that  protection  has  raised  the  American  margin  of 
cultivation  10  per  cent,  and  in  deducting  $333,339  from  above  real  cost. 

Third.  A further  deduction  must  be  made  on  account  of  the  detri- 
mental action  of  the  Equation  of  International  Demand  upon  an  agricul- 
tural country,  which  result  is  rectified  and  perhaps  more  than  rectified 
by  protection.  This  is  a very  intricate  subject,  and  I cannot  pursue  it 
here.  That  protection  does  have  this  beneficial  effect  is  denied  by  no 
one  that  I know  of.  What  the  amount  of  this  effect  may  be  can  only 
be  approximated  and  that  not  very  closely.  If  we  assume  that  the  prices 
of  exportable  articles  would  be  5 per  cent,  lower,  and  of  imported  ar- 


FREDERICK  B.  HAWLEY.] 


SCIENTIFIC  PROTECTION. 


413 


tides  (duty  unpaid)  5 per  cent,  higher,  under  free  trade,  and  that  the 
gross  sum  of  imports  and  exports  were  doubled,  a gross  sum  not  far 
perhaps  from  the  real  one,  could  be  ascertained,  which  would  express 
the  gross  saving  to  the  county  afforded  by  the  action  of  protection  upon 
the  Equation  of  International  Demand.  I am  certainly  within  the  limit 
in  assuming  that  the  proportion  of  this  gross  sum  that  should  be  cred- 
ited to  the  industry  we  are  considering  is  double  that  to  be  attributed 
to  the  raising  of  the  margin  of  cultivation.  I will  deduct  therefore  from 
the  total  of  real  cost  the  sum  of  $666,678. 

Fourthly.  I have  shown  in  my  book  that  there  is  a tendency  for  an 
agricultural  country  to  borrow  a larger  proportion  of  its  capital  than  a 
manufacturing  one.  The  interest  on  this  excess  is  a drain  upon  national 
income  that  can  be  saved  by  protection.  Its  amount  is  uncertain  and 
not  verv  large.  I will  subtract,  therefore,  only  the  sum  of  $100,000  from 
the  above  figures  on  this  account. 

Deducting  these  four  sums,  which  you,  with  your  greater  facilities, 
could  approximate  much  more  nearly  than  I have  been  able  to  do,  we 
find  that  the  real  cost  to  the  nation  of  the  cotton  goods  manufactured 
in  these  seven  cities  is  only  $13,576,761.  I think  you  will  agree  with 
me  that  the  more  accurate  determination  of  this  real  cost,  that  would 
result  from  your  investigations,  would  be  under  rather  than  over  the 
amount  I have  obtained. 

The  final  step  of  the  process  I am  advocating  remains  to  be  taken. 
This  real  cost  of  $13,576,761  is  to  be  compared  with  the  amount  in  dol- 
lars and  cents  which  a similar  amount  and  quality  of  foreign  goods  could 
have  been  imported  for,  duty  free,  during  the  year  from  June  1, 1879, 
to  May  31,  1880.  The  result  will  show  the  exact  gain  to  the  community 
of  protecting  the  factories,  whose  returns  I have  availed  myself  of. 
What  this  inqiorted  cost  would  have  been  can  be  accurately  ascertained 
by  you,  as  the  necessary  statistics  and  price-currents  are  in  existence 
and  can  be  gathered  together.  In  the  case  of  this  manufacture,  it  would 
not,  however,  be  necessary,  as  the  imported  cost  is  manifestly  much 
greater  than  the  real  cost  to  this  country.  For,  assuming  that  the  cost 
of  the  raw  material  would  be  the  same  to  England  as  to  ourselves,  if 
that  country  sold  us  these  goods  at  their  present  real  cost  to  ns,  she 
would  only  have  been  able,  after  entirely  sacrificing  the  profits  of  her 
manufacturers,  to  pay  the  labor  which  produced  the  goods  $1,636,247, 
or  about  35  per  cent,  of  the  sum  our  manufacturers  paid  their  hands. 
The  cost  of  the  raw  material  would  probably  have  been  somewhat  greater 
to  her,  as  the  freight  on  the  cotton  imported  and  the  goods  exported 
would  more  than  balance  any  advantage  in  the  smaller  cost  of  the  other 
materials  used. 

The  above  figures  also  indicate  that  in  the  year  1879-’80  England 
should  have  been  able  to  undersell  our  cotton  manufacturers  by  over 
39  per  cent.,  before  we  suffered  any  loss  in  protecting  that  industry. 
I do  not  know  how  the  prices  of  cotton  goods  in  England  compared 
with  those  that  obtained  in  America  during  that  period.  I cannot  make 
this  comparison,  which  proper  inquiry  would  enable  you  to  make.  As- 
suming such  prices  delivered  in  America  to  be  19  per  cent,  lower  than 
ours — and  this  cannot  be  far  from  the  truth — the  protection  of  that 
industry  yielded  a profit  to  the  community  of  20  per  cent,  of  the  goods 
produced. 

If  it  be  objected  here,  that  the  four  deductions  from  real  cost  I have 
made  partake  too  much  of  the  unreliability  of  all  estimates,  the  reply 
is  that  they  do  not  greatly  affect  the  final  result.  Leaving  them  out 
entirely,  the  percentage  by  which  English  spinners  should  undersell 


414 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FREDERICK  B.  HAWLEY. 


ours  only  falls  from  39  per  cent,  to  31  per  cent.  The  principles  on  which 
these  deductions  are  founded  cannot,  I think,  be  intelligently  disputed, 
and  their  amount  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  carefully  considered 
and  estimated,  but  they  are  by  no  means  essential  to  the  formula  here 
presented.  Going  entirely  to  one  side  of  the  account,  the  position  of 
an  industry  that  shows  a profit  independent  of  them  is  only  strength- 
ened by  bringing  them  into  the  calculation.  It  is  only  those  protected 
industries,  that  otherwise  show  a small  balance  of  loss,  that  need  to 
lean  upon  these  estimated  quantities  for  justification. 

If,  gentlemen,  I shall  be  able  to  impress  my  views  upon  you  suffi- 
ciently to  lead  you  to  adopt  the  formula  carried  out  in  the  above  illus- 
tration as  your  method  of  investigation,  it  will  become  your  duty  to 
determine,  as  accurately  as  you  can,  the  following  general  and  special 
facts : 


GENERAL  FACTS. 

First.  The  money  value  at  present  prices  of  the  product  of  the  yearly 
labor  of  a common  agricultural  laborer  employed  on  lands  that  pay  no 
rent. 

Second.  The  percentage  by  which  that  product  would  probably  be 
reduced  by  the  lowering  of  our  margin  of  cultivation,  that  would  result 
if  the  labor  at  present  employed  in  protected  industries  should  be  ap- 
plied’ to  the  cultivation  of  the  soil. 

Third.  The  percentage  by  which  the  money  price  of  our  exportable 
products  would  probably  be  reduced,  and  the  price  of  our  imports  be 
raised,  together  with  the  probable  increase  in  the  total  amount  of  our 
foreign  trade  that  would  result  from  our  becoming  a purely  agricultural 
community. 

These  general  facts  would  apply  to  your  calculations  concerning  all 
jHOtected  industries.  In  addition  you  will  need  to  ascertain  for  each 
separate  industry  that  claims  protection  the  following 

SPECIAL  FACTS. 

First.  The  amount  of  labor  it  employs  that  in  the  absence  of  such  em- 
ployment would  be  utilized  in  agriculture. 

Second.  The  gross  value  of  the  raw  material  consumed,  less  the 
amount  of  such  value  due  to  some  of  the  articles  used  being  protected. 

Third.  At  what  money  cost  a similar  amount  and  quality  of  products 
could  be  imported  free  of  duty. 

Extreme  accuracy  in  ascertaining  these  facts,  however  desirable,  is  by 
no  means  essential.  All  of  the  larger  and  most  of  the  smaller  branches 
of  industry,  now  protected  by  our  laws,  will  show  such  a balance  of 
profit  to  the  nation  as  to  stop  all  dispute  as  to  the  accuracy  of  your  re- 
sults. It  is  only  in  doubtful  cases,  in  which  the  interests  involved  are 
not  large,  that  greater  accuracy  than  the  means  of  investigation  at  your 
command  will  allow,  is  called  for,  and  this  statistical  labor  can  in  great 
measure  supply  in  the  future. 

You  have  not  the  time,  of  course,  to  determine  the  necessary  special 
facts  for  each  separate  protected  industry ; but  you  have  it  in  your  power 
to  do  a much  greater  thing,  namely,  to  settle,  definitely  and  forever, 
the  principles  involved.  The  rest  is  matter  of  detail,  which  can  be  safely 
left  to  lower  and  less  valuable  abilities  than  yours.  You  can  ascertain 
by  statistics  and  estimates  the  general  facts  involved,  and  you  can  ap- 
ply them  to  the  more  important  of  our  industrial  interests.  Granting 


FREDERICK  B.  HAWLEY.] 


SCIENTIFIC  PROTECTION. 


415 


the  correctness  of  the  principles  I have  laid  before  yon,  they  widen  and 
dignify  the  scope  of  your  labors,  and  give  you  the  opportunity  of  ren- 
dering an  inestimable  service  both  to  science  and  to  the  nation. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  m closing,  let  me  ask  you  to  notice  that  a re- 
port from  you,  founded  upon  the  assertion  that  our  protected  industries 
allow  of  a greater  accumulation  of  capitalized  wealth  than  the  indus- 
tries in  which  our  people  would  be  engaged  under  a free-trade  regime, 
and  upon  a comparison  of  what  the  nation  now  produces,  with  what  it 
would  produce  if  it  employed  its  protected  artisan  labor  in  agriculture, 
will  commend  itself  to  the  common  sense  of  the  people,  This  line  of 
argument  can  be  understood  and  appreciated  by  the  ordinary  as  well  as 
by  the  scientific  intellect.  It  is  in  your  pow  er  to  command  the  essen- 
tial facts  and  statistics.  Most  of  them  can  be  derived  from  the  census 
reports,  and  wrhere  these  fail  you,  they  can  be  supplied  by  the  different 
trade  associations  or  even  by  individual  manufacturers.  The  elements 
of  the  calculation  you  will  be  obliged  to  estimate  are  susceptible  of  ap- 
proximation sufficiently  close  to  allow  of  a definite  determination  in  all 
but  a very  fewr  cases.  Isolated  facts  are  useless  for  your  purposes. 
They  must  be  brought  into  connection  to  be  of  value.  They  can  only 
be  brought  into  connection  by  the  adoption  of  some  method  of  investi- 
gation. I am  not  aware  of  any  other  method  than  the  one  here  advocated 
that  has  ever  been,  or  can  be,  proposed.  That  the  economic  principles 
I have  enunciated  are  thus  capable  of  practical  application,  is  of  itself 
a strong  verification  of  their  truth.  If,  having  satisfied  yourselves  of 
their  validity,  you  adopt  the  method  of  investigation  they  indicate,  you 
will  be  able  to  discriminate  justly  between  the  different  industrial  inter- 
ests that  appear  before  you;  enforcing  the  claims  of  those,  to  aid  which 
will  subserve  the  interests  of  the  community,  and  answering  the  clamor 
of  others,  whose  demands  are  unreasonable,  with  a mathematical  demon- 
stration that  they  should  not  be  granted  what  they  ask.  And,  lastly, 
you  will  settle  once  and  forever  the  abstract  question  of  free  trade  and 
protection,  and  you  will  settle  it  in  a manner  peculiarly  gratifying  to 
the  American  people,  by  demonstrating  that  the  instinct  which  lias 
guided  them  in  their  industrial  policy  was  founded  upon  scientific  truth. 


416 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  veron. 


H.  VERON. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  15,  1882. 

Mr.  H.  Veron,  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the  Brick  Enameling  Com- 
pany, of  Philadelphia,  made  the  following  statement: 

We  are  manufacturers  of  enameled  bricks.  We  take  the  red  pressed 
brick  and  enamel  it;  that  is,  we  enhance  its  value  from  $22  a thousand 
as  a red  pressed  brick  to  $05  a thousand  for  enameled  edges,  $85  a 
thousand  for  edge  and  end  brick,  and  $105  a thousand  for  flat  brick. 

The  articles  which  we  use  in  this  enameling  process  are  all  of  them 
chemicals  imported  into  this  country.  We  are  now  interfered  with  con- 
siderably by  the  importation  of  an  English  glazed  brick  which  is  brought 
into  the  market  and  sold  as  enameled  brick.  I have  with  me  a sample 
piece  of  our  own  manufacture  which  I had  ground  off  so  as  to  be  able  to 
show  you  the  quality  of  goods  which  we  make.  This  is  one  of  the  five 
colors  we  manufacture.  This  English  brick  that  is  imported  is  nothing 
but  a glazed  brick,  with  thin  light  colors  put  on  an  ordinary  fire  brick. 
This  brick  here  [exhibiting]  which  we  manufacture  is  enameled.  If  you 
want  to  break  the  enamel  you  have  to  break  the  brick.  But  you  can 
take  these  glazed  bricks  that  are  imported  from  England,  and  pick  off 
the  glazing  almost  with  your  finger.  They  manufacture  this  brick  and 
bring  it  into  this  market  and  profess  to  sell  it  at  from  $85  to  $100,  and 
down  to  $70  or  $45  per  thousand.  Wherever  they  find  us  offering  our 
brick  in  New  York  or  elsewhere,  they  put  the  price  of  their  brick  down 
as  low  as  $45.  They  have  no  duty  to  pay  except  a duty  of  20  per  cent, 
on  common  or  fire  brick.  This  is  an  ornamental  brick,  entirely,  orna- 
mental; and  all  the  enameling  compounds  used  in  it  are  dutiable  goods. 
What  we  seek  is  to  get  a duty  of  40  per  cent,  at  least,  the  same  as  is 
imposed  on  glazed  goods. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  Is  the  manufacture  of  this  class  of  goods  increasing? — 
Answer.  Yes,  sir;  the  manufacture  is  increasing,  and  the  article  is  get- 
ting to  be  much  better  known  throughout  the  whole  of  the  United  States. 
Formerly  we  were  confined  in  our  sales  to  the  East,  but  now  we  are  get- 
ting orders  from  Minnesota  and  other  Western  States.  Our  price  for 
the  brick  includes  their  delivery  on  board  the  cars  ready  for  shipping. 
The  English  bring  their  bricks  into  New  York  harbor  and  deliver  them 
as  low  as  $45  a thousand.  They  do  not  produce  a better  article,  as  is 
frequently  the  case  in  imported  goods,  but  they  produce  an  inferior 
article  to  our  own  manufacture.  They  glaze  a fire  brick  which  will 
absorb  all  the  moisture  and  frost,  and  everything  of  that  liind.  I am 
told  by  experts  that  under  certain  variations  of  heat  or  cold  this  Eng- 
lish brick  will  burst. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  How  many  establishments  are  there  in  this  country  for  the  manu- 
facture of  this  kind  of  enameled  brick? — A.  Ours  is  the  only  one  in  the 
United  States. 

Q.  Wliat  is  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  business  ? — A.  It 
is  about  $100,000. 


H.  VEBON.] 


ENAMELED  BRICKS. 


417 


Q.  What  number  of  hands  do  you  employ? — A.  When  we  are  run- 
ning our  works  we  employ  usually  from  30  to  40  hands,  depending  upon 
how  fast  we  are  running. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  have  had  a difficult  time  in  introducing  this  manufacture, 
have  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  have  had  a great  deal  of  trouble. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  What  is  the  annual  product  of  your  establishment ; how  many 
thousand  brick  do  you  produce  per  annum? — A.  We  enameled  last  year 
between  350,000  and  400,000  bricks. 

Q.  How  long  has  your  establishment  been  in  operation? — A.  We 
have  been  in  existence  about  six  years,  but  we  have  not  been  running 
the  whole  of  that  time  steadily;  only  just  enough  to  supply  the  require- 
ments of  the  trade.  It  has  been  up  -hill  work  with  us. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Where  does  the  demand  for  this  enameled,  brick  come  from;  what 
parts  of  the  country  use  it  ? — A.  It  is  used  in  the  different  States  for  out- 
side and  inside  work.  A great  many  of  them  are  sold  in  Yew  York  and 
Philadelphia.  I could  show  you  some  large  fronts  in  Philadelphia,  36 
to  40  feet  wide,  where  they  have  been  used.  There  is  a five-story  build- 
ing right  opposite  the  Quaker  burying-ground  where  they  are  used,  and 
the  Girard  Life  Insurance  Company  on  Chestnut  street  have  used  them 
in  the  front  of  their  building.  We  have  also  supplied  the  Sailors’  Snug 
Harbor  at  Staten  Island  with  a number  of  thousand;  they  have  used 
64,000  to  65,000,  I think,  for  inside  work.  It  is  an  excellent  thing  for 
hospitals,  and  is  used  also  for  arches.  It  is  used  in  the  public  buildings 
in  Philadelphia  for  arches.  Many  people  use  them  for  linings  to  stables. 

Q.  Is  it  used  on  account  of  the  increased  durability  of  the  brick,  or 
simply  on  account  of  its  ornamental  appearance? — A.  Partly  on  account 
of  the  increased  durability,  because  these  bricks  when  once  put  into  a 
front  require  no  painting  or  anything  of  that  kind.  The  rain  will  wash 
them  off  clean,  and  they  absorb  no  moisture,  and  will  last  for  a lifetime. 
Our  bricks  are  more  dense  than  the  English  brick.  Where  the  English 
bricks  would  be  crushed  by  the  weight,  our  bricks  would  stand  the 
pressure.  Ours  is  the  regular  red  pressed  brick. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  in  case  of  fire ; would  they  resist  the 
action  of  fire  better  than  the  ordinary  brick  ? — A.  The  action  of  fire 
directly  upon  the  enamel  might  have  a tendency  to  crack  it  in  case  a 
building  should  be  burned;  but  it  will  stand  the  same  amount  of  heat 
that  any  first-class  pressed  brick  will  stand.  In  the  preparation  of  these 
bricks  they  are  put  through  the  regular  potter’s  white  heat. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  state  that  the  present  duty  on  enameled 
brick  is  just  the  same  as  it  is  on  common  brick? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  are  common  brick  worth  to-day  per  thousand  in  New  York 
or  Philadelphia  ? — A.  Pressed  brick,  such  as  we  enamel,  are  worth  $22 
a thousand,  I believe. 

Q.  What  are  your  enameled  brick  worth? — A.  On  edges,  $65  per 
thousand;  edge  and  end,  $85;  flat,  $105. 

Q.  You  ask  that  a higher  rate  of  duty  shall  be  put  upon  the  imported 
article ; have  you  made  any  specific  recommendation  in  our  schedule  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  we  make  a recommendation  of  40  per  cent.,  the  same  duty 
that  is  put  on  glazed  goods. 

H.  Mis.  6 27 


418 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  VEBON. 


Q.  Can  you  make  that  duty  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem ; that  is  to 
say,  by  the  thousand ; would  not  that  be  the  better  way ? — A.  I think 
it  would. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  You  make  a distinction  between  glazed  brick  and  enameled  brick? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  costs  the  most,  to  enamel  a brick  or  to  glaze  it? — A.  En- 
ameling costs  the  most.  I am  told  by  our  men  at  the  works,  who  are 
familiar  with  the  subject,  that  these  English  glazed  goods  are  merely 
washed  with  the  preparation  that  is  put  on  the  bricks.  But  enameling, 
as  you  will  observe,  is  a complete  covering  to  the  brick,  and  is  solid. 

Q.  Then  your  complaint  is  that  these  English  glazed  bricks  come  in 
here,  and  that  they  are  sold  and  used  in  the  place  of  your  enameled 
bricks? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  don’t  you  glaze  bricks,  then,  instead  of  enameling  them  ? — 
A.  Because  our  customers  object  to  it,  and  say  that  it  is  not  a brick  which 
will  give  satisfaction. 

Q.  Still  these  English  bricks  come  in  here  and  give  satisfaction ; at 
least  they  undersell  you? — A.  These  bricks  require  the  test  of  several 
years  before  their  quality  can  be  fully  ascertained,  and  no  doubt  the 
inferiority  of  English  goods  will  be  discovered  before  a great  while. 

Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  glazing  the  common  brick ; does  it  double  the 
cost  of  the  brick? — A.  It  increases  the  cost  considerably,  but  I could 
not  say  exactly  how  much  at  present. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  doubles  the  cost  or  not? — A.  I do  not  know, 
but  I presume  it  does. 

Q.  If  it  does  double  it,  then  you  get  double  the  duty  on  a glazed  brick 
that  you  do  on  a common  brick;  that  is  to  say,  if  it  is  double  the  value 
it  makes  the  duty  double? — A.  You  must  recollect,  however,  that 
glazed  bricks  come  in  and  are  sold  as  enameled  bricks. 

Q.  But  the  duty  is  20  per  cent,  on  the  common  brick,  and  20  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  on  the  glazed  brick ; therefore  the  duty  on  the  glazed  brick 
is  double? — A.  I do  not  know  what  these  goods  are  got  through  the 
custom-house  for.  I endeavored  to  ascertain  the  value,  but  I could  not. 
I can  only  judge  from  the  prices  at  which  they  sell  them. 

Q.  You  found  out  that  they  were  admitted  at  20  £>er  cent,  ad  valorem 
duty? — A.  The  tariff  law  requires  that,  but  I do  not  know  what  the  val- 
uation is  that  they  put  on  them.  I have  never  made  any  glazed  brick, 
and  therefore  I could  not  state  with  any  positiveness  as  to  the  cost  of 
them.  But  I am  told  by  our  men  who  manufacture  them,  that  the 
glazed  brick  are  much  inferior  to  our  enameled  brick.  I do  not  think 
it  is  a fair  compeition  when  they  can  bring  in  an  article,  which  after  a 
few  years’  use  will  prove  to  be  a much  inferior  product  to  ours,  undersell 
us,  and  do  it  in  a bold  and  defiant  manner.  They  go  to  men  who  are 
negotiating  with  us  for  our  brick,  and  use  all  sorts  of  means  to  undersell 
us  in  price,  besides  making  unfair  statements  in  regard  to  our  produc- 
tions. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  Has  the  glazed  brick  the  same  external  appearance  as  the  enameled 
brick? — A.  It  has  a glossy  look,  but  you  can  see  that  the  substance  is 
not  there;  it  is  thin.  It  is  put  on  white  fire  brick,  a porous  article, 
while  our  enamel  is  put  on  a red  clay  brick. 


GEORGE  W.  JEWETT.  ] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


419 


GEORGE  W.  JEWETT. 

LoNGr  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  15,  1882. 

Dr.  Georg-e  W.  Jewett,  examiner,  appraiser’s  office,  New  York 
custom-house,  made  the  following;  statement: 

I would  say  generally,  in  regard  to  the  division  with  which  1 am  con- 
nected, that  of  drugs  and  chemicals,  that  there  are  many  articles  under 
the  head  of  Sundries,  which  I think  could  be  stricken  out  judiciously 
and  included  elsewhere.  Under  the  head  of  Schedule  M,  Sundries  par- 
agraph 1181,  you  will  notice  a variety  of  acetates  charged  at  different 
rates  of  duty.  The  section  provides  as  follows: 

Ammonia,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound  ; baryta,  twenty-five,  cents  per  pound;  cop- 
per, ten  cents  per  pound;  iron,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound;  lead,  brown,  five  cents 
per  pound ; white,  ten  cents  per  pound ; lime,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem ; 
magnesia,  fifty  cents  per  pound;  potassa,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound;  soda,  twenty- 
five  cents  per  pound;  strontia,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound;  zinc,  twenty-five  cents 
per  pound. 

I do  not  know  any  good  reason  why  these  articles  should  not  all  be 
put  under  one  general  classification  of  chemical  salts  not  otherwise 
provided  for  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  1 do  not  see  any  use  in  men- 
tioning forty  articles  by  name  when  they  could  go  in  one  general  list, 
and  the  matter  could  be  simplified  in  that  way,  especially  as  the  amount 
of  duties  collected  is  small. 

In  paragraph  1182  you  will  see  there  is  a great  variety  of  acids  provi- 
ded for.  1 think  you  could  put  all  acids  under  two  classes,  one  of  acids 
used  for  medicinal  purposes,  and  another  class  used  for  manufacturing 
or  chemical  purposes,  or  in  the  fine  arts,  making  the  latter  free,  or  put- 
ting them  at  whatever  rate  you  thought  proper. 

I would  also  like  to  call  your  attention  to  paragraph  1187,  alum ; and 
to  paragraph  1188,  ammonia.  I do  not  see  any  reason  for  mentioning 
these  various  articles  under  different  paragraphs,  and  think  it  would  be 
well  to  let  them  go  under  the  chemical-salt  list.  They  could  be  classi 
tied  as  chemical  salts  not  otherwise  provided  for.  Paragraph  1190, 
antimony,  crude,  and  regulus  of,  should  be  taken  in  connection  with  para- 
graph 1470,  which  provides  for  antimony  ore  and  crude  sulpliuret  of; 
they  should  be  taken  together. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  The  last  paragraph  you  have  quoted  from  is 
under  the  free  list. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  One  paragraph  says  “antimony,  crude,  and 
regulus  of:  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem;”  and  the  other  paragraph  says, 
“antimony  ore,  and  crude  sulphuret  of,”  free.  The  distinction  we  make 
is,  that  the  crude  is  the  ore  as  mined  from  the  mine,  while  the  crude 
antimony  of  commerce  is  smelted  and  brought  here  in  a crude  state; 
and  our  decision  and  rulings  on  this  point  have  been  upheld.  But  1 
think  this  matter  should  be  simplified  by  saying  “antimony  ore,  free,” 
and  “crude  antimony  and  regulus  of,  ten  percent.”  Make  them  all  free 
or  all  dutiable.  I have  referred  you  to  these  sections  to  show  you  how 
they  conflict  w ith  each  other ; you  can  construe  them  either  way. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  1 wish  you  would  go  back  to  paragraph 


420 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  \V.  JEWETT. 


1188  while  you  are  on  that  subject.  Ammonia  under  that  paragraph 
is  rated  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  is  it  not  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Now  turn  to  paragraph  1469.  It  says  there, 
u ammonia,  crude,  free,”  does  it  not"? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  In  point  of  fact  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
crude  ammonia  ; that  is  a physical  impossibility.  It  is  one  of  the  in- 
consistencies of  the  tariff. 

Section  1203,  benzoates,  might  be  changed.  It  is  a matter  of  very 
small  account  ; and  so  far  as  the  duty  is  concerned  does  not  amount  to 
anything.  Benzoates  for  medicinal  use  are  charged  40  per  cent,  under  the 
general  clause ; but  otherwise,  30  per  cent.  It  is  the  action  of  acid 
on  a salt;  benzoate  of  copper,  and  other  kinds.  Some  of  them  are  used 
in  chemistry,  some  in  the  arts,  and  in  laboratories. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Wliat  change  do  you  recommend? — Answer.  I should  leave 
it  out  entirely  here,  because  then  it  would  come  in  under  one  or  the  other 
of  the  other  classes.  I am  in  favor  of  simplification  in  the  tariff,  and  1 
would  obliterate  more  than  half  of  these  clauses  because  they  are  mere 
repetitions.  Section  1262  says,  u Drugs,  medicinal  and  other,  crude,  not 
otherwise  provided  for  : twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem.”  Yow,  in  the 
free  list,  section  1594,  it  is  provided  as  follows : “ Flowers,  leaves,  plants, 
roots,  barks,  and  seeds,  for  medicinal  purposes,  in  a crude  state,  not  other- 
wise provided  for.”  The  evident  intention  of  this  clause  was  to  cover 
everything  in  a crude  state  that  belonged  to  a plant — any  part  of  the 
plant,  from  the  root  to  the  leaf,  which  was  medicinal — and  to  have  it 
come  in  free.  But  the  other  section,  Yo.  1262,  says,  u Drugs,  medicinal 
and  other,  crude,  not  otherwise  provided  for:  twenty  per  centum  ad 
valorem.”  It  seems  to  me  that  that  could  be  stricken  out  very  well. 
For  instance,  lupuline  of  hops  is  neither  a bark,  a seed,  leaf,  nor  a root. 

The  President.  It  is  a gum. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir ; for  certain  purposes  it  may  be  considered  a 
gum.  We  pass  that  at  20  per  cent.,  and  yet  it  is  part  of  a plant.  But 
I think  if  the  whole  plant  is  admitted  free,  a part  of  it  ought  to  be  ad- 
mitted free.  I have  contrasted  these  two  sections  to  give  you  an  idea 
of  the  way  they  conflict.  I would  strike  out  paragraph  1262. 

Paragraph  1268  relates  to  rum  essence  or  oil,  and  bay  rum  essence  or 
oil,  50  cents  an  ounce.  Compare  that  with  paragraph  1345  which  pro- 
vides for  essence  of  oil  of  bay  leaves  at  $17.50  per  pound.  We  have 
got  that  matter  partially  adjusted  by  a decision ; but  the  law  stands 
there  the  same.  Essential  oil  and  bay-rum  oil  are  the  same  thing,  but 
the  rate  of  duty  is  quite  different.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  duty  on 
cologne  water,  provided  for  in  paragraph  1268,  and  other  perfumery  of 
which  alcohol  forms  the  principal  ingredient,  and  which  now  pays  a 
duty  of  $3  a gallon  and  50  per  centum  ad  valorem,  should  be  amended 
in  some  way.  That  tax  of  $3  a gallon  was  put  on  alcoholic  perfumery 
at  the  time  when  alcohol  was  paying  $3  a gallon  duty,  in  order  to  prevent 
fraud  in  getting  it  in  at  50  per  cent,  duty  as  perfumery,  and  redistilling 
it  to  avoid  the  rate  of  $3  a gallon  on  alcohol.  That  is  the  reason  that 
rate  was  put  on  perfumery.  Subsequently  the  rate  on  alcohol  came 
down  to  $2  a gallon,  but  the  rate  on  perfumery  has  never  been  brought 
down  to  the  rate  on  alcohol,  and  I think  it  ought  to  be  done. 

Paragraph  1333  relates  to  u mercurial  preparations  not  otherwise 
provided  for,  20  per  centum  ad  valorem.”  There  is  one  mercurial  prep- 
aration, calomel,  which  is  provided  for  specifically  at  30  per  centum. 


C5HORGS  w.  jf.wrtt.]  APPRAISER'S  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y. 


421 


I would  strike  out  paragraph  1333,  and  let  the  articles  named  go  with 
the  general  provision  for  medicnial  salts  or  chemical  preparations  aecorb- 
ing  to  circumstances.  I do  not  see  any  good  reason  why  that  should 
be  singled  out  for  a smaller  rate  of  duty  than  is  put  On  other  medicinal 
preparations. 

Paragraph  1335,  mineral  kerines,  could  be  done  away  with ; it  is 
nothing  but  a chemical  salt.  One  portion  of  paragraph  1182,  acids,  I 
overlooked,  and  I wish  to  call  your  attention  to  it.  You  will  find  in 
that  paragraph  that  tannic  acid  pays  a duty  at  the  rate  of  $1  a pound. 
In  paragraph  1434,  tannin  is  provided  for  at  $2  a pound.  They  are 
identically  the  same  thing.  The  correct  designation  is  tannic  acid. 

Paragraph  NTo.  1436  provides  for  tartar  emetic  at  15  cents  per  pound. 
That  would  properly  come  under  my  suggestion  of  having  two  general 
classifications:  Chemical  salts,  20  per  cent. 5 medicinal  preparations,  40 
per  cent.,  paying  20  or  40  per  cent.,  as  might  be  determined  upon.  This 
paragraph  could  be  done  away  with. 

Paragraph  1449  provides  for  white  vitriol,  or  sulphate  of  zinc,  20  per 
centum  ad  valorem.  I do  not  see  any  good  reason  why  that  should  be 
mentioned  specifically ; it  could  come  under  a general  clause,  and  would 
simplify  the  matter  very  much.  The  same  in  regard  to  blue  vitriol. 

Commissiones  McMahon.  Is  it  produced  in  this  country  to  any  con- 
siderable extent? 

The  Witness.  Yes;  the  most  of  these  articles  are  produced  here. 
All  the  fine  chemicals  used  for  medicine  and  in  the  laboratories  and 
colleges  are  made  in  this  country.  The  manufacture  of  chemicals  here 
has  increased  wonderfully  of  late. 

In  regard  to  the  free  list,  I would  say,  generally,  that  there  are  many 
articles  named  under  it  where  it  is  entirely  unnecessary,  and  there  are 
many  repetitions.  Por  instance,  barks  and  roots  are  on  the  free  list. 
But  I will  first  take  up  the  subject  of  acids,  in  paragraph  1454,  which 
provides  for  “all  acids  of  every  description  used  for  chemical  and  man- 
ufacturing purposes.”  The  class  of  acids  I spoke  of  under  paragraph 
1182  provides  for  “all  other  acids  of  every  description  used  for  me- 
dicinal purposes  or  in  the  fine  arts.”  I would  leave  out  the  words  “ or 
in  the  fine  arts,”  because  that  properly  comes  under  the  chemical  and 
manufacturing  clause,  and  make  both  free,  or  both  10  per  cent.,  accord- 
ing to  circumstances. 

Paragraph  1455  provides  for  aconite  root,  leaf,  and  bark.  That  ought 
to  be  left  out,  as  it  is  provided  for  under  the  general  clause  1594.  Para- 
graph 1460  provides  for  alkanet  root;  that  should  be  left  out.  Para- 
graphs 1460  to  1470  should  be  left  out,  in  my  judgment,  because  they 
are  all  covered  by  the  general  provisions  under  paragraph  1594. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Your  aim  is  simplicity.  You  have  been 
working  at  this  matter  and  you  understand  it  clearly.  But  it  might 
be  some  other  official  would  not  understand  it  as  well  as  you  do,  and 
in  that  event  would  it  not  be  well  to  leave  in  these  articles  by  name 
instead  of  putting  them  all  under  the  general  clause  as  you  suggest? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  They  are  not  important  articles,  as  I un- 
derstand ; they  are  well-known  medicinal  roots. 

The  Witness.  It  is  not  left  to  my  judgment  whether  they  are  for 
medicinal  purposes  or  not;  the  decisions  of  the  Treasury  Department 
decide  that.  The  regulation  is  that  all  articles  recognized  in  the  phar- 
macopiasof  France,  Great  Britain,  and  the  United  States  are  medicinal, 
our  judgment  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  I might  say  that  a 
certain  article  was  not  medicinal,  but  if  the  book  says  it  is,  I am  bound 
to  recognize  that  authority. 


422 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  W.  JEWETT. 


Commissioner  McMahon.  The  United  States  Dispensatory,  for  in 
stance,  is  an  acknowledged  medical  work.  In  that  yon  will  find  ten 
thousand  roots  and  herbs  not  mentioned  in  the  tariff  at  all,  which  are 
covered  by  this  general  clause.  I understand  the  witness  to  ask  the 
use  of  singling  out,  here  and  there,  from  this  large  list  a dozen  or  two 
articles,  and  putting  them  down  in  the  tariff  by  name,  and  then  cover 
ing  the  rest  up  by  general  clause. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  was  the  reason  why  I made  the  inquiry 
of  the  witness;  to  ascertain  if  there  was  any  reason  for  their  insertion 
in  the  tariff. 

The  Witness.  Even  if  that  was  not  the  regulation  of  the  depart 
men  t,  neither  Dr.  Headley  nor  myself  would  have  any  option  in  the  mat' 
ter;  we  should  be  governed  by  the  standard  authority.  I do  not  think 
any  man  would  be  likely  to  set  up  his  ipse  dixit  against  such  high  author- 
ity as  that.  Whenever  there  is  a new  plant  discovered,  it  is  analyzed 
by  scientists,  and  if  they  decide  it  has  any  active  or  useful  principle  in 
medicine  it  is  entered  in  the  book.  We  have  every  edition  of  the  Dis- 
pensatory as  it  is  published.  Xew  plants  are  discovered  in  different 
parts  of  the  world,  and  these  are  afterwards  recognized  as  medicinal. 
Ten  or  twenty  years  ago  we  knew  nothing  about  them.  But  I do  not 
see  any  use  in  taking  out  a dozen  or  two  of  these  articles  from  the  Dis- 
pensatory when  one  general  clause  would  cover  them  all. 

Section  1594  provides  for  “ flowers,  leaves,  plants,  roots,  barks,  and 
seeds  for  medicinal  purposes,  in  a crude  state,  not  otherwise  provided 
for.”  Right  under  that  is  digitalis  leaves.  Paragraph  1494  provides 
for  belladonna  root  and  leaf,  and  paragraph  1502  for  bitter  apples,  colo- 
cynth,  and  coloquintida.  There  is  no  use  that  I can  see  in  mentioning 
those  articles  separately,  for  they  would  all  come  in  under  the  general 
clause.  Therefore  I would  strike  those  paragraphs  out.  I would,  also 
strike  out  paragraph  1524,  buchu  leaves.  I do  not  know  what  the  idea 
was  in  making  calamine  free  (paragraph  1530).  If  there  is  a point  in 
making  it  free  I do  not  know  what  it  is,  and  if  it  is  dutiable  it  .should 
come  in  as  a chemical  salt. 

Paragraph  1532,  cantharides  is  properly  in  there,  because  it  is  spe- 
cifically mentioned.  Chamomile  flowers,  in  paragraph  1539,  I would 
strike  out.  1 would  also  strike  out  China  root  in  paragraph  1541.  It 
is  covered  by  the  clause  relating  to  sarsaparilla  root.  I would  also 
strike  out  paragraph  1543,  cinchona  root,  and  paragraph  1548,  coculus 
indicus.  Paragraph  1556  relates  to  colt’s-foot,  the  crude  product.  That 
comes  under  the  dutiable  clause  of  crude  drugs,  paying  20  per  cent., 
and  should  be  stricken  out.  Paragraphs  1557,  1558,  1559  ought  to  be 
stricken  out;  so  should  paragraphs  1567  and  1582.  Paragraph  1583, 
ergot,  should  come  in  under  crude  products.  I would  also  like  to  em- 
phasize a little  what  1 said  in  regard  to  paragraph  1594,  which  is  ‘‘flow- 
ers, leaves,  plants,  roots,  barks,  and  seeds  for  medicinal  purposes,  in  a 
crude  state,  not  otherwise  provided  for.”  I believe  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  law  makers  to  make  every  plant  and  part  of  a plant  used  for 
medicine,  in  the  crude  or  natural  state  in  wliicli  it  is  gathered,  free  of 
duty;  but  it  fails  to  have  that  effect  entirely,  as  I instanced  in  the 
case  of  lupuline.  I would  put  in  a clause  covering  plants  or  parts  of 
plants,  or  something  of  that  sort,  so  that  pollen  would  be  a part  of  the 
plant,  and  under  that  construction  of  the  law  it  would  admit  lupuline. 

1 would  also  strike  out  paragraphs  1599,  galanga;  1601,  gentian  root; 
1603,  ginseng  root.  Ginger  root,  under  paragraph  1602,  I have  noth 
ing  to  do  with  in  my  division.  Hellebore  root,  paragraph  1617;  para- 
graph 1626,  hyoscyamus;  paragraph  1629,  Indian  hemp;  and  paragraph 


GEORGE  W.  JEWETT.] 


423 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 

1633,  ipecac ; I would  strike  all  of  these  out.  Paragraph  1635,  orris 
root,  I would  leave  in.  Paragraph  1639,  jalap,  is  a root  and  is  covered 
by  the  clause  relating  to  roots. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  As  the  law  stands  now,  ipecac  and  jalap 
are  covered  in  the  powdered  form.  By  putting  them  under  paragraph 
1594,  they  would  only  be  covered  in  a crude  form. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  but  we  object  greatly  to  the  importation  of  pow- 
dered drugs  in  bulk.  No  man  can  tell  about  a powdered  drug  whether 
it  is  pure  and  fit  to  be  used  for  medicine  or  not.  All  physicians  object 
to  the  use  of  powered  drugs  where  it  is  possible  to  avoid  it.  If  the 
matter  was  left  absolutely  to  me  I would  not  allow  one  particle  of  powdered 
drugs  to  come  into  this  country.  If  manufacturers  in  this  country  try  to 
adulterate  them,  the  government  could  take  some  steps  to  prevent  it; 
at  any  rate,  I would  prevent  it  as  far  as  I could  by  preventing  powdered 
drugs  coming  into  the  market.  There  are  certain  drugs  which  have 
an  active  principle,  and  it  is  only  by  a chemical  analysis  that  you  can 
determine  whether  they  possess  that  or  not.  There  is  no  active  princi- 
ple in  rhubarb,  and  you  can  test  it  in  many  ways.  But  to  import 
drugs  in  a powdered  state  in  bulk  I do  not  think  would  be  ’well. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Why  would  it  not  be  well  to  put  a duty  on  powdered  drugs  and 
let  the  other  drugs  come  in  free  % — A.  There  is  a special  law  regulating 
the  importation  of  drugs,  which  provides  that  no  article  of  that  kind 
shall  come  into  this  country  unless  it  comes  up  to  a certain  standard  of 
purity,  and  where  there  is  no  standard,  as  in  the  case  of  a root,  it  must 
be  as  perfect  as  possible.  If  it  is  old  or  moldy,  or  anything  of  that 
kind,  it  is  not  allowed  to  come  in.  If  opium  falls  under  9 per  cent,  of 
morphia  it  is  not  allowed  to  enter.  In  regard  to  powdered  ipecac,  no 
man  can  tell  whether  it  is  half  ipecac  and  half  some  other  root,  from  the 
appearance  of  the  powder ; but  you  have  to  get  a very  fine  chemical 
analysis  of  it  to  find  the  alkaloid  representing  it.  There  is  but  little  in- 
troduced, and  that  is  put  up  by  standard  chemists  on  the  other  side  who 
have  a high  reputation,  and  whose  name  stands  as  well  as  Powers  and 
Weightman  do  with  us  in  this  country. 

I would  also  recommend  the  striking  out  of  paragraph  1667,  marsh- 
mallows, and  paragraph  1668,  matico  leaf.  Peruvian  bark,  paragraph 
1705,  comes  under  a general  head.  Paragraph  1720,  quassia  wood  or 
bitter  wood;  that  would  properly  come  in  under  the  general  provision 
if  paragraph  1494  was  amended  so  as  to  read  “ plants  or  parts  of  plants.” 
But  as  it  is  I should  leave  it  in.  Bhubarb,  paragraph  1 729, 1 would  strike 
out,  and  also  paragraph  1731,  rose-leaves. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Are  rose-leaves  necessarily  medicinal  leaves'? — A.  No,  sir;  there 
are  some  things  recognized  as  medicines  which  may  be  used  for  other 
purposes.  Opium  is  a purely  medicinal  preparation,  but  it  is  used  in 
smoking ; but  that  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  it  is  medicinal  in  its  gen- 
eral use. 

Q.  Would  not  rose-leaves  be  recognized  as  the  basis  for  perfumery  % — 
A.  Not  necessarily.  I would  also  recommend  the  striking  out  of  the 
following  paragraphs:  1738,  salep;  1740,  sarsaparilla,  crude;  1741,sassa 
fras  bark  and  root;  paragraph  1748,  senna,  in  leaves;  paragraph  1762, 
squills;  paragraph  1763,  staves-acre.  The  latter  article  is  a crude  plant; 
of  course  the  other  clause  I have  referred  to  covers  that.  I think  that 
is  about  all  that  I have  to  recommend,  except  that  I desire  to  say  again 


424 


tariff  commission. 


[GEORGE  W.  JEWETT. 


that  there  is  a great  deal  of  repetition,  and  many  articles  are  designated 
which  should  he  covered  by  one  general  designation. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  I want  to  ask  one  question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  feasibility 
of  making  a special  chemical  schedule  under  the  head  of  chemicals  and 
oils,  instead  of  putting  all  chemicals  under  the  head  of  sundries'? — A.  I 
think  that  would  be  a very  excellent  idea.  I think  there  should  be  a 
separate  schedule,  the  same  as  there  is  for  hardware  and  other  goods, 
instead  of  putting  all  these  things  in  promiscuously.  At  present  the  im- 
portation of  chemicals  is  large,  and  there  is  an  immense  variety  of  them. 
Chemistry  is  the  basis  of  all  manufactures,  and  every  manufacturer  of 
any  importance  has  to  have  an  active  chemist  in  his  establishment  as 
a part  of  his  regular  force.  The  application  of  chemistry  to  the  arts 
and  manufactures  is  constantly  increasing.  I think  it  would  be  well 
to  have  a general  list  or  schedule  of  the  chemical  preparations,  and  it 
might  include  as  well  the  medicinal  preparations.  Sometimes  an  article 
is  imported  by  the  barrel  instead  of  by  the  ounce,  to  be  used  in  medicine, 
and  it  is  recognized  as  a medicine  notwithstanding  its  bulk.  Of  course 
we  cannot  follow  an  article  and  see  what  ultimate  use  is  made  of  it. 
Glauber  salts  may  be  used  for  a horse,  or  in  a laboratory  to  produce 
some  other  chemical. 

Q.  Do  you  know  why  chemicals  were  put  in  under  the  head  of  sun- 
dries 1 — A.  I do  not. 

Q.  Or  why  there  was  not  a chemical  schedule  in  the  present  law  ? — 
A.  I do  not  know  why  it  was  not  done. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  have  been  over  the  free  list  and  have 
suggested  a great  many  articles  that  might  be  omitted  from  it.  Some 
people  think  that  the  free  list  ought  to  be  enlarged,  but  your  sugges- 
tions are  the  other  way  and  tend  to  limit  it. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  mean  to  recommend  that  the  clauses  should 
be  thrown  out  entirely,  but  to  strike  them  out  of  the  list  where  they 
are  named,  and  put  them  under  a general  clause  in  the  free  list  which 
will  cover  them  all. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I understand  that,  but  I was  going  to  ask  if, 
as  a practical  man,  acquainted  with  this  matter,  you  would  give  us  a list 
of  articles  now  dutied  that  it  does  not  pay  to  collect  a duty  upon,  keep- 
ing in  view  of  course  such  articles  as  cannot  well  be  produced  in  this 
country,  and  which  do  not  need  protection,  and  also  those  which  can 
be  produced  and  need  protection.  I agree  with  you  that  it  would  be 
well  to  take  out  these  articles  and  include  them  under  a general  clause. 

The  Witness.  As  far  as  articles  of  chemistry  are  concerned,  I do 
not  think  there  is  an  article  produced  in  Europe  that  cannot  be  pro- 
duced here,  and  the  majority  of  articles  of  this  kind  are  produced  here 
to-day.  Of  course  they  cannot  be  produced  as  cheaply  here  as  in  Eu- 
rope, on  account  of  the  greater  price  paid  for  labor.  But  there  are  a 
large  number  of  articles  which  could  be  thrown  into  the  free  list  where 
the  small  amount  of  money  collected  does  not  pay  for  the  trouble  of  col- 
lecting it  ; and  if  the  amount  produced  in  this  country  is  small,  of 
course  the  duty  does  not  protect  any  industry  at  home. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Will  you  make  a list  of  such  articles  of  that 
kind  as  you  think  could  be  put  upon  the  free  list  ? 

The  Witness.  I will  look  over  the  list,  and  will  suggest  such  articles 
as  I think  could  be  put  on  the  free  list  advantageously. 


08CAR  HAMMERSTEIN.] 


SUMATRA  TOBACCO. 


425 


OSCAR  HAMMERSTEIN. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  15,  1882. 

Mr.  Oscar  Hammerstein,  of  New  York,  editor  of  the  United  States 
Tobacco  Journal,  made  the  following  statement: 

I desire  to  engage  the  attention  of  the  Commission  for  a few  moments 
while  I speak  upon  a most  important  subject.  The  leaf-tobacco  trade 
of  the  country  has  been  brought  to  a standstill  during  the  past  six 
months,  owing  to  the  continually  increasing  importation  of  Sumatra 
tobacco.  This  tobacco  first  made  its  appearance  in  the  United  States 
about  two  years  ago.  It  had  never  been  used  before,  and  it  sprung  into 
favor,  first  gradually,  and  then  very  rapidly,  so  much  so  that  its  im- 
portation has  become  enormously  great,  and  the  tobacco-culture  indus- 
try of  this  country  is  threatened  with  almost  entire  destruction.  I do 
not  give  you  this  merely  as  my  opinion,  but  I have  the  facts  to  prove  it. 
The  American  tobacco  trade  is  utterly  at  a standstill,  owing  to  this 
continued  importation.  The  tobacco  is  imported  in  large  quantities, 
because  of  its  superiority  to  our  home  tobacco.  The  importation  of  this 
tobacco  began  to  assume  importance  in  July,  1880.  At  that  time  the 
importation  amounted  to  about  12,000  pounds  per  month,  while  during 
the  month  of  July,  1882,  it  amounted  to  147,224  pounds — a most  enor- 
mous increase. 

It  might  be  well  for  me  to  state  here  that  4 pounds  of  Sumatra 
tobacco  is  considered  equal  to  an  average  of  about  12  pounds  of  home 
tobacco.  If  a manufacturer  of  cigars  uses  4 pounds  of  Sumatra  tobacco, 
he  can  cover  1,000  cigars  with  it  as  well  as  if  he  used  12  pounds  of  the 
tobacco  raised  in  this  country,  in  Pennsylvania,  Connecticut,  Ohio,  and 
other  States.  The  cost  of  Sumatra  tobacco  in  the  market  averages 
from  $1.  to  $1.20  per  pound.  Four  pounds  of  Sumatra  tobacco  at 
$1.20  makes  $4.80.  Twelve  pounds  of  tobacco  raised  in  this  country, 
at  50  cents  a pound,  amounts  to  $6,  so  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  tobacco 
raised  in  Sumatra  is  a great  deal  cheaper  than  the  tobacco  raised  in 
this  country.  Besides  that,  it  is  equal  to  the  finest  Havana  tobacco; 
indeed  it  is  a great  deal  better  than  Havana  tobacco  for  wrapping  pur- 
poses. A cigar  wrapped  with  Sumatra  tobacco,  since  it  has  become 
known,  will  bring  ten  times  as  high  a price  as  a cigar  wrapped  with 
tobacco  grown  in  this  country. 

Now  let  me  show  you  the  amount  this  country  loses  on  the  sale  of 
tobacco.  Up  to  about  two  years  ago  our  exportation  of  home  tobacco 
was  50,000  to  00,000  pounds  a year.  Other  countries  formerly  in  the 
habit  of  using  our  tobacco  began  to  use  these  fine  qualities  of  Sumatra, 
tobacco  and  stopped  buying  ours.  The  exportation  of  seed-leaf  tobacco 
has  almost  entirely  ceased.  At  this  time  of  the  year,  formerly,  the  mar- 
ket was  always  bare  of  old  tobacco.  This  year  we  have  the  stock  of 
nearly  20,000  cases  on  hand,  and  the  new  tobacco  which  was  raised  last 
year  is  lying  almost  entirely  neglected  by  the  manufacturers  of  cigars 
in  this  country  on  account  of  their  preferring  to  use  the  Sumatra  tobacco. 
The  increase  in  the  importation  of  this  tobacco  is  continuing  steadily, 
in  the  fiscal  year  ended  1881  the  importation  only  amounted  to  179,002 
pounds,  but  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  1882  it  amounted  to  774,715  pounds, 


42  G 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


flOSCAR  HAMMER8TELV. 


an  increase  ot  several  thousand  per  cent.  In  no  month  since  the  impor 
tation  of  this  tobacco  began  has  there  been  anything  like  the  amount 
imported  that  there  was  during  the  last  month,  the  importation  reach- 
ing 147,000  pounds. 

There  are  about  fifty  packers  of  tobacco  in  this  country  who  buy  to- 
bacco from  the  farmers,  and  of  this  number  about  fifteen  of  them  repre- 
sent firms  in  Antwerp,  Amsterdam,  and  other  European  cities,  and  while 
they  formerly  bought  American  tobaccos  they  seem  to  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  tobaccos  grown  here  are  not  of  much  value,  so  far 
as  the  making  of  good  cigars  is  concerned,  compared  with  the  Sumatra 
tobacco. 

There  is  another  thing  I would  like  to  draw  your  attention  to.  The 
Sumatra  tobacco  pays  the  additional  duty  of  10  per  cent,  which  is  im- 
posed on  all  goods  brought  from  west  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  Con- 
gress at  its  last  session  abolished  that  10  per  cent,  duty,  and  the  result 
is,  in  effect,  to  offer  a premium  on  the  importation  of  Sumatra  tobacco. 
The  reduction  of  this  10  per  cent,  duty  alone  lias  aided  very  much  in 
deciding  manufacturers  to  import  this  tobacco.  Instead  of  raising  the 
duty,  for  some  mysterious  reason  (I  suppose  Congress  was  not  suffi- 
ciently informed,  otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  done),  they  reduce  the 
duty  and  open  the  doors  for  still  greater  importation,  and,  as  a result, 
the  destruction  of  the  culture  of  home  tobacco. 

I have  put  in  the  schedule  handed  me  a statement  in  figures,  and  if 
any  of  the  members  of  the  Commission  desire  to  interrogate  me  1 am 
perfectly  willing  to  answer  their  questions.  I have  stated  in  the  sched- 
ule that  the  additional  duty  on  Sumatra  tobacco  should  be  at  least  35 
cents  per  pound  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  or  a full  duty  of  $1  a pound. 
That  would  be  the  very  lowest  estimate,  because  even  then  it  would 
only  make  it  come  up  to  the  present  cost  of  tobacco  in  this  country.  In 
my  judgment,  there  should  be  a still  higher  increase  than  50  per  cent. 
I have  explained  the  matter  as  fully  as  I can  in  the  schedule  which  you 
gave  me.  I could  not,  of  course,  state  what  the  government  would  re-j 
ceive  in  the  way  of  additional  duty  on  account  of  the  increased  impor- 
tation. i 

It  is  impossible  to  predicate  the  exact  amount  of  increase  in  value  of 
imports  of  Sumatra  and  other  East  India  tobaccos,  since  the  importations 
first  began  to  attract  attention  about  July,  1880.  Since  that  time  there 
has  been  a steady  and  rapid  increase  in  the  amount  of  Sumatra  tobacco 
imported.  It  has  been  estimated  that  the  East  India  product  can  be 
worked  advantageously  as  a wrapper  for  cigars  in  the  proportion  of  4 
pounds  per  thousand  cigars,  as  against  12  to  20  pounds  of  American 
tobacco  required  to  make  a thousand  cigars.  The  amount  of  American 
tobacco  required  to  manufacture  1,000  cigars  varies  from  12  to  20  pounds, 
while  the  quality  of  Sumatra  tobacco  is  so  fine  that  the  manufacturer 
does  not  require  over  4 pounds  of  it  to  make  1,000  cigars.  It  is  all  leaf. 
When  a manufacturer  buys  American  tobacco  he  never  knows  whether 
it  will  take  12  or  20  pounds  to  make  1,000  cigars,  but  in  the  case  of 
Sumatra  tobacco  he  knows  exactly  how  far  it  will  go. 

I am  not  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  cigars  or  tobacco.  My  only 
interest  in  the  subject  is,  that  I am  the  editor  of  a tobacco  journal,  and 
that  is  the  reason  why  1 have  taken  the  liberty  of  bringing  this  matter 
before  you.  I have  no  business  interests  which  will  be  affected  by  any 
action  which  you  may  take  in  regard  to  the  duty  on  Sumatra  tobacco. 

Sumatra  and  other  East  India  tobacco,  is  a rich,  oily  product  of  fine 
appearance.  It  is  a beautiful  tobacco,  finer  than  Havana  tobacco,  and 
brings  in  the  lSTew  York  market  the  average  price  of  $1  to  $1.20  a 


OSCAR  HAMMKKSTRIN.l 


SUMATRA  TOBACCO. 


427 


pound,  while  American  wrappers  of  the  best  quality  only  bring  from  35 
to  50  cents  a pound.  As  1 have  already  stated,  4 pounds  of  Sumatra 
tobacco  at  $1.20  makes  $4.80,  while  15  pounds  of  the  best  American  to- 
bacco at  50  cents  makes  $7.50,  taking  the  highest  market  prices  in  each 
case;  thus  making  a discrimination  in  favor  of  Sumatra  tobacco  of 
$2.70  a thousand.  There  is  not  a manufacturer  in  this  country  who, 
after  he  has  seen  Sumatra  tobacco,  will  not  stop  using  the  Pennsylvania, 
Connecticut,  Ohio,  and  other  American  tobaccos.  Several  meetings 
have  already  been  held  by  the  growers  of  tobacco  in  regard  to  this  sub- 
ject. One  was  held  in  Lancaster  County,  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Farmers’ 
Club  of  Syracuse,  IN.  Y.,  I understand,  will  hold  a meeting  next  week. 
They  are  getting  up  petitions  to  Congress  for  an  increase  of  duty  on 
this  tobacco.  The  tobacco  trade  in  New  York  is  divided  very  much  on 
this  subject,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  none  of  the  gentlemen  who  are 
specially  interested  in  the  business  have  appeared  before  you.  There 
is  a great  profit  in  the  use  of  Sumatra  tobacco,  it  being  sold  now  in  such 
large  quantities,  and  as  a consequence  the  price  of  the  home  tobacco 
which  is  now  growing  has  been  forced  down  to  a very  low  figure,  so  low 
that,  if  there  is  no  stop  made  to  the  importation  of  Sumatra  tobacco,  buy- 
ers will  certainly  have  a very  good  chance  to  get  American  tobacco 
from  the  farmers  at  a very  low  price,  because  there  is  no  sale  for  it  at 
present  except  for  exportation  at  the  low  rate  of  3, 4,  or  5 cents  a pound. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  Would  you  not  accomplish  your  purpose  if  the  internal- 
revenue  tax  was  taken  off  of  American  manufactured  tobacco  ? — Answer. 
No,  sir;  that  would  not  accomplish  anything  in  this  direction. 

Q.  Why  not? — A.  Because  the  importation  would  still  continue. 

Q.  But  would  not  the  abolition  of  the  internal-revenue  tax  equalize  the 
price  in  such  a manner  as  to  enable  the  American  grower  to  compete  bet- 
ter with  the  Sumatra  tobacco  than  he  could  under  a simple  increase 
the  duty? — A.  No,  sir;  not  at  all. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  There  is  no  internal-revenue  tax  on  leaf 
tobacco ; it  is  only  on  manufactured  tobacco,  and  the  internal-revenue 
tax  is  the  same  on  cigars,  whether  made  of  foreign  or  domestic  tobacco. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Then  it  would  not  beany  assistance  to  you  at  all  if  the  internal - 
revenue  tax  should  be  removed  ? — A.  No,  sir : none  whatever.  It  would 
be  a great  assistance  to  the  tobacco  trade  if  that  could  be  done,  but  1 
do  not  suppose  that  tax  will  be  removed. 

Q.  What  is  the  capacity  of  Sumatra  to  produce  tobacco? — A.  It  is 
estimated  that  the  crop  of  this  year  will  amount  to  between  80,000  and 
100,000  bales,  of  175  pounds  to  the  bale ; and  175  pounds  of  Sumatra 
tobacco  is  equal  to  about  000  pounds  of  American  tobacco. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  only  for  certain  purposes. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  certainly,  for  fine  cigars.  It  is  only  on  the  fine 
tobaccos  that  the  grower  makes  anything.  He  does  not  make  anything 
out  of  the  poorer  grades  of  tobacco.  So  that  every  bale  of  Sumatra  tobacco 
that  comes  into  this  country  takes  the  place  of  000  pounds  of  our  own 
tobacco,  and  throws  that  amount  upon  the  market.  This  is  getting  to 
be  a very  serious  subject  indeed. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  better  cigars  can  be  made  from 
Sumatra  tobacco  than  can  possibly  be  made  from  American  tobacco?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 


428 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[OSCAR  HAMEERSTKlNr. 


Q.  Then  if  a duty  should  be  put  on  Sumatra  tobacco  sufficient  to 
make  the  cost  of  1,000  cigars  made  from  it  the  same  as  if  made  of  Ameri- 
can tobacco,  you  think  the  tobacco  manufacturers  would  still  prefer  the 
Sumatra  tobacco  at  the  same  price? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  what  do  you  want  done;  do  you  want  the  duty  put  up  so 
high  that  it  will  prohibit  the  importation  of  Sumatra  tobacco  ? — A.  Yes ; 
I would  like  to  see  the  duty  put  at  such  a figure  as  to  stop  importation. 

Q.  Then,  on  that  same  principle,  it  being  conceded  that  the  Eogers 
and  Wostenholm  cutlery  is  better  than  American  cutlery,  and  French 
artificial  flowers  being  superior  to  American  artificial  flowers,  your  gen- 
eral idea  would  be  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  anything  of  a better 
class  than  the  American  product;  is  that  your  idea? — A.  Yo,  sir;  I 
haven't  said  that  at  all.  Tobacco  is  not  a manufactured  article.  It  is 
a raw  material  which  we  grow  in  this  country. 

Q.  But  we  don’t  grow  as  good  tobacco  as  the  Sumatra!  tobacco,  do 
we? — A.  Yes,  we  do;  but  it  is  not  as  rich  and  acceptable  in  appearance 
as  the  Sumatra  tobacco. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  this  Sumatra  tobacco  used  ouly  for  making  the  wrappers? — A. 
Yes;  that  is  the  only  use  made  of  it. 

Q.  So  that  the  matter  of  appearance  is  one  of  great  importance? — A. 
Yes,  sir ; as  all  smokers  know,  the  appearance  of  a cigar  is  nearly  every- 
thing. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  this  Sumatra  tobacco  is  as  good  as  the  Cuban 
leaf  tobacco  ? — A.  Yes  ; it  is  better  in  appearance.  The  Havana  to- 
bacco is  coarse  and  has  a reddish  look,  while  the  Sumatra  tobacco  is  silky, 
oily,  glossy,  and  thin.  There  is  not  the  quality  in  the  Sumatra  tobacco 
that  there  is  in  the  Havana  tobacco,  but  it  is  the  style  and  appear- 
ance; it  makes  a beautiful -looking  cigar.  Havana  tobacco  is  brought 
to  this  country  owing  to  its  fine  quality.  We  do  not  import  Havana 
wrappers  at  all,  or  only  in  such  small  quantities  as  hardly  to  amount  to 
anything,  because  the  Havana  wrappers  are  not  as  good  looking.  That 
is  a point  I desire  to  impress  upon  you — that  while  this  Sumatra  to- 
bacco is  not  better  in  quality  than  our  home  tobacco,  yet  its  appearance 
is  so  taking  that  every  manufacturer  can  sell  it  better  than  he  can  any 
of  the  home  tobaccos. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  the  Sumatra  tobacco  is  not  better  in  quality 
than  our  American  tobacco  ? — A.  It  is  not.  It  is  only  superior  in  ap- 
pearance. Any  one  can  see  the  difference  at  a glance. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  rate  of  duty  would  you  recommend  to  be  put  on  Sumatra 
tobacco? — A.  I would  say  about  35  cents  per  pound  and  50  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Why  do  you  not  recommend  a specific  duty  by  the  pound;  is  it 
not  better  to  have  a duty  by  the  pound? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  would  be 
still  better. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Your  idea,  then,  is  to  put  a duty  on  it  of  about  70  cents  a pound? 
— A.  My  idea  is  to  have  the  duty  about  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Q.  That  would  make  it  about  70  cents  a pound. — A.  Yes,  sir.  It  is 
worth  from  8 1 to  $1.20  a pound  in  market.  If  the  duty  was  made  50 


OSCAK  HAMMEKSTK1N.] 


SUMATRA  TOBACCO. 


429 


per  cent,  ad  valorem,  that  would  make  the  cost  of  it  about  $1.75,  which 
would  only  then  equalize  it  with  our  own  production  in  cost.  But  even 
with  that  duty  upon  it,  it  would  still  be  preferred  for  the  very  finest 
class  of  goods. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  is  this  tobacco  worth  in  the  European  markets  where  it  is 
purchased  ? — A.  The  price  ranges  from  40  to  80  cents  a pound,  accord- 
ing to  the  quality.  The  darker  the  color  the  higher  it  is  in  i>rice. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  What  part  of  the  United  States  produces  tobacco  suitable  for 
wrappers  for  cigars  ? — A.  Pennsylvania  produces  the  best,  then  Con 
necticut,  then  Wisconsin,  New  York,  and  then  Ohio. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Kentucky  tobaccos  are  not  so  good  for 
wrappers,  you  think? — A.  No,  sir;  they  are  not  used  for  wrappers  at  all. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Did  you  ever  buy  any  Florida  tobacco  for  wrappers? — A.  They 
used  to  buy  that  many  years  ago,  but  they  stopped  it ; it  did  not  pay 
them.  The  people  in  Florida  do  not  seem  to  understand  the  culture  of 
tobacco,  therefore  they  have  not  raised  it  to  any  extent. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  amount  of  tobacco  that  Sumatra  can 
or  would  produce? — A.  Sumatra  grows  about  80,000  bales,  equal  to 
14,000,000  pounds.  The  Dutch  Government  controls  Sumatra  tobacco 
in  its  passage  from  grower  to  dealer,  buying  it  from  the  growers  on  the 
Island  of  Sumatra  and  selling  by  subscription  in  Amsterdam  to  the 
highest  bidder.  These  subscriptions  or  sales  occur  periodically.  The 
imports  into  this  port  since  July,  1880  (about  which  time  the  importa- 
tion began  to  assume  some  importance),  was  as  follows: 


Quantity. 

1 

Value. 

1880. 

1 Pounds. 
12, 126 
87,  848 
4,  926 

17,  347 
41,  493 

2,077 

25 

92 

3,121 

14 

18,  804 
41,  730 

$9,  713 
28,  507 
3, 168 

12,  438 
31,  454 

13,  845 

7 

2,- 154 
5 

12,  693 
• 26,  856 

August  

September  

October 

November 

December  

1881. 

j anuary  ...  . 

February 

March 

April  

June 

Total  for  the  fiscal  year  1880-’81 

179,  602 

140, 865 

1881. 

J uly 

65, 1 58 
28,  352 
78,  570 
118,312 
90,772 
59, 178 

42,  955 
62.886 
52,956 
33,798 
96,730  i 
45,048 

39,  057 
18,  925 
52,  343 
72,  229 
51,438 
42,  510 

26,  869 
38,  603 
31,  658 
21,  424 
59,  503 

27,  759 

August - 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1882. 

January  

February  

March 

April 

May 

June 

Total 

774,715  i 

482,  318 

430 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[OSCAU  HAMMERSTE1N. 


Aii  increase  of  $341,453  during  the  fiscal  year  of  1881-82  over 
1880-81. 

The  present  fiscal  year  commences  with  the  enormous  importations 
during  July,  1882,  of  147,224  pounds;  value,  $80,943. 

Taking  175  pounds  as  average  weight  per  hale,  the  amount  imported 
in  bales  during  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1882,  is  4,426  bales.  It  is 
estimated  that  if  the  increase  in  importations  is  continued  proportion- 
ately, at  the  end  of  ten  years  it  will  amount  to  25.000  bales, 


K.  E.  HASTINGS.  ] 


GOLD  LEAF. 


431 


R.  E.  HASTINGS. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  15,  1882. 

Mr.  R.  E.  Hastings,  of  the  firm  of  Hastings  & Co.,  of  Philadelphia, 
gold-leaf  manufacturers,  made  the  following  statement : 

I understand  from  the  published  reports,  that  the  Commission  has 
given  a hearing  to  parties  asking  for  a re-arrangement  of  the  duty  on 
gold  leaf,  and  as  a manufacturer  of  that  product  I appear  before  you  to 
state  a few  facts  relative  to  the  business.  Lt  has  been  stated  in  the 
newspapers  that  the  general  understanding  is  that  the  Tariff  Commis 
sion  will  recommend  the  lowering  of  certain  duties  on  imported  goods, 
I understand  that  the  journeymen  of  our  business  have  asked  you  to 
put  the  tariff  on  gold  leaf  at  wThat  I would  call  an  exorbitant  rate. 
Goods  now  selling  for  $7  pay  a duty  of  $1.50  per  package  of  500  leaves. 
I do  not  come  to  advocate  the  raising  of  the  present  duties ; I think 
that  is  unnecessary.  But,  at  the  same  time,  I do  not  think  the  duty 
should  be  lowered,  as  it  is  now  only  sufficient  to  give  us  a fair  protec 
tion.  Should  you  recommend  an  increase  of  the  duty  to  $2.50  per 
package  of  500  leaves,  which  1 hear  the  journeymen  have  asked,  the 
duty  would  then  be  $2.50  on  goods  which  would  be  sold  for  $7,  and  we 
are  very  much  afraid  that  would  create  a disarrangement  in  the  busi 
ness  and  lead  to  smuggling,  for  it  would  give  a profit  of  40  per  cent,  to 
the  smuggler  of  these  goods.  We  have,  we  think,  all  the  protection 
that  is  necessary  to  carry  on  our  business  with  a fair  profit,  but  we  do 
not  think  we  could  stand  a reduction,  even  to  a limited  extent.  We 
pay  the  men  employed  in  our  business  about  the  same  rate  of  wages 
that  most  mechanics  earn,  and  we  give  them  steady  work.  We  appre 
hend  that  if  you  were  to  grant  the  request  made  by  the  journeymen 
that  the  effect  would  be  to  disarrange  the  whole  business,  and  in  the 
end  be  of  no  advantage  to  them.  These  are  my  ideas  gained  from  ex- 
perience as  a member  of  a large  firm  engaged  in  this  business.  I do 
not  know  that  the  employes  are  paid  as  large  wages  as  they  ought  to 
receive ; they  are  not  paid  as  high  a rate  of  wages  as  they  would  re- 
ceive if  there  was  no  internal  competition.  They  seem  to  think  that  if 
the  rate  of  duty  is  increased  it  would  give  them  an  increase  of  wages, 
forgetting  the  fact  of  internal  competition,  and  forgetting  that  it  is  this 
internal  competition  which  has  put  the  rate  of  wages  below  what  could 
be  given  them  if  there  was  only  a fair  rate  of  duty.  As  I have  said,  if 
the  rate  of  duty  is  increased  to  the  figure  recommended  by  the  parties 
who  have  appeared  before  you,  it  will  have  a tendency  to  cause  these 
goods  to  be  smuggled,  because  the  profits  would  be  very  large.  I wish 
to  impress  upon  the  Commission,  however,  the  fact  that  we  have  not  at 
present  any  more  protection  than  we  need.  I think  if  there  was  any 
lowering  in  the  rate  of  duty,  it  would  have  a tendency  to  reduce  the 
rate  of  wages  and  throw  many  of  our  operatives  out  of  employment. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  What  wages  do  you  pay  ? — Answer.  A journeyman  gold- 
beater makes,  and  we  are  now  paying,  about  $13.50  a week.  Some  re- 
ceive more  and  some  less,  according  to  their  capacity.  It  is  all  piece- 


432 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[R.  E.  HASTINGS. 


work.  1 think  the  journeymen  must  have  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  if 
the  duty  they  ask  for,  which  forms  so  large  a proportion  of  the  selling- 
price,  was  put  on  the  goods,  it  would  he  such  an  inducement,  that  the 
goods  would  be  smuggled  into  the  country.  There  is  now  but  little 
gold  leaf  imported.  The  statistics  for  the  last  year  show,  however,  a 
large  importation  of  gold  leaf;  but  that  was  owing  to  troubles  in  the 
trade  which  threatened  the  production,  and  that  amount  was  brought 
in  to  make  up  for  that  lack  of  production  in  this  country.  It  was  owing 
to  the  long  lock-out  or  strike  that  these  goods  were  imported  to  fill  up 
the  gap,  and  the  minute  the  strike  was  over  the  importation  ceased. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  The  gold-beaters  asked  for  an  increase  of  the  duty  per  package  to 
$2.50,  when  now  it  is  only  $1.50.  Do  you  think  the  present  rates  are 
sufficient  to  protect  the  manufacturer  ? — A.  I think  they  are.  The  gold- 
beaters have  forgotten  that  the  consumers’  rights  are  to  be  considered. 
I base  my  arguments  on  these  facts,  that  the  manufacturers  are  not 
now  paying  the  rate  of  wages  that  they  could  pay  if  they  fully  availed 
themselves  of  the  $1.50  duty.  What  the  manufacturers  now  get  $5  for, 
they  could  get  $6  for,  and  still  protect  themselves  against  the  present 
duty.  But  the  idea  of  the  gold-beaters  seems  to  be  that,  if  the  duty 
was  raised  to  $2.50,  it  would  run  their  wages  up.  They  overlook  the 
tact  that  the  business  could  yield  them  $6,  but  does  not,  on  account  of 
internal  competition.  I hold  that  where  they  go  beyond  the  point  of 
protection  that  internal  competition  gives  them,  it  will  interfere  with 
the  consumption,  and  therefore  the  rates  of  wages  will  be  lowered  at 
once.  Those  goods  which  sell  now  for  $7  could  be  imported  to-day  for 
about  $6.70,  and  if  you  should  put  an  additional  5 per  cent,  duty  on  the 
goods,  it  would  make  them  go  above  the  selling  price  to  day,  and  it 
would  not  in  the  end  yield  the  workman  any  benefit. 


L.  MCMULLEN.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


433 


L.  MCMULLEN. 


Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  15,  1882. 

Mr.  L.  McMullen,  examiner,  appraiser’s  department,  New  York,  ap- 
peared before  tlie  Commission  and  made  the  following  statement : 

I will  begin  my  statement  by  taking  up  and  commenting  upon  the 
schedule  relating  to  metals  (Schedule  E).  The  first  paragraph,  No.  988, 
is,  “Iron  in  pigs:- seven  dollars  per  ton.”  That  paragraph  does  not 
require  any  alteration.  The  next  paragraph  relates  to  bar  iron,  rolled 
or  hammered.  I would  suggest  that  the  items  in  that  paragraph  be 
placed  at  one  rate  of  duty,  say,  at  a medium  rate  of  a cent  and  a quar- 
ter to  a cent  and  a half  per  pound,  and  that  the  last  words,  “and  none 
of  the  above  iron  shall  pay  a less  rate  of  duty  than  thirty-five  per  cen- 
tum ad  valorem,”  be  stricken  out. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Before  we  go  any  further  in  the  examination 
of  these  custom-house  officers,  I would  request  the  Commission  to  con- 
sider whether,  when  experts  are  discussing  the  phraseology  of  the  classi- 
fications, it  is  proper  for  them  to  give  estimates  of  rates  and  duties.  I 
do  not  think  that  is  within  the  province  of  these  witnesses.  I make 
this  suggestion  so  that  we  may  know  how  to  proceed. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I understood  Mr.  McMullen  to  advise  a 
medium  rate  of  duty. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  And  a simplification  of  the  classification. 

The  Witness.  I was  simply  expressing  what  I meant  by  simplifica- 
tion of  the  schedule.  This  bar  iron  runs  into  an  ad  valorem  rate  of 
duty.  It  would  be  much  simpler  to  have  one  rate  of  duty  for  bar  iron, 
and  then,  if  it  is  deemed  advisable,  another  rate  of  duty  for  sheet  iron 
and  hoop  iron,  and  group  them  in  another  paragraph. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  What  difficulties  have  you  had  as  regards  the  paragraph 
you  have  cited  ? — Answer.  There  has  been  no  trouble  except  that  aris- 
ing from  having  three  or  four  classifications  instead  of  one  for  all  bar 
iron  with  one  rate  of  duty,  whatever  that  rate  might  be. 

Q.  You  do  not  object  to  the  descriptive  part? — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  Could  you  extend  the  language  of  it  in  any  way  ? — A.  No  j it  is 
very  good  and  comprehensive.  Tbe  latter  part  of  the  clause  runs  into 
the  higher  grade  of  Swedes  iron,  and  very  little  of  that  pays  the  ad  valo- 
rem duty  of  35  per  cent. 

I next  pass  on  to  “iron  bars  for  railroads  or  inclined  planes.”  That 
stands  by  itself,  and  does  not  require  any  alteration.  The  next  para- 
graph is  “boiler  and  other  plate  iron.”  That  is  the  same.  The  next 
paragraph  is  in  regard  to  iron  wire,  on  which  there  is  a specific  and  ad 
valorem  duty.  I think  it  would  be  well  to  do  away  with  that  compound 
duty.  The  same  remark  applies  to  steel  wire.  I do  not  see  why  the 
same  amount  of  duty  could  not  be  assessed  by  having  a simple  specific 
rate  and  not  a compound  rate,  both  specific  and  ad  valorem.  “Bound 
iron  in  coils,”  in  the  next  paragraph,  stands  very  well  as  it  is.  Sheet 
iron  and  band,  hoop,  and  scroll  iron  are  mentioned  in  three  or  four  dif- 
H.  Mis.  6 28 


434 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  MCMU1LEN. 


lerent  paragraphs.  I would  have  them  grouped  in  one  paragraph,  with 
the  lowest  rate  of  duty  at  1J  cents  and  the  highest  If  cents. 

Q.  Do  you  suggest  that  because  you  have  had  trouble  in  determin- 
ing the  classification  ? — A.  Not  on  that  ground,  but  on  account  of  the 
immense  amount  of  work  required  in  classifying  the  invoices. 

By  Commisoioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  As  a general  rule,  ad  valorem  duties  are  placed  upon  the  higher 
priced  goods,  and  those  which  are  more  troublesome  to  make  and  take 
care  of,  or  to  raise.  The  common  varieties  of  goods  are  of  course  the 
heaviest  and  the  easiest  handled,  and  usually  there  are  ten  times  the 
quantity  used  of  them.  I judge  the  object  of  making  the  tariff  read  in 
that  way  was  to  combine  to  some  extent  the  ad  valorem  and  the  specific 
rates? — A.  You  mean  the  provisions  relating  to  the  fineness  of  the 
gauge  ? Yes.  I merely  throw  out  these  suggestions  and  do  not  know 
whether  they  could  be  adopted.  I think  it  would  be  very  desirable  if 
they  could  be  grouped  in  fewer  classifications.  There  are  classes  of 
hand  saws  which  have  a compound  duty  on  them  that  might  as  well  be 
under  a general  head,  at  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  is  about  three  times  as  much  work  to 
classify  an  invoice,  both  for  the  importer  and  for  the  custom-house 
officials  in  that  way.  But  the  jwactical  difficulty  is  in  the  weighing. 
These  articles  pay  by  weight,  and  they  pay  three  separate  rates  of  duty, 
by  weight,  grade  and  gauge,  and  the  difficulty  comes  in  separating  this 
iron  on  the  dock  and  getting  it  properly  weighed.  The  goods  that 
should  pay  the  rate  of  If  cents  will  be  weighed  with  goods  that  ought 
to  pay  1J  cents,  and  they  will  get  mixed  up,  and  the  importers  are  con- 
stantly complaining  that  the  weights  are  not  right.  If  one  uniform  rate 
was  adopted,  it  would  do  away  with  much  annoyance  and  complaint  on 
the  part  of  the  importer. 

The  Witness.  Sections  1004,1005,  and  1006  relate  to  hand  saws,  back 
saws,  and  files.  I think  those  paragraphs  might  be  done  away  with,  be- 
cause the  importation  of  these  articles  is  very  small  indeed,  and  they 
could  all  be  covered  by  the  paragraph  covering  the  manufactures  of 
steel, 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  would  bring  the  duty  in  as  an  ad' valo- 
rem duty. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir ; I may  say  that  a hand  saw  is  seldom,  if  ever, 
imported  now.  That  is  not  because  of  the  high  rate  of  duty,  but  it  is 
on  account  of  the  progress  that  has  been  made  in  this  country  in  cheap- 
ening the  production  and  improving  the  quality  of  these  goods.  The 
same  is  true  in  regard  to  files  ; there  are  hardly  any  imported,  so  that 
it  would  be  hardly  worth  while  to  keep  all  the  different  classifications 
there  together  and  enumerate  these  different  articles  that  could  be  just 
as  well  covered  by  the  paragraph  relating  to  the  manufactures  of  steel. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Could  they  be  covered  in  that  way  by  making  the  duty  a specific 
one? — A.  Yes,  sir;  you  might  make  it  a specific  duty  of  so  much  a 
dozen,  for  instance,  on  hand  saws,  or  so  much  a pound  on  files.  The 
present  rate  of  duty  on  files  is  six  to  ten  cents  a pound,  and  thirty  per 
centum  ad  valorem.  I think  the  rate  of  duty  might  be  fixed  at  a spe- 
cific rate  per  pound,  and  do  away  altogether  with  the  ad  valorem.  The 
American  files  can  be  produced  much  cheaper  than  the  European  man- 
ufacturers can  export  them,  because  we  have  in  this  country  many  new 
machines  for  cutting  the  files  which  has  greatly  lessened  the  cost  of  jiro- 
duction. 


L.  MCMULLEN.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


435 


Q.  You  passed  over  section  904  in  regard  to  wire,  without  comment- 
ing upon  it.  To  follow  out  your  idea  of  simplifying  the  tariff  by  enu- 
merating similar  articles  under  one  head,  I would  make  this  sugges- 
tion: Iron  wire  is  fast  passing  out  of  use.  It  is  used  less  and  less.  Some 
is  used  for  telegraphic  purposes,  but  for  scarcely  anything  else.  Would 
it  not  be  simplifying  matters  to  say  “iron  and  steel  wire”  so  much? — A. 
Yes,  sir ; and  I will  say  in  that  connection  that  there  should  be  a blend- 
ing of  all  these  wire  and  steel  manufactures.  Take  a piece  of  ma- 
chinery under  the  present  law.  Where  a piece  of  machinery  is  valued 
at  three  thousand  pounds  sterling,  and  it  happens  that  there  is  in  that 
machinery  only  about  eighteen  shillings  worth  of  steel,  that  small  amount 
of  steel  controls  the  duty.  There  should  be  a way  of  having  iron  and 
steel  manufacturers  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty.  There  is  no  conclusive 
way  of  finding  out  whether  an  article  is  composed  of  steel  or  any  portion 
of  steel,  without  destroying  the  article  to  see. 

Q.  You  would  make  the  terms  synonymous,  then? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  in  section  994,  you  suggest  the  wiping  out  of  the  compound 
duty? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  suggestion  is,  that  no  matter  what  the  article  may  be,  it 
should  pay  so  much  a pound? — A.  Yes,  sir;  your  idea  is  a good  one,  to 
blend  the  two  together,  iron  and  steel. 

Q.  Did  you  have  much  trouble  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the  gauge 
of  wire?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  gauge  is  easier  ascertained,  I suppose,  in  regard  to  wire  than 
it  is  in  regard  to  sheet  iron? — A.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  not  the  trouble  to  the 
inspector  that  I am  talking  about ; but  my  suggestions  are  in  the  way 
of  simplifying  these  classifications  where  I think  the  same  result  may  be 
arrived  at;  that  is,  the  same  amount  of  money  collected  as  duty  that  is 
collected  now.  We  do  not  often  get  any  goods  coming  in  under  that 
iron-wire  clause  that  are  less  than  16- wire  gauge.  Immediately  after 
that  law  was  passed  we  had  some  wire  that  was  larger  than  that,  and 
we  had  to  bring  it  in  at  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  as  a manufacture  not 
otherwise  provided  for,  for  it  was  not  provided  for  then,  and  is  not 
now. 

Q.  That  is  one  of  the  largest  articles  of  importation  now? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  What  have  you  to  say  in  regard  to  these  sections,  999  to  1001  in- 
clusive, in  regard  to  band,  hoop,  and  scrap-iron ; how  lias  that  worked 
practically? — A.  It  works  the  same  as  the  provision  for  bar-iron  does. 
I think  it  would  be  well  to  group  them  together  in  one  category.  I 
would  put  hoop,  scroll,  and  sheet  iron  all  together  in  one  paragraph.  1 
think  the  whole  matter  could  be  so  simplified  that  it  would  not  give 
rise  to  objections  as  to  particular  classifications  under  the  laws;  we  would 
get  clear  of  that. 

Q.  Here  is  the  item  of  sword-blades;  wliat  have  you  to  say  in  regard 
to  that? — A.  They  are  coming  in  all  the  time.  I suppose  that  item  is 
well  enough,  and  does  not  need  to  be  disturbed.  English  and  German 
sword-blades  are  coming  in  constantly. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  in  regard  to  paragraph  1007,  “pen  knives,  jack 
knives,  and  pocket  knives  of  all  kinds:  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem”? — 
A.  I would  not  recommend  any  change  in  that  classification ; there  is 
nothing  there  that  needs  to  be  changed  except,  perhaps,  the  rate  of 
duty. 

Q.  We  had  this  subject  before  the  Commission  yesterday.  The  pocket- 
cutlery  manufacturers  made  an  argument  before  us. — A.  The  suggestion 
of  the  cutlery  men  that  the  rate  of  duty  should  be  50  cents  a dozen 


436 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  MCMULLEN. 


would,  if  carried  into  effect,  make  the  law  prohibitory  in  its  effects  on 
the  cheaper  kinds  so  far  as  the  foreign  article  is  coucerned.  There  are 
only  two  resident  manufacturers  of  foreign  goods  in  this  country,  Wosten- 
holm  and  Rogers,  and  ther*goods  are  invoiced  to  merchants  generally  at 
the  same  price  at  which  they  are  consigned  to  their  agents. 

Q.  How  about  the  importations  from  Germany? — A.  There  are  no 
resident  agents  of  German  cutlery  here. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  How  do  you  ascertain  the  fact  that  there  are  no  resident  agents 
of  the  German  manufacturers  here? — A.  I have  never  heard  of  any. 

Q.  Could  not  a man  be  in  the  business  and  receive  goods  as  an  agent 
without  its  being  known  to  the  public? — A.  Not  very  well,  because  if 
he  is  in  the  business  he  gets  to  be  known  among  the  trade  as  the  agent 
of  the  party ; you  hear  of  it  from  one  or  another.  I come  now  to  para- 
graph 1011,  iron  squares ; that  could  very  well  come  under  the  general 
head  of  manufactures  of  iron. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Are  there  any  steel  squares  imported  ? — A.  No,  sir ; there  are  none 
imported  at  all. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I notice  that  under  this  section  it  says, 
“iron  squares  marked  on  one  side:  three  cents  per  pound,  and  in  addi- 
tion thereto  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem  ; on  other  squares  of  iron  or 
steel:  six  cents  per  pound  and  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem.”  If  we 
should  unite  these  under  one  classification  at  a medium  rate  of  duty,  how 
would  it  affect  the  rate  of  duty  ? One  description  of  iron  squares  is  three 
cents  a pound  and  the  other  is  six  cents  a pound.  There  must  have  been 
some  object  when  this  tariff  was  framed  why  that  distinction  was  made. 
If  you  obliterate  that  distinction  by  making  them  all  at  one  rate  of  duty, 
of  course  it  simplifies  the  matter,  and  the  officer’s  duty  is  simpler.  But 
is  there  not  a tendency  in  that  way  to  entirely  derange  the  whole  system 
on  which  duties  are  predicated,  if  there  is  any  system  on  which  they  are 
predicated  at  all? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Mr.  McMullen  says  that  they  are  no  longer 
imported,  and  therefore  he  wants  to  obliterate  that  section  and  rele- 
gate these  articles  into  the  sections  providing  for  general  subjects. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I am  not  discussing  the  question  of  simpli- 
fication, but  it  is  really  changing  the  basis  on  which  the  whole  tariff 
system  is  founded,  if  there  is  any  system  about  it,  aud  if  it  is  not  mere 
haphazard  and  guesswork  on  the  part  of  the  framers  of  the  tariff. 

The  Witness.  There  never  has  been  a steel  square  imported  under 
that  law. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Perhaps  it  is  because  the  rate  of  duty  is 
prohibitory. 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  I think  that  steel  squares  may  be  called  an 
American  institution.  I think  we  can  make  and  ship  them  to  the  other 
side  at  a fair  profit. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Then  I do  not  understand  the  theory  on 
which  this  iron  schedule  was  framed. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  At  the  time  this  act  was  passed,  these  goods 
were  all  made  in  New  England.  In  the  old  days  they  worked  by  hand  ; 
now  they  work  by  machinery,  and  the  best  gauge  in  the  world,  which 
is  called  the  Birmingham  gauge,  is  made  in  New  England.  The  duty  was 
so  high  that  it  gave  the  market  for  these  goods  to  the  American  manu- 
facturer, and  as  a result  the  Americans  are  making  the  best  goods  at 
the  present  time.  The  manufacturers  might  suggest  a rate  that  would 


l.  mcmullen. J APPRAISER’S  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  437 

cover  the  whole  class,  iron  and  steel,  so  much  a pound  or  dozen,  and 
double  the  duty. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  If  these  articles  were  relegated  to  the  general  clauses,  ’would  they 
be  imported  ? — A.  Ho,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  only  wiping  out  an  unnecessary  part  of  the  taritf,  then,  as  I 
understand  you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I will  state,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Kenner’s  in- 
quiry, that  an  iron  square  before  it  is  marked  is  an  article  of  very  little 
value.  It  is  worth  so  much  a pound  for  the  material,  and  the  labor 
that  has  been  put  into  it  does  not  amount  to  much  ; all  the  labor  in  the 
work  is  caused  by  the  marking  and  the  accuracy  with  which  it  has  to  be 
marked.  The  idea  was  to  double  the  duty  on  iron  squares  where  they 
are  marked  on  both  sides,  and  that  distinction  was  made  to  get  an  in- 
creased duty.  * 

Commissioner  Garland.  And  to  protect  the  laborer. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  I would  like  to  ask  the  witness  this  question.  If  the  duty  was 
entirely  taken  off,  would  they  not  begin  to  import  the  goods  at  once? — 
A.  Ho,  sir;  they  would  not,  because  the  manufacture  has  grown  in  this 
country  to  such  an  extent  that  I think  both  iron  and  steel  can  be  ex- 
ported to  foreign  countries.  American  manufactures  of  steel  have  been 
sold  even  in  Sheffield,  the  great  seat  of  the  steel  industries  of  England. 

The  next  section  is  1012,  which  is  as  follows:  “All  manufactures 
of  steel  or  of  which  steel  shall  be  a component  part  not  otherwise 
provided  for:  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem.”  That  ought  to  be 
altered ; it  ought  to  be  “ the  component  part  of  chief  value.”  I believe 
I instanced  the  case  of  a piece  of  machinery  where  the  value  of  the  ma- 
chine was  £3,000,  and  the  value  of  the  steel  in  it  was  18s.,  but  the  steel 
controlled  the  classification  and  it  came  in  at  45  per  cent.,  steel  being  a 
component  part  of  the  machine.  If  you  will  turn  to  section  1067  you 
will  see  that  it  says  “manufactures,  articles,  vessels,  and  wares  not 
otherwise  provided  for,  of  brass,  iron,  lead,  pewter,  and  tin  or  other 
metal  (except  gold,  silver,  platina,  copper,  and  steel),  or  of  which  either 
of  these  metals  shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  thirty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem.”  I would  take  out  all  those  words  that  are  in 
parentheses  and  have  all  under  one  rate  of  duty. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  And  include  the  words  steel? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  And  do  without  the  whole  of  those  excep- 
tions ? 

The  Witness.  Yres,  sir.  I would  like  to  make  a suggestion,  also,  in 
regard  to  other  manufactures.  I will  instance  machinery  again,  com- 
posed of  iron  and  steel  and  glass.  Leave  out  the  steel  and  it  is  com- 
posed of  iron  and  glass,  and  glass  being  a component  part  would  change 
the  duty.  Glass  should  come  in  at  the  same  rate  ad  valorem  as  iron 
and  steel. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  There  is  the  same  phraseology  about  glass 
that  there  is  about  steel ; that  is,  instead  of  saying  all  manufactures  of 
which  glass  shall  be  a component  material  of  chief  value,  it  says  all 
manufactures  of  which  glass  is  a component  material.  If  it  is  made  of 
steel  and  glass,  and  steel  is  the  component  material,  the  duty  is  45  per 


438 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  MCMULLEN. 


cent.,  and  where  glass  is  the  component  material  it  is  40  per  cent.  They 
conflict  with  one  another  all  the  time. 

The  Witness.  In  regard  to  all  manufactured  articles  where  the  article 
is  composed  of  different  materials  and  at  present  pays  a different  rate  of 
duty,  they  should  be  grouped  together  at  one  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty. 
Of  course  an  exception  could  be  made  in  the  act  for  articles  not  other- 
wise provided  for,  and  they  could  be  brought  in  afterwards  and  par- 
ticularized. I think  that  is  done  in  the  case  of  wool.  No  matter  how 
small  a portion  of  wool  there  may  be  in  an  article,  it  is  controlling,  be- 
cause it  forms  a portion  of  the  article.  The  next  section  is  No.  1013, 
steel  railway  bars.  There  is  no  trouble  about  that.  The  next  section, 
No.  1014,  is  railway  bars  made  in  part  of  steel. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  They  are  not  coming  in  now. 

The  Witness.  No,  and  we  have  not  had  any  for  many  years. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Under  this  same  paragraph  it  says:  uAnd 
metal  converted,  cast  or  made  from  iron  by  the  Bessemer  or  pneumatic 
process,  of  whatever  form  or  description,  shall  be  classed  as  steel;” 
what  do  you  say  in  regard  to  that  provision? 

The  Witness.  That  had  better  remain  as  it  is,  because  there  are  peo- 
pie  who  call  it  Bessemer  metal. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  have  a definition 
of  steel  or  iron  in  some  way,  I think. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  that  should  be  done.  They  have  tried  to  do  that 
in  England.  They  held  a convention  there,  but  they  could  not  fix  on 
a standard  of  what  should  be  called  steel.  They  grouped  the  different 
grades  of  steel  from  the  lowest  carbon  where  the  metal  could  be  called 
steel,  upward,  but  they  came  to  no  determination  at  all. 

The  next  paragraph  is  No.  1015,  u locomotive  tires  or  parts  thereof.” 
That  does  not  need  to  be  disturbed.  Paragraph  1010  contains  a class 
of  articles  which  have  been  taken  from  one  tariff  to  another,  and  at 
present  the  paragraph  does  not  mean  anything.  It  says : u Mill-irons  and 
mill-cranks  of  wrought  iron,  and  wrought  iron  for  ships,  steam-engines, 
and  locomotives,  or  parts  thereof,  weighing  each  25  pounds  or  more,  2 
cents  per  pound.”  There  is  never  any  application  made  of  that  para- 
graph at  all.  It  comes  in  either  as  a manufacture  of  iron  or  steel,  accord- 
ing to  the  article  of  machinery  that  it  professes  to  be. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  would  abolish  that  altogether,  then? 

The  Witness.  1 think  so.  The  next  item  is  in  regard  to  anvils  and 
iron  cables  or  cable-chains.  Anvils  might  be  left  at  a specificrate,  and  the 
cables  might  be  merged  into  chains,  ar  d there  might  be  one  rate  of  duty 
at  2£  or  3 cents  a pound,  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  There  is  fully  a difference  of  50  per  cent,  in 
value.  The  first  item  of  chains  is  worth  4 or  5 cents  a pound,  while  the 
other  items  would  not  be  worth  much  over  one-half  that  amount. 

The  Witness.  You  could  abolish  every  thing  in  paragraph  1017 
except  in  regard  to  anvils.  The  next  paragraph  I call  attention  to  is 
paragraph  1019,  anchors  or  parts  thereof;  and  the  next  paragraph, 
1020,  is  blacksmiths’  hammers  and  sledges.  Those  are  all  specific  duties. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  As  a matter  of  fact,  are  any  anchors  imported  at  all  into  this 
country? — A.  No,  sir;  none  whatever.  In  regard  to  the  item  of  black- 
smiths’ hammers  and  sledges,  that  is  all  right,  and  need  not  be  disturbed. 
The  next  paragraph,  1021,  relates  to  wrought-iron  railroad-chairs,  and 
wrought-iron  nuts  and  washers,  ready  punched ; and  the  next  para- 


l.  MCMULLEN.]  APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  439 

graph,  1022,  relates  to  bed-screws  and  wrought-iron  hinges.  There  are 
no  bed-screws  imported,  and  very  few  wrought-iron  hinges. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  nuts  and  washers  are  imported  ? 

The  Witness.  Not  a great  many.  The  next  item  I call  attention  to 
is  paragraph  1024,  which  relates  to  steam,  gas,  and  water  tubes  and 
Hues  of  wrought  iron.  There  are  very  few  of  these  articles  imported. 
Paragraph  1025  relates  to  cut  nails  and  spikes.  I think  it  would  be 
well  to  leave  that  item  out. 

Commissioner  Garland.  You  omitted  to  speak  of  paragraph  1023, 
wrought  board-nails,  spikes,  rivets,  and  bolts. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  think  that  paragraph  need  be  disturbed. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Would  you  leave  in  bolts  at  2J  cents 
when  nuts  are  only  2 cents'?  That  question  came  up  some  time  ago  in 
a case  where  the  nuts  were  on  the  bolts,  and  it  was  difficult  to  know 
what  to  do. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  nut  lost  its  name  when  it  was  on  the 
bolt,  and  came  in  as  part  of  the  bolt.  I think  the  two  should  be  put 
together. 

The  Witness.  In  regard  to  steam,  gas,  and  water  tubes  and  flues  of 
wrought  iron,  in  paragraph  1024, 1 do  not  think  anything  need  be  done. 
There  are  none  imported,  except  some  of  the  better  quality  of  goods. 

Commissioner  Garland.  You  would  suggest  that  they  go  in  with  the 
general  clause  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  cut  nails  and  spikes  ought  to  be  left  off  alto- 
gether, I think.  There  is  a question  about  horseshoe  nails,  contained  in 
the  next  paragraph.  None  of  them  are  imported  into  this  country. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  That  may  be  owing  to  the  excessive  duty  of 
5 cents  a pound. 

The  Witness.  No,  sir ; the  progress  made  in  this  country  in  the  manu- 
facture of  horseshoe  nails  is  such  that  they  will  never  be  imported 
again. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  They  export  them  from  Boston  to  South 
America. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  I think  they  had  better  go  in  the  general  column 
of  manufactures,  and  so  also  cut  tacks,  brads,  and  sprigs.  All  those 
have  been  left  over  from  former  tariffs,  and  have  been  added  to  without 
any  particular  reason.  The  next  paragraph,  No.  1028,  relates  to  wood- 
screws.  I do  not  suggest  any  alterations  in  that.  They  are  not  im- 
ported, except  at  certain  times  when  there  is  an  advance  in  the  price  in 
this  market.  The  next  paragraph  relates  to  screws  of  any  other  metal 
than  iron,  and  all  other  screws  of  iron  except  wood-screws.  They  would 
come  in  under  the  general  clause  at  35  per  cent. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Yes,  if  we  wipe  this  out,  they  would  fall 
under  that  clause  very  naturally. 

The  Witness.  The  next  clause  relates  to  u vessels  of  cast  iron,  not 
otherwise  provided  for,”  and  on  andirons,  sadirons,  tailors’  and  hatters’ 
irons,  stoves  and  stove-plates,  of  cast  iron.  These  things  are  all  made 
in  this  country  successfully,  and  they  might  go  under  the  general  clause. 
Cast  iron  pipes,  referred  to  in  section  1031,  I do  not  think  any  of  them 
are  imported.  Section  1032  refers  to  cast-iron  butts  and  hinges. 
None  of  them  are  imported  into  this  country,  and  the}'  never  will  be 
again.  They  could  go  under  the  general  clause.  Hollow  ware,  glazed 
or  tinned,  in  paragraph  1033,  at  3J  cents  a pound.  There  is  very  little 
imported  of  that,  and  it  might  go  under  the  general  clause  of  manufac- 
tures of  iron.  The  next  section  is  1034,  cast  scrap-iron  of  every  de- 


440 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  MCMULLEN. 


scription,  and  1035,  wrought  scrap-iron  of  every  description,  $8  a ton. 
This  same  paragraph  provides,  “but  nothing  shall  be  deemed  scrap-iron 
except  waste  or  refuse  iron  that  has  been  in  actual  use  and  is  fit  only  to 
be  remanufactured.”  1 think  that  ought  to  be  shut  out. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  mean  that  tbe  clippings  from  new 
iron  should  be  classed  as  scrap  iron  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Would  you  keep  up  the  distinction  be- 
tween cast  scrap  iron  and  wrought  scrap  iron  ? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir,  I would  not. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Do  you  think  this  proviso  in  paragraph  1035 
should  be  stricken  out? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir,  I do. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  There  is  no  such  clause  as  that  in  regard 
to  scrap  steel. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  is  no  reason  why  there  should  not  be 
one.  It  is  a fact  that  axes  have  been  put  in  with  scrap  iron,  and  the 
trip  crossing  the  ocean  gave  them  a rusty  appearance,  and  after  they 
had  been  passed  as  scrap  iron  they  were  selected  out  and  used  for  axes. 

The  Witness.  That  would  not  be  scrap  iron,  according  to  my  judg- 
ment ; it  would  be  fit  for  use.  I was  referring  to  these  short  clippings, 
not  more  than  two  or  three  inches  long. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  for  axes  they  would  be  longer.  Let  me 
explain  that  point,  and  see  if  you  will  change  your  opinion.  The  duty 
on  Swedes  bars  are  what  ? 

The  Witness.  A cent  a pound. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  A very  large  business  is  done  in  that  article; 
it  is  the  basis  for  all  the  cast  steel  made  in  this  country.  The  duty  on 
Swedes  bars  is  one  cent  a pound,  and  it  is  imported  largely,  and  the 
government  derives  a large  revenue  from  it.  Coming  in  the  shape  of 
bars,  it  pays  a duty  of  one  cent  a pound.  If  you  wipe  this  qualifying 
clause  away  it  would  come  in  as  scrap  iron.  The  trouble  would  be 
here : They  cannot  use  Swedes  bars  until  they  cut  it  up.  If  it  was 
not  for  the  trouble  in  transporting,  they  would  have  it  all  cut  up  abroad ; 
but  they  do  not  want  to  shovel  it ; they  want  to  transport  it  in  bars. 
If  you  wipe  out  that  qualifying  clause  you  will  have  no  more  Swedes 
bars  imported.  It  will  not  interfere  with  any  great  industry  in  this 
country,  because  it  is  a peculiar  iron,  as  you  know. 

The  Witness.  Very  well,  then,  an  exception  could  be  made  to  cover 
that  difficulty. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  exception  is  made  as  the  matter  stands. 

The  Witness.  Supposing  boiler  panellings  come  in  as  scrap  iron ; 
take  the  punchings  of  these  steamers  that  come  m here. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  is  surely  scrap  iron. 

The  Witness.  But  they  cannot  come  in  now  under  the  law  as  scrap 
iron. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  must  be  iron  that  has  been  in  actual 
use.  The  section  says  “ wrought  scrap  iron  of  every  description”;  and 
adds,  “ but  nothing  shall  be  deemed  scrap  iron  except  waste  or  refuse 
iron  that  has  been  in  actual  use.”  Perhaps  that  difficulty  could  be 
covered  by  making  the  section  read,  “ wrought  iron  and  scrap  iron  of 
every  kind ; but  nothing  shall  be  deemed  scrap  iron  except  waste  or 
refuse  iron.” 

Commissioner  Kenner.  It  might  simplify  the  matter  and  render  it 
easier  to  handle,  but  it  actually  changes  the  whole  character  of  the 
sentence;  the  meaning  of  the  whole  sentence  as  to  actual  use. 


L.  MCMULLEN.]  APPRAISERS  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  441 

Commissioner  Garland.  Would  you  recommend  the  retention  of 
these  words,  “ and  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured  77  ? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  would  be  a contradiction  in  terms, 
because  an  article  that  has  not  been  manufactured  could  not  be  re- 
manufactured. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  could  be  covered  by  another  clause 
saying  that  punchings  and  waste  iron  from  new  work  shall  bedutied  as 
scrap  iron. 

The  Witness.  The  next  section  is  No.  103G,  “all other  castings  of 
iron  not  otherwise  provided  for,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem.77  That 
could  come  in  under  the  general  clause.  The  next  section,  No.  1037, 
is  taggers7  iron.  I think  I would  let  that  go  under  the  general  clause. 
It  pays  a duty  of  30  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Would  you  leave  that  paragraph  as  it  is? 

The  Witness.  Yes;  perhaps. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  comes  in  under  tin  plates. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Why  should  not  that  pay  the  same  rate 
as  sheet  iron  or  tin  plates  ? 

Commissioner  Oliver.  There  is  a difference  between  tin  plates  and 
plates  that  have  been  tinned,  and  taggers7  iron  should  come  in  as  the 
same.  That  could  be  brought  in  under  a specific  duty  very  well,  could 
it  not? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  and  it  would  be  well  to  do  that.  We  used 
to  have  a certain  size  of  taggers  iron,  but  now  it  is  made  a larger 
size,  and  the  question  comes  up  as  to  whether  it  is  taggers  iron  or  not. 
It  is  kindred  to  tin  plates  when  tinned;  that  is  the  correct  idea  about  it. 

Paragraph  1038  relates  to  steel  in  ingots,  bars,  coils,  sheets,  and  steel 
wire.  That  ought  to  pay  one  rate  of  duty.  It  now  pays  2J  cents  a pound, 
3 cents,  and  3J  cents  a pound,  and  10  per  centum  ad  valorem.  There 
is  very  little  of  it  that  comes  in  at  the  highest  rate  of  duty.  If  there 
was  a middle  rate  of  duty  established,  it  would  take  in  steel  in  ingots, 
bars,  coils,  or  any  other  form. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Would  you  not  put  in  blooms  there,  too? 

The  Witness.  “Or  any  other  form77  would  bring  that  in. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  would  interpolate  the  words  “or  any 
other  form,  not  otherwise  provided  for,77  would  you? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  Paragraph  1039  provides  for  steel  wire. 
We  have  already  spoken  of  grouping  that  with  iron  wire  at  one  specific 
rate  of  duty.  Paragraph  1040  relates  to  steel,  commercially  known  as 
crinoline,  corset,  and  hat  steel  wire.  I think  that  had  better  go  with 
the  manufacture  of  steel;  there  is  but  little  of  it  imported.  Paragraph 
1041  provides  for  steel  in  any  form  not  otherwise  provided  for.  That 
would  come  in  in  the  previous  section  of  steel  in  ingots  or  bars,  or  in 
any  other  form. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  What  about  the  proviso  to  section  1041 : 
“ Provided , That  no  allowance  or  reduction  of  duties  for  partial  loss  or 
damage  shall  be  hereafter  made  in  consequence  of  rust  of  iron  or  steel, 
or  upon  the  manufactures  of  iron  or  steel,  except  on  polished  Russia 
sheet  iron  ;77  would  you  retain  that? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  I would  not. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  would  allow  damage  for  rust  the 
same  as  you  would  any  other  damage,  if  you  allow  for  damage  at  all? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  and  that  I suppose  would  be  a very  serious 
question.  Paragraph  1042  relates  to  cross-cut  saws.  The  same  amount 
of  duty  is  applied  to  these  as  is  applied  to  hand-saws.  There  is  nothing 
of  the  kind  imported;  they  are  made  in  this  country,  and  they  never 


442 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  MCMULLEN. 


will  be  imported  here.  We  not  only  make  the  saws  here,  but  we  make 
the  steel  cheaper  than  they  can  make  it  on  the  other  side  at  any  time. 
Paragraph  1043  relates  to  mill,  pit,  and  drag  saws.  That  might  come 
under  the  general  clause.  Paragraph  1044  relates  to  lead  in  sheet, 
pipes,  or  shot  at  2f  cents  per  pound.  That  might  come  in  under  gen- 
eral manufactures.  There  has  been  no  lead  or  lead  pipe  imported  for 
many  years,  and  the  shot  is  all  made  in  this  country. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  If  it  were  relegated  to  the  general  clause, 
the  importation  would  not  begin. 

The  Witness.  Ho,  sir.  Lead  ore,  in  paragraph  1045,  is  all  right,  and 
so  is  lead  in  pigs  and  bars,  in  paragraph  1046. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  If  that  is  all  right,  why  not  put  it  in  section 
1044  with  lead  in  sheets  ? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I do  not  see  the  necessity  of  putting  it  in 
any  section,  if  the  article  is  never  imported. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  reason  why  it  is  not  imported  is  because 
the  duties  are  too  high. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  now  the  manufactures  of  this  country 
are  so  far  improved  that  these  articles  will  never  be  imported,  and  that 
relegates  them  to  the  general  clause.  It  does  not  take  the  duty  off 
from  them  at  all. 

The  Witness.  Paragraphs  1047  and  1048  are  all  right ; there  is 
nothing  to  be  said  about  them.  They  relate  to  zinc  and  spelter. 

The  President.  Does  the  word  “tutenegue”  remain  in  use;  is  it  a 
recognized  word? 

The  Witness.  Yes  sir;  it  has  come  down  from  one  tariff  to  another. 

The  President.  Is  it  a name  known  in  the  arts? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Spelter  is  quite  a large  item. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  I presume  that  is  all  right  at  that  rate  of 
duty.  Paragraph  1050  relates  to  tin  plates.  That  is  provided  for  in 
another  section  of  the  law,  and  1 have  nothing  to  say  about  it.  Para- 
graph 1051  relates  to  iron  and  tin  plates  galvanized,  or  coated  with  any 
metal  by  electric  batteries.  I suppose  that  had  better  remain  in  as  it 
is,  and  so  also  paragraph  1052,  which  follows. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  What  is  the  reason  of  the  distinction; 
why  should  one  pay  2 and  the  other  2J  cents  a pound? 

The  Witness.  I suppose  that  relates  somewhat  to  the  manufacture 
of  the  article  in  this  country;  I do  not  know  exactly. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  say  that  you  think  paragraph  1051 
should  remain  as  it  is.  Does  such  an  article  come  into  this  country  as 
a tin  plate  galvanized  or  coated  with  any  metal  by  electric  batteries; 
what  would  it  be  coated  with ; is  it  an  iron  plate  tinned  ? The  intention 
of  the  makers  of  that  law  was  that  it  should  be  solid  tin  plates.  The 
tin  of  commerce  is  an  iron  plated  tin,  but  the  law  says  “ coated  with 
metal.”  There  never  have  been  any  tin  plates  coated  with  metal  known 
in  this  country. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  might  be  left  “ iron  galvanized  or 
coated  with  any  metal,”  &c. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I think  it  should  read  “iron  plates  tinned.” 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  those  are  provided  for  in  the  act  of 
1875,  right  above,  in  section  1050.  What  is  the  difference  between 
taggers’  tin  and  taggers’  iron? 

The  Witness.  Taggers’  iron  is  not  tin.  Taggers’  tin  assimilates  to 
a tin  plate  in  the  thinness  and  smoothness  of  it.  Yrou  take  taggers’ 
iron  and  tin  it  and  then  it  is  taggers’  tin.  1 think  paragraph  1051  is 


L.  MCMULLEN.] 


443 


appraiser's  department,  n y. 

intended  to  relate  simply  to  galvanized  iron,  and  probably  it  had 
better  remain  as  it  is.  If  you  take  out  the  words  u and  tin ,”  leave  it 
“iron  plates  galvanized,”  &c.,  it  would  be  well. 

Next  we  come  to  the  copper  clause,  No.  1053,  “copper  imported  in  the 
form  of  ores,  three  cents  on  each  pound  of  fine  copper  contained  therein.” 
That  is  a very  hard  law  to  collect  a duty  under.  A party  brings  a lot 
of  ore  here,  and  we  have  to  find  out  how  much  copper  there  is  in  it. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Do  you  have  to  analyze  it? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  the  custom-house  officers  analyze  it,  the 
importer  analyzes  it,  and  then  there  is  another  analysis.  It  is  very  hard 
to  get  the  percentage  of  copper  in  pure  ore. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  In  one  case  we  had  five  different  analyses 
of  one  lot  of  ore,  and  the  result  was  different  in  each  case. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  know  how  that  could  be  overcome,  unless  by 
decreasing  the  amount  of  duty  so  much  per  pound. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  is  a question  which  deserves  careful  con- 
sideration, and  should  be  carefully  looked  into. 

The  Witness.  I would  like  to  speak  right  here  in  regard  to  iron  ore, 
before  I forget  it.  Iron  ore  ought  to  be  on  the  free  l-st,  because  these 
hematite  ores  are  imported;  but  if  they  are  not  on  the  free  list,  there 
ought  to  be  a specific  duty  of  about  forty  cents  a ton,  which  would  yield 
the  duty  now  received  at  the  rate  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  We  ex- 
perience a great  deal  of  difficulty  in  regard  to  market  values,  and  the 
fixing  of  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty.  The  market  is  so  far  away,  in 
Spain  and  Africa,  and  there  is  a good  deal  of  deception  going  on,  and 
we  do  not  always  know  the  parties  who  bring  in  the  ore ; so  it  is  very 
difficult  to  fix  a satisfactory  market  value  upon  it. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  JDo  you  assess  the  value  now  on  the  unit  of 
iron  ? 

The  Witness.  We  used  to ; but  now  we  get  the  metallic  value  of  the 
ore,  which  is  the  best  way,  I think.  The  Bethlehem  Iron  Company, 
made  a contract  for  ore  containing  55  per  cent,  of  metallic  iron,  and  in 
one  lot  which  I inspected  I tried  to  get  48,  per  cent,  but  could  not  get 
it.  I was  satisfied  that  there  was  55  per  cent.,  there,  but  I could  not 
find  it.  I hope  you  will  bear  that  in  mind;  it  is  a matter  which  should 
be  considered.  A specific  duty  on  the  raw  material  of  about  40  cents 
a ton  would  pay  about  the  same  rate  as  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  mean  to  weigh  it  by  the  ton,  the  same  as 
you  would  sugar  or  pig  iron  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Can  you  make  any  further  suggestions  in 
regard  to  section  1053,  copper? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  there  is  not  so  much  of  it  coming  in  now. 
The  ore  which  we  have  had  has  been,  a great  deal  of  it,  silver  ore.  At 
present  they  are  smelting  ore  in  New  Jersey,  opposite  New  York;  but 
there  is  not  a large  quantity  of  it  coming  into  this  country,  and  I hardly 
know  what  suggestions  to  make  about  pure  copper,  or  how  you  would 
get  at  the  rate  of  duty  which  would  be  equivalent  to  the  present  rate 
of  duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  What  do  you  say  in  regard  to  regulus  of 
copper  ? We  had  some  trouble  years  ago  in  regard  to  that  black  copper ; 
there  was  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  fine  copper  that  was  contained 
in  the  black  copper.  What  do  you  say  also  in  regard  to  copper  in 
plates,  bars,  ingots,  and  pigs? 

The  Witness.  Very  little  of  that  comes  into  this  country;  in  fact  it 
is  exported  to  the  other  side.  Perhaps  this  5 cents  a pound  duty  may 


444 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  MCMULLEN. 


be  tbe  cause  of  its  not  being  imported ; but  I know  as  a fact  that  it  is 
not  imported.  We  used  to  have  a large  quantity  of  the  regains  of 
copper  coming  from  South  America,  but  we  do  not  have  any  at  all  now. 
Perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  let  that  remain  as  it  is. 

Commissioner  Garland.  Do  you  think  the  regulus  of  copper  fails  to 
be  brought  in  on  account  of  the  high  tariff  ? 

The  Witness.  I suppose  it  is  excluded  on  the  ground  that  the  duty 
is  too  high.  The  next  section  is  No.  1059,  nickel,  at  30  cents  a pound. 
I want  to  refer  to  that  in  connection  with  paragraph  10G0,  nickel  oxide 
and  alloy  of  nickel  with  copper.  I think  that  alloy  of  nickel  with  cop- 
per at  20  cents  a pound  should  be  stricken  out,  and  all  nickel  should  pay 
30  cents  a pound  duty. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  have  trouble  now,  I suppose,  when  they 
bring  it  in  mixed  ? 

The  Witness.  We  pass  it  now  where  it  contains  97  per  cent,  of 
nickel  and  3 per  cent,  of  copper,  and  that  makes  the  difference  between 
the  20  cents  and  the  30  cents  a pound  duty,  under  a decision  of  the 
department. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  How  about  sheathing  or  yellow  metal;  does 
any  of  that  come  into  this  country? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir  ; sheathing  metal  comes  here  all  the  time. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  What  do  you  say  about  that;  is  that  a 
proper  rate  of  duty;  do  they  not  avoid  that  rate  of  duty  by  evading 
the  description  indicated?  Why  not  make  yellow  metal  pay  one  rate 
of  duty,  and  done  with  it.  I understand  that  the  importers  avoid  the 
duty  by  reducing  or  increasing  the  size  of  their  sheets  to  get  over  the 
classification  contained  in  the  law. 

The  Witness.  You  think  it  should  be  admitted  at  one  rate  of  duty 
without  any  qualification? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Yres;  that  is  my  idea. 

The  Witness.  Well,  that  would  do,  perhaps.  In  regard  to  para- 
graph 10G0,  the  alloy  of  nickel  with  copper,  I believe  that  subject  is  well 
understood  by  the  Commission.  Paragraph  1061  relates  to  gold-leaf. 
I think  that  paragraph  had  better  remain  as  it  is.  Paragraph  10G2  re- 
lates to  “argentine,  albata,  or  German  silver,  unmanufactured,  35  per 
centum  ad  valorem.”  That  ought  to  go  with  the  iron  and  steel.  There  is 
a class  of  German  silver  in  it  which  forms  part  of  the  articles  manufact- 
ured of  it,  which  changes  the  rate  of  duty;  that  is,  the  argentine  unman- 
ufactured does  not  come  in  except  in  sheets,  which  the  department  de- 
cided was  unmanufactured,  so  that  that  can  go  in  the  general  class  of 
manufactures  of  metal. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  would  not  come  under  the  general  class 
of  manufactures  of  metal;  but  the  department  has  decided  that  sh  ets 
of  metal  are  not  manufactures.  You  would  wipe  that  out  altogether. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  I would.  I would  also  strike  out  “brass  in 
bars  or  pigs  and  old  brass,  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured  at  15  per 
centum  ad  valorem”  (paragraph  1063). 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Why  should  not  old  brass  pay  the  same 
rate  as  old  copper  ? 

Ti  le  Witness.  I think  it  ought  to. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  We  frequently  have  old  brass  and  old 
copper  coming  in  together  in  the  same  bag  or  barrel,  and  we  have 
great  difficulty  in  satisfying  the  importers  in  regard  to  it,  as  one  pays 
a rate  of  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  the  other  3 or  4 cents  a pound. 

The  Witness.  There  is  old  composition  metal,  and  a composition  of 
brass  and  copper,  and  old  copper,  and  they  all  ought  to  pay  the  same 


L.  mcmcllen. J APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  445 

rate  of  duty.  The  next  paragraph  is  number  10G4,  Dutch  and  bronze 
metal  in  leaf. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Why  not  put  in  the  words  “composition 
metal,”  and  make  them  pay  the  same  rate  as  for  gold  and  silver  leaf  al- 
so much  a package  of  so  many  leaves ; or  is  it  easier  to  fix  the  value? 

The  Witness.  Composition  metal  ought  to  be  in  there  somewhere. 
I think  I would  let  the  paragraph  remain  as  it  is,  at  10  per  cent.,  and 
put  in  composition  metal. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Where  would  you  put  in  the  words  “com- 
position metal;”  would  you  put  them  in  after  the  words  “Dutch  metal”? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  1 would;  it  is  an  imitation  of  gold. 

Commissioner  Garland.  You  would  have  it  read,  then,  “Dutch 
and  bronze  and  composition  metal”? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir.  Dutch  and  bronze  metal  is  10  per  centum, 
and  composition  metal  ought  to  pay  35  per  centum,  because  an  imita- 
tion of  gold-leaf  is  much  more  expensive  than  the  Dutch  metal.  Para- 
graph 1065  relates  to  articles  made  of  gold,  silver,  German  silver,  and 
platina,  and  also  paragraph  1066  to  silver  plated  metal. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  would  strike  that  out  (sec.  1065)  and 
let  it  go  to  the  section  below? 

The  Witness.  Yes;  and  the  next  one,  “silver-plated  metal  in  sheets 
or  other  form.”  The  last  clause  is  number  1068,  “metals,  unmanufact- 
ured, not  otherwise  provided  for,  20  per  centum  ad  valorem.”  I do 
not  think  I would  do  anything  with  that.  I would  leave  it  as  it  is. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  closes  the  sections. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  I would  like  to  say  something  in  regard  to 
the  charges  and  commissions.  That  is  a very  annoying  thing  in  regard 
to  the  invoices.  It  is  very  difficult  to  locate  the  charges  on  inland 
goods,  particularly  as  the  department  lias  decided  that  the  charges 
appertain  to  the  frontier  of  the  country  where  the  goods  come  from.  If 
the  commissions  and  charges  could  be  included  in  the  dutiable  value 
of  the  merchandise,  it  would  be  a good  thing. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Have  you  any  idea  what  the  average  per- 
centage would  be? 

The  Witness.  That  depends  upon  the  bulkiness  of  the  goods. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Under  a decision  of  the  department,  if  goods 
are  made  in  an  interior  country,  say  in  Switzerland,  the  charges  accrue 
up  to  the  frontier  of  Switzerland. 

The  President.  It  would  diminish  the  protection,  would  it  not,  to 
strike  out  the  provision  for  charges  and  commissions? 

The  Witness.  Yes;  but  then  you  could  increase  the  rate  of  duty. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  How  would  it  do  to  say  that  a certain  per- 
centage should  be  added  in  all  cases  in  lieu  of  an  addition  for  charges 
and  commissions  ? What  would  be  the  effect  of  that  on  these  fine  French 
goods,  and  on  the  common  goods  brought  from  Sheffield? 

The  Witness.  It  would  not  be  at  all  burdensome.  It  would  depend 
upon  whether  the  goods  brought  from  Sheffield  were  fine  or  ordinary 
cutlery.  How  it  would  affect  the  French  goods  I do  not  know.  I think 
it  would  be  better  to  abandon  the  items  altogether,  or  add  a charge  for 
them  to  the  duty. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  2 J per  cent,  which  is  allowed  now  is  under 
a ruling  of  the  Treasury  Department,  is  it  not  ? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  the  law  provides  for  that. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  The  law  provides  that  there  shall  be  charges 
added,  and  then  on  that  gross  sum  the  law  provides  that  a commission 
shall  be  added,  not  less  than  per  centum.  * 


446 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  MCMULLEN. 


Commissioner  Oliver.  Some  people  might  object  to  the  change  of  the 
duty.  It  has  always  been  conceded  that  the  matter  should  be  figured 
on;  that  is  to  say,  if  the  government  is  imposing  a duty  of  30  per  cent., 
it  is  supposed  to  mean  that  amount  of  duty  on  the  cost  of  the  goods  at 
the  shipping  point.  I think  it  would  be  a good  idea  to  abolish  all  charges 
and  commissions  and  make  a general  charge  of  5 per  cent,  to  cover  them, 
and  add  it  to  the  duty. 

The  Witness.  Do  you  mean  5 per  cent,  to  include  both  the  commis- 
sions and  charges? 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Yes;  to  include  everything.  What  do  you 
think  would  be  the  effect  of  that  ? 

The  Witness.  I think  that  would  work  very  well. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Would  not  that  in  fact  make  the  rate  of  duty 
about  the  same  it  is  now  ? 

The  Witness.  I think  so. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Would  not  5 per  cent,  be  more  than  the 
present  average  on  merchandise  in  general,  or  above  the  present  aver- 
age, including  commissions?  Do  the  charges,  as  a rule,  amount  to  as 
much  as  the  commission  ? 

The  Witness.  Yo,  sir;  I think  not. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I think  3 per  cent.,  would  about  cover  the 
present  charges  and  commissions,  as  they  average. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  These  items  are  burdensome  now,  especially 
in  small  lots  and  mixed  packages,  are  they  not  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  On  heavy  lots  and  large  invoices  the  charges, 
counting  by  percentage,  would  not  be  so  heavy  or  so  troublesome  ? 

The  Witness.  Yo,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  practicability  of 
making  a home  valuation  instead  of  a foreign  valuation? 

The  Witness.  I do  not  think  that  would  operate  as  well.  I do  not 
think  you  could  fix  the  home  values  as  siyely  as  you  can  the  foreign 
values. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  What  do  you  think  of  the  proposition  to  put 
spices  on  the  free  list  ? 

The  Witness.  I do  not  think  I am  competent  to  give  an  opinion  on 
that  subject,  as  they  do  not  come  in  my  division. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  What  has  been  your  experience  as  to  the  reliability  of  the  invoices 
received;  do  you  often  find  it  necessary  to  change  the  valuation  found 
in  the  invoices  ; in  other  words,  is  there  an  attempt  to  evade  the  duty 
by  under-invoicing? — A.  Yes,  sir;  there  are  attempts  at  times  of  that 
kind. 

Q.  Are  those  instances  rare  ? — A.  We  are  constantly  advancing  val- 
ues, because  of  the  advance  in  the  value  of  merchandise.  Take  iron  ore 
as  an  example.  There  are  times  when  we  advance  nearly  all  the  in- 
voices, when  there  has  been  an  advance  in  the  foreign  market,  where 
contracts  have  been  made  previous  1o  the  advance. 

Q.  But  my  inquiry  intended  to  cover  the  idea  of  whether  these  invoices 
were  purposely  made  low  to  escape  the  payment  of  the  full  duty  ? — A. 
]S  o,  sir  ; Ido  not  think  they  are,  as  a rule.  Of  course  there  are  attempts 
to  defraud  the  government  in  that  way  sometimes ; but  I don’t  think  it 
is  of  frequent  occurrence. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  you  think  from  your  experience  (and  you  have  had  a great  deal 


L.  MCMULLEN.] 


447 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 

in  this  direction)  that  our  consuls  abroad  make  any  attempt  to  be  exact 
in  certifying  invoices  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I do  not  think  they  do,  as  a rule. 
I do  not  think  the  consuls  are  of  much  aid  to  us  here. 

Q.  Do  they  certify  the  invoices  just  as  they  are  offered,  without  at- 
tempting to  ascertain  the  market  prices ? — A.  I presume  not;  but  still 
they  are  not  of  much  assistance  to  us  in  determining  the  value. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Have  there  not  been  cases  where  consuls  have  looked  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  market  price,  and  certified  from  personal  examination  as  to 
the  value  of  the  goods?  There  was  a Mr.  Abbott,  at  Sheffield,  Eng- 
land, whom  I think  took  special  pains  to  attend  to  that  matter ; do  you 
recollect  him  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; I do.  Mr.  Abbott  was  a very  good  consul 
indeed,  and  was  on  the  alert  all  the  time.  My  recollection  of  his  work 
is  very  pleasant ; I know  that  on  several  occasions  he  aided  mein  getting 
information  abroad  that  I could  not  otherwise  have  obtained. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  But  such  instances  on  the  part  of  consuls  are  rare  in  your  ex- 
perience ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; they  are. 


448 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  S.  HEADLEY. 


W.  S.  HEADLEY. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  15, 1882. 

Dr.  W.  S.  Headley,  assistant  appraiser  in  the  New  York  custom-house, 
upon  the  request  of  the  Commission,  made  the  following  statement : 

It  was  suggested  to  me  that  I should  note  down  a few  points  which  have 
arisen  in  the  line  of  my  duties  as  appraiser  of  drugs  and  chemicals,  and 
I have  done  so  in  regard  to  some  articles,  and  in  regard  to  certain  gen- 
eral clauses  of  the  law  which  affect  my  division  as  well  as  others.  The 
first  thing  that  suggested  itself  to  my  mind  was  the  importance  of  mak- 
ing duties  specific  in  all  possible  cases,  instead  of  ad  valorem. 

Commissioner  Oliver,  You  recommend  that  duties  in  all  cases  be 
made  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem?  Before  passing  to  other  subjects, 
will  you  please  give  some  reasons  for  that? 

The  Witness.  In  the  first  place,  specific  duties  lead  to  less  compli- 
cation in  the  assessment  of  duties,  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  im- 
porters and  others  who  are  interested  understand  just  exactly  where  they 
stand.  Under  the  ad  valorem  rate  of  duties  importers  sometimes  do  not 
know  whether  they  are  going  to  pay  a certain  rate  of  duty  on  an  article,  or 
twice  as  much.  We  are  adding  to  the  market  value  of  goods  every  day 
on  half  of  the  invoices  that  come  to  us.  If  the  duties  were  specific,  it 
would  not  make  any  difference  whether  these  goods  were  invoiced  at 
one  price  or  another. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  How  do  you  add  the  market  value;  what 
process  do  you  adopt  ? 

The  Witness.  Sometimes  articles  come  to  us  invoiced  at,  say,  30 
francs  per  kilogram,  and  we  make  them  40  francs.  It  is  very  difficult 
to  determine  what  the  market  value  is  so  far  away  from  the  European 
market,  and  the  information  we  receive  is  not  always  of  the  most  satis- 
factory character.  Sometimes  perhaps  we  add  enough,  and  sometimes 
not.  Sometimes  we  add  too  much,  perhaps,  in  order  to  make  the  market 
value.  We  act  according  to  the  best  of  our  information  ; according  to 
the  best  opportunities  we  have  of  determining  the  market  value.  An 
appraiser  in  New  York  cannot  tell  what  the  market  value  of  an  article 
may  be  in  Birmingham,  Antwerp,  Bremen,  or  some  other  remote  place, 
and  so  we  go  through  a process  of  consulting  other  invoices  and  getting 
such  information  as  we  can  from  them,  making  notations  of  value  from 
them  in  our  memorandum  books,  and  that  assists  us  in  determining  the 
market  value  of  the  invoice.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  value  thus  ar- 
rived at  may  not  be  enough  to  cover  the  market  value  at  that  precise 
period,  or  it  may  be  more  than  enough.  Changes  in  the  price  of  the 
articles  may  have  taken  place  since  the  date  of  previous  invoices,  so 
that  our  judgment  in  regard  to  the  value  at  that  time  may  not  be  cor- 
rect. If  the  duties  were  specific,  it  would  not  make  any  difference.  An 
article  that  is  dutiable  at  so  much  a pound,  pays  the  same  amount 
whether  it  costs  4s  or  10s.  For  these  reasons  I would  advocate  specific 
duties.  There  are  cases  where  you  cannot  make  the  duties  specific, 
and  then,  of  course,  they  lia\«e  to  be  ad  valorem.  But  I would  make 
them  specific  in  all  possible  cases.  An  importer  or  manufacturer,  in 
order  to  succeed  in  his  business,  with  the  facilities  before  him,  will  some- 
times present  an  article  that  will  commend  itself  to  the  trade  as  being 
superior  in  quality  to  the  usual  article  of  that  class,  and  yet,  at  the  same 


W.  S.  HEADLEY.] 


449 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 

time,  it  is  produced  in  sucli  a manner  that  it  does  not  cost  him  one-half 
as  much  as  the  same  article  would  cost  when  produced  in  another  way. 
These  matters  come  before  us  for  decision.  For  instance,  take  a dye 
which  cost«  2s.  6d.  a kilogram ; it  will  dye  as  well  as  an  article  that  costs 
4 s.  6d.  a kilogram  and  give  the  same  shade  and  brilliancy.  In  that  case 
it  would  appear  to  be  invoiced  too  low.  This  manufacturer,  by  a new 
process,  has  produced  this  color  so  that  he  can  offer  it  at  a lower  price, 
and  it  is  not  a matter  of  market  value  at  all,  because  it  maybe  that  the 
article  will  command  all  that  it  is  really  worth.  But  we  are  bound  to 
bring  it  up  to  the  standard  article  which  we  had  before,  and  which  has 
cost  so  much  more.  By  pursuing  that  course,  it  seems  to  me  we  are 
placing  a bar  on  the  production  of  the  most  choice  articles  that  a man 
of  sagacity  and  experience  can  produce.  But  if  a specific  duty  is  put  on 
it  would  not  make  any  difference  how  much  or  how  little  the  price  of  it 
was. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Before  you  leave  that  branch  of  the  subject, 
I would  like  to  make  one  other  inquiry.  Most  of  the  articles  in  the 
chemical  line  concerning  which  you  have  had  experience  can  be  assessed 
at  a specific  duty,  can  they  not? 

The  Witness.  In  my  judgment  most  of  the  articles  can.  Chemicals, 
as  a rule,  are  bought  and  sold  by  the  pound,  and  a duty  can  be  assessed 
just  as  well  by  the  pound  as  any  other  way.  They  are  also  bought  and 
sold  by  the  kilogram  and  by  the  gallon.  Of  course  there  are  excep- 
tions, but  a very  large  proportion  of  the  articles  that  come  through  my 
division  are  bought  and  sold  by  weight  or  measure,  and  a specific  duty 
could  be  easily  assessed. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Do  the  articles  that  come  in  under  your  division  fluctuate  in 
value  to  any  considerable  extent? — Answer.  Yes,  sir  ; there  is  more  or 
less  fluctuation  on  most  of  the  articles  that  come  in  my  division.  I 
would  be  in  favor  of  striking  out  all  compound  rates  of  duties.  There 
are  quite  a number  of  articles  that  I could  speak  of  in  this  connection. 
Perfumery  pays  so  much  a gallon,  and  also  so  much  ad  valorem.  Var- 
nish also  pays  so  much  a pound,  and  so  much  ad  valorem. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Why  would  you  recommend  the  omitting  of  the  compound  duty; 
merely  as  a convenience  in  assessing  the  duty? — A.  Yes,  sir;  chiefly  as 
a convenience;  and  I see  no  good  reason  why  duties  should  be  compound 
duties.  Take,  for  instance,  the  article  of  perfumery.  Lubin’s  extracts 
pay  a duty  of  $3  a gallon  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I see  no  reason 
why  the  same  amount  of  duty  might  not  be  assessed  and  collected  by 
making  it  specific  at  so  much  a gallon,  leaving  off  the  50  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  The  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  I think,  stimulates  people  to  per- 
petrate fraud  in  undervaluation  of  invoices,  hoping  that  the  appraiser 
will  not  detect  them  in  so  doing. 

I have  noted  another  clause  to  which  I would  call  your  attention, 
and  that  is  section  2499  of  the  tariff  laws,  which  we  generally  call 
the  u similitude”  clause.  There  are  three  clauses  to  that  section, 
the  last  one  of  which  seems  to  be  a trap  intended  to  catch  everything 
not  included  before.  It  says:  u On  all  articles  manufactured  from  two 
or  more  materials,  the  duty  shall  be  assessed  at  the  highest  rates  at 
which  any  of  its  component  parts  may  be  chargeable.”  That  may  be 
a clause  which  would  apply  to  textile  fabrics  appropriately;  but  as  a 
general  clause  I object  to  it,  because  it  applies  to  every  other  article  as 
well  as  to  textile  fabrics.  It  may  be  suited  very  well  to  certain  textile 

H.  Mis.  6 29 


450 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  S.  HEADLEY. 


fabrics  and  articles  of  import ; but  as  it  stands  here  now,  it  is  a gen- 
eral provision  which  applies  to  all  imported  goods.  I would  make  it  a 
specific  provision  for  articles  to  which  it  would  appropriately  apply. 

Another  clause  which  I have  noted  here  in  my  memorandum  is  Xo. 
983  (Heyl),  which  is  as  follows:  “On  all  compounds  or  preparations  of 
which  distilled  spirits  is  a component  part  of  chief  value,  there  shall  be 
levied  a duty  not  less  than  that  imposed  upon  distilled  spirits.”  I would 
suggest  that  that  be  amended  so  as  to  read,  “ except  such  preparations  as 
are  known  to  be  and  are  recognized  as  medicinal  preparations.”  As  it 
now  stands  it  is  liable  to  be  applied  to  all  medicinal  wines  and  tinctures, 
and  other  medicinal  preparations.  It  is  very  broad  and  sweeping  in- 
deed. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  use  the  words  “such  preparations 
as  are  known  to  be  and  are  recognized  as  medicinal  preparations”?  Do 
you  mean  such  as  are  commercially  so  known? — A.  Yes,  sir;  commer- 
cially known  or  designated. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Some  people  regard  bitters  as  medicinal  prep- 
arations. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Bitters  are  specially  enumerated. 

The  Witness.  Bitters  are  not  medicinal  preparations. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Some  people  think  they  are,  however.  But 
under  the  suggestion  you  make,  they  could  bring  in  a decoction  of 
rum  and  a little  tansy  bark  as  a medicinal  preparation,  could  they  not? 

The  Witness.  I think  not.  But  there  is  not  a tincture  in  any  drug 
store  of  which  the  basis  is  not  distilled  spirits. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Patent  medicines  and  so-called  bitters  could 
be  made  abroad  and  brought  into  this  country  under  such  a provision. 

The  Witness.  Under  that  provision,  as  it  now  stands,  the  rate  of 
duty  is  $2  a gallon  to  be  assessed  on  all  medicinal  wines,  the  wine  of 
colehicum,  the  wine  of  ipecac,  and  all  those  medicinal  wines,  as  well  as 
the  tinctures  known  and  recognized  as  medicinal  preparations.  We 
do  not  so  classify  them.  I wrote  a report  two  weeks  ago  on  medi- 
cinal wine  where  the  duty  which  we  assessed  on  it  of  40  per  cent,  was 
changed  at  San  Francisco  to  $2  a gallon.  It  was  a medicinal  wine  im- 
ported by  the  Chinese,  and  admitted  to  be  used  for  medicinal  purposes 
arid  not  as  a beverage.  W^e  had  it  analyzed  by  a chemist,  and  found 
that  the  medicinal  property  it  contained  had  entirely  disqualified  it  for 
use  as  a beverage;  it  was  purely  and  unmistakably  a medicinal  prepara- 
tion. Yet,  in  San  Francisco,  under  that  clause,  they  put  the  duty  at  $2 
a gallon.  That  occurred  not  ten  days  ago.  We  do  not  so  classify  here; 
but  our  classification  was  questioned  there,  and  it  went  before  the  de- 
partment, and  the  question  has  not  yet  been  decided. 

Another  annotation  I have  made  here  is  in  regard  to  section  953,  as 
follows : “Glass  bottles  or  jars  filled  with  articles  not  otherwise  provided 
for,  30  per  centum  ad  valorem.”  That  should  be  construed  to  mean 
glass  bottles  or  jars  filled  with  “articles  not  otherwise  provided  for,” 
not  “glass  bottles  ” not  otherwise  provided  for,  but  “ articles”  not  other- 
wise provided  for. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  You  mean  the  words  “not  otherwise  provided  for”  should  be  ap- 
plied to  the  contents  of  the  bottles  and  not  to  the  bottles  themselves? — 
A.  Yes,  sir ; that  is  the  way  it  should  be  applied.  1 would  amend  that 
so  as  to  read  “except  such  as  are  the  usual  envelope  for  the  mercban- 


W.  b.  HEADLEY.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


451 


dise  contained,  if  the  same  is  contained  in  the  price  of  the  goods  and 
not  charged  separately  on  the  invoice.” 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  wipe  that  clause 
out  altogether;  in  operation  it  is  an  insignificant  one,  is  it  not? 

The  Witness.  It  amounts  to  a good  deal  if  you  take  mineral  waters 
and  articles  of  that  class.  I should  not  object  to  having  it  stricken  out 
entirely,  but  I do  object  to  it  as  it  now  stands  and  is  construed. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  is  nothing  but  a package. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  makes  the  appraiser  examine  and  ap- 
praise separately  an  article  which  is  not  charged  for  separately.  He 
has  to  examine  it;  and,  in  an  invoice  amounting  to  $10,000,  the  duties 
on  them  will  not  be  $100,  or  perhaps  not  even  $50. 

The  Witness.  When  that  decision  was  first  made  it  was  made  to 
cover  goods  that  paid  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  such  as  Lubin’s  ex- 
tracts and  chemicals  contained  in  two  drachm  bottles.  We  had  to  go 
over  the  goods  and  put  a value  on  each  of  these  bottles  so  as  to  make 
out  the  rate  of  duty. 

I understand  that  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  rates  of  duties  are  not 
desired  by  the  Commission,  and,  therefore,  I will  not  say  anything  on 
that  point. 

I would  strike  out  all  charges  and  commissions.  Duties  are  assessed 
upon  merchandise,  and  the  charges  and  commissions  are  claimed  to  be 
necessary  expenses.  So  a man’s  trip  to  Europe  to  purchase  the  goods 
is  a necessary  expense,  and  a great  many  other  things  are  necessary 
expenses  in  connection  with  that  purchase  which  would  affect  the  value 
of  the  merchandise.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  same  amount  of  duty 
could  be  collected  if,  for  instance,  a specific  rate  of  duty  per  pound  were 
fixed  on  an  article  with  the  commissions  and  charges  added.  I see  no  rea- 
son why,  if  the  charges  in  the  aggregate  amount  to  2 per  cent.,  2 J per  cent., 
or  3 per  cent.,  we  might  not  add  those  amounts  to  the  rate  per  pound 
and  make  it  a part  of  the  duty,  and  let  these  charges  and  commissions 
go;  that  is  to  say,  make  the  rate  of  duty  sufficiently  large  to  cover  the 
charges  and  commissions.  I am  adding  charges  every  day  to  invoices 
where  I do  not  know  that  any  charges  were  ever  paid  ; I mean  shipping 
charges.  That  is  done  under  a decison  of  the  department.  I believe 
in  some  cases  the  goods  were  delivered  free  on  board,  and  yet  on  every 
invoice  which  comes  before  me,  where  it  does  not  say  u free  on  board,” 
I must  put  shipping  charges,  whether  I think  the  shipping  charges 
were  ever  paid  or  not.  And,  as  I look  at  it,  it  is  a premium  on  falsify- 
ing the  invoices.  Many  merchants  put  “ free  on  board  ” on  to  get  rid 
of  adding  charges  if  real  charges  have  been  paid.  It  strikes  me  that 
the  same  amount  of  duty  might  be  collected  and  the  revenue  protected 
just  as  well  by  adding  a little  more  to  the  rate  of  duty  and  leaving  out 
the  commissions  and  charges.  Men  can  state  such  and  such  items  to 
be  charges  when  they  have  really  paid  other  charges. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  You  think  it  would  be  feasible  to  fix  upon  a rate  of  2£,  3,  4,  or  5 
per  cent.,  or  whatever  rate  is  settled  upon  (a  fair  rate),  and  add  it  to  the 
duty  in  lieu  of  all  charges  and  commissions? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  would 
do;  add  such  a per  cent,  to  every  invoice. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Can  you  form  any  general  estimate  as  to  the  amount  which  the 
charges  add  to  the  duty? — A.  No,  sir;  I cannot.  I have  not  given  the 
matter  any  thought.  The  commission  usually  paid  is  2J  per  cent.  I 


452 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  S.  HEADLEY* 


think  3 per  cent,  will  cover  all  charges  and  commissions,  allowing  the 
ordinary  commission  to  remain  at  2J  per  cent.  The  2J  per  cent,  com- 
mission's a rather  arbitrary  rate,  I believe. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  mean  the  law  is  arbitrary,  of  course* 

The  Witness.  I have  no  doubt  that  2£  per  cent,  commission  has  fre- 
quently been  put  on  an  invoice  when  no  commission  has  been  paid;  at 
the  same  time  the  law  requires  that  a 2J  per  cent,  commission  shall  go  on. 

These  are  the  main  points  that  have  occurred  to  me  in  the  limited 
time  I have  had  at  my  disposal  since  I was  notified  that  you  desired  to 
have  me  appear  before  you.  I have  made  notes  in  regard  to  rates  of 
duty,  but  I suppose  the  Commission  do  not  desire  me  to  state  in  regard 
to  that. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  How  many  articles  are  there  passed  in  your  division  which  are  of 
such  small  value  or  quantity  that  they  might  be  put  upon  the  free  list 
without  much  loss  of  revenue,  comparatively ; or,  can  the  free  list  be 
enlarged  materially  or  considerably  by  any  articles  passed  by  your 
division,  without  much  reduction  in  the  revenue  ? — A.  I could  not  answer 
that  question  now  without  first  refreshing  my  memory  by  looking  over 
the  schedule. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I am  of  the  opinion  that  that  could  be  done. 
A great  many  things  come  under  your  division  on  which  a duty  is 
charged,  where  the  total  revenue  received  does  not  amount  to  very  much. 


W.  B.  HOT'I.J 


WORSTED  DRESS  GOODS. 


453 


W.  B.  HOYT. 


Long  Branch,  X.  J.,  August  16,  1882. 

Mr.  W.  B.  Hoyt,  assistant  appraiser,  fifth  division,  appraiser’s  de- 
partment, New  York,  made  the  following  statement : 

I have  charge  of  the  division  in  the  appraiser’s  department  through 
which  are  passed  gloves,  worsted  dress  goods,  artificial  flowers,  knit 
goods,  and  articles  of  that  character.  I come  before  you  supposing  the 
Commission  desire  to  make  inquiries  of  me  in  regard  to  the  line  of  goods 
under  my  charge,  rather  than  to  submit  any  voluntary  statement  of  my 
own.  There  are  inconsistencies  and  incongruities  in  the  tariff  in  refer- 
ence to  various  lines  of  goods  which  come  under  my  supervision. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  is  our  desire  to  ascertain  from  parties  com- 
petent to  give  us  the  information  everything  that  is  troublesome  and 
wrong  in  the  working  of  the  present  tariff,  and  we  should  be  obliged  if 
you  would  indicate  such  conflicting  provisions  of  the  law  and  suggest 
any  remedies  that  may  occur  to  you. 

The  Witness.  Section  1166,  of  Heyl’s  Digest,  is  the  section  under 
which  dress  goods  are  provided  for.  We  find,  in  practical  experience, 
this  difficulty,  and  it  has  been  a very  serious  difficulty  in  the  past ; it 
is  almost  impossible  to  determine  at  times  what  are,  strictly  speaking, 
dress  goods.  There  are  so  many  materials  manufactured  apparently 
for  women’s  dresses,  which  are  used  by  gentlemen,  that  the  line  of  de- 
markation  between  the  fabrics  made  for  men’s  use  and  women’s  use  is 
very  indistinct  at  times.  I have  had  to  submit  to  the  department  many 
<?ases  for  determination  upon  that  point.  We  know,  as  a matter  of  fact, 
that  common  alpacas  were  made  originally,  for  women’s  wear,  but  we 
find  they  are  also  used  for  men’s  coats  j and  so  with  other  fabrics  that 
may  be  used  either  for  women’s  wear  or  men’s  wear.  There  have  been 
claims  made  that  those  fabrics  designed  or  used  fcr  men’s  wear  should 
not  come  under  the  provisions  of  this  section  ; and  we  have  found  great 
embarrassment  at  times  in  discovering  what  are  and  what  are  not  wo- 
men’s dress  goods.  The  Treasury  Department  has,  in  a recent  decision, 
decided  that  goods  made  of  the  materials  of  which  dress  goods  are  ordi- 
narily made  should  be  classified  under  that  provision.  But  there  are 
umbrella  cloths  made  precisely  of  the  same  materials,  and  we  find  the 
plain  alpaca  coming  in  for  umbrella  cloth  classified  properly  as  women’s 
dress  goods;  but  alpaca  with  a border  for  the  umbrella,  distinguishes 
and  makes  such  umbrella  cloth  subject  to  a different  duty  although  the 
material  is  the  same,  and  the  cost  of  the  fabric  not  materially  different. 
This  umbrella  cloth  is  the  same  as  plain  alpaca,  except  that  on  the  bor- 
der there  is  an  additional  line  to  indicate  that  it  is  for  bordering  of  an 
umbrella.  If  that  material  was  plain  we  should  be  obliged  to  classify  it 
as  dress  goods.  We  have  also  to  determine  sometimes  what  material  is 
to  be  used  for  the  linings  of  geutlemen’s  coats.  A serious  question  arises 
very  often  as  to  what  constitutes  the  materials  for  men’s  goods  in  contra- 
distinction to  women’s  dress  goods. 


454 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


W.  B.  HO  IT. 


By  the  President  : 

Question.  You  use  the  term  “ dress  goods”;  does  not  that  term  con- 
vey to  you  an  accurate  idea  of  a general  class  of  goods  called  worsted 
goods  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  worsted  goods. 

Q.  They  are  light  worsted  goods  of  a general  character? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Gan  you  recommend  any  other  term — a generic  term — that  would 
comprehend  and  express  as  distinctly  as  this  would  what  you  under- 
stand by  the  words  “dress  goods”? — A.  In  looking  over  this  matter  it 
has  seemed  to  me  that  the  tariff  could  be  simplified  considerably  and 
at  the  same  time  no  interest  interfered  with  to  any  considerable  extent, 
by  substituting,  for  these  various  sections,  one  simple  section  covering 
all  the  manufactures  of  fabrics  composed  in  part  of  wool  or  worsted,  the 
hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  like  animals;  including  them  all  in  one 
section.  You  will  notice  that  section  1162  provides  that  “ woolen  cloths, 
woolen  shawls,  and  all  manufactures  of  wool  of  every  description,  made 
wholly  or  in  part  of  wool  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  50  cents  per 
pound,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  centum  ad  valorem”. 

The  President.  That  is  going  further  into  the  subject  than  I desired. 
I simply  wished  to  know  whether  there  was  any  way  you  could  suggest 
by  which  you  could  preserve  the  general  structure  and  the  general 
language  of  the  present  tariff.  The  proposition  you  now  make  would 
involve  a radical  reform.  Can  you  designate  or  recommend  a term 
which  would  convey  to  you  as  distinctly  as  the  term  “dress  goods”  does 
these  articles  and  which  would  at  the  same  time  be  more  explicit? 

The  Witness.  It  might  be  made  to  read  “fabrics  made  wholly  or  in 
part  of  wool  or  worsted.” 

The  President.  That  does  not  designate  the  class  of  goods.  The 
makers  of  the  tariff  evidently  had  in  mind  a certain  class  of  goods  well 
known  to  the  trade,  as  well  by  the  manufacturers  as  by  the  importers. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Why  not  use  the  term  “worsted  fabrics”? 

The  Witness.  “Worsted  fabrics”  would,  I think,  cover  the  case. 

The  President.  Are  you  clear  in  your  mind  that  the  phrase  “ worsted 
fabrics”  would  designate  these  goods  as  well  as  the  phrase  “dress 
goods”  does  now? 

The  Witness.  I think  so. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  might  read  “all  women’s  fabrics  and  dress 
goods,”  omitting  the  word  “children’s”;  how  would  that  do? 

The  President.  This  is  a very  important  matter,  as  it  involves  an 
enormous  manufacture,  and  the  change  requires  to  be  made  with  great 
care  and  precision. 

The  Witness.  The  rates  of  duties  named  in  sections  1162  to  1166, 
inclusive,  are  not  very  materially  different,  except  in  sections  1161  and 
1165,  where  the  goods  are  specifically  named  for  the  uses  to  which  they 
are  put. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  would  be  the  result  if  all  the  other  goods  included  in  the 
designations  in  paragraphs  1161  to  1167  inclusive  were  put  at  the  pres- 
ent rate,  which  covers  many  of  them,  to  wit:  50  cents  a pound,  and  35 
per  centum  ad  valorem ; how  much  would  that,  in  your  opinion,  vary  the 
present  collection  of  duties? 

The  Witness.  It  would  increase  the  duties  very  largely  upon  the 
coarser  and  cheaper  fabrics.  Coining  into  the  finer  character  of  goods,, 
the  duties  would  coalesce  as  to  the  rates.  The  difficulty  could  be  obvi- 
ated by  substituting  toe  language  contained  in  section  1163,  where  the 
specific  duty  is  graded  by  the  value  of  the  goods.  If  all  these  worsted 


VV.  13.  HOYT.] 


WORSTED  DRESS  GOODS. 


455 


fabrics  and  women’s  and  children’s  dress  goods  were  placed  under  a rule 
similar  to  that  contained  in  section  1163,  it  strikes  me,  it  would  be  very 
fair  and  just  to  the  importer  and  result  in  about  the  same  amount  of 
duty  to  the  government. 

The  President.  And  affect  the  manufacturer  about  the  same  ? 

The  Witness.  It  would  be  about  an  equivalent  of  the  present  duty 
and  would  not  affect  injuriously  the  manufacturer  as  compared  with  the 
present  tariff*. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  By  what  method  could  a specific  duty  be  applied  without  a com- 
pound duty  that  would  attain  nearly  the  same  results ; what  ad  valorem 
rate  alone  would  nearly  retain  the  same  result  ? — A.  An  ad  valorem  rate 
of  duty  of  perhaps  70  or  75  per  cent,  would  cover  the  present  rates  of  duty 
upon  these  goods. 

Q.  As  it  is,  you  have  to  appraise  the  goods  for  valuation  anyway,  and 
the  labor  of  appraisment  would  not  be  increased  by  having  an  ad  valo- 
rem rate  alone,  while  it  would  simplify  the  matter  very  much? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  I would  ask  if  there  is  really  any  practical  difference,  except  to 
increase  the  labor  at  the  custom  house,  in  having  the  specific  and  ad 
valorem  duty  as  at  present  ? — A.  It  would  involve  the  additional  trouble 
of  ascertaining  where  the  dividing  line  was  drawn  in  the  tariff*. 

Q.  There  is  no  other  difficulty  than  that? — A.  No,  sir;  no  other  that 
occurs  to  me  at  present.  The  difficulty  has  been  in  drawing  the  line  be- 
tween the  articles  named  in  that  section  as  dress  goods  and  those  which 
are  not  dress  goods.  Ladies’  light  cloakings  come  in  arid  we  usually 
know  them  from  the  figure  and  style  of  their  design  ; but  it  is  a question 
whether  they  are  dress  goods  or  not;  and  linings  for  gentlemen’s  coats 
may  come  in  of  a particular  style  and  have  a particular  figure  ivpon  it, 
and  we  can  say  at  once  that  it  is  designed  for  a coat ; that  a lady  would 
not  wear  it,  although  it  is  of  precisely  the  same  material. 

Q.  But  under  this  description,  except  as  regards  the  complication 
caused  in  deciding  whether  it  is  for  male  or  female  wear,  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  determining  what  is  meant  by  the  term  u dress  goods”  ? — A. 
No,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Supposing'  the  section  read  u fabrics  composed  wholly  or  in  part 
of  wool  or  worsted,”  &c ; would  that  cover  your  objection? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  it  would  designate  very  nearly  the  character  of  the  fabrics  com 
posed  of  worsted.  These  fabrics  are  ordinarily  for  women’s  dress  goods, 
but  are  sometimes  used  for  upholstery. 

By  the  President  : 

Q,.  But  the  greater  portion  is  used  for  women’s  wear? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  not  the  phrase  u dress  goods”  very  largely  descriptive  of 
women’s  dress  goods? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is.  But  several  years  ago 
a discussion  arose  as  to  the  classification  of  certain  goods  that  were 
striped,  and  the  department  was  finally  driven  into  the  position  of  as-* 
suming  that  when  that  material  came  in  in  black  it  was  for  gentlemen’s 
wear,  and  when  it  came  in  in  colored  goods  it  was  not  suitable  for  gen- 
tlemen’s goods,  and  was  therefore  women’s  dress  goods,  and  it  found  it- 
self in  the  position  of  assessing  a duty  upon  the  mere  color  of  the  goods, 
because  one  color  was  supposed  to  be  used  by  gentlemen  and  the  other 


456 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  B.  HOYT. 


shades  of  color  were  for  ladies’  wear.  That  seemed  a striking  inconsist- 
ency, that  similar  goods  except  for  the  color  should  pay  a different 
rate  of  duty.  I do  not  think  the  change  I have  recommended  will  af- 
fect the  manufacturers  injuriously,  while  it  would  simplify  the  duties  at 
the  appraiser’s  office.  There  is  a very  large  class  of  goods  that  might 
come  under  that  general  designation  of  “ fabrics  composed  of  wool  or 
worsted.”  Of  course  a square-yard  duty  would  not  be  applicable  to  knit 
goods.  I have  no  further  suggestions  to  make  in  regard  to  that  class 
of  goods.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  simple  introduction  of  the  word 
“ fabrics”  would  meet  the  difficulty. 

Then  I would  further  suggest  that  the  words  “ the  hair  of  the  alpaca, 
goat,  or  other  like  animals,”  could  be  amended  so  as  to  exclude  the  word 
“like.”  That  would  include  “camel’s  hair  goods”  if  there  was  any 
large  quantity  of  goods  of  that  kind  coming  into  the  market.  Why 
should  there  be  a distinction  between  the  hair  of  a goat  and  the  hair  of 
an  animal  unlike  a goat? 

The  President.  The  real  reason  for  that  is,  that  at  the  time  the 
tariff  was  framed  there  were  no  camel’s  hair  fabrics  known  ; they  had 
not  been  introduced. 

The  Witness.  The  gentlemen  of  the  Commission  will  probably  re- 
member the  discussion  that  was  had  over  the  words  “cow’s  hair  and 
other  manufactured  hairs.”  We  have  rabbit’s  hair  coming  in  in  yarns 
to  a certain  extent. 

The  President.  Have  you  any  suggestions  to  make  in  regard  to 
these  cow-hair  goods? 

The  Witness.  They  are  not  in  my  division,  and  I have  no  suggestions 
to  make. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Please  state  precisely  what  you  understand  the  distinction  to 
be  between  worsted  and  wool. — A.  All  worsted,  as  I understand  it, 
is  wool;  but  all  wool  is  not  worsted.  The  worsted  is  the  long  fiber  of 
the  wool  combed  from  the  wool.  It  is  a long  fiber,  susceptible  of  being 
twisted  up  into  a harder  thread,  much  more  so  than  the  wool  uncombed. 
One  is  carded  wool  and  the  other  is  combed  wool.  When  made  up  the 
worsted  fabric  is  of  a harder  character  than  the  woolen  fabric. 

Under  section  1163,  flannels,  blankets,  hats  of  wool,  knit  goods,  &c., 
are  included.  Knit  goods  are  in  my  division  as  well  as  hosiery.  The 
phraseology  of  this  section  seems  to  me  very  unfortunate,  and  we  have 
had  much  controversy  over  the  matters  connected  with  it. 

The  President.  There  was  a word  accidentally  left  out  in  that  sec- 
tion in  the  original  construction  of  the  bill. 

The  Witness.  There  has  been  a great  controversy  over  the  question 
as  to  whether  goods  made  on  frames  should  be  considered  knit  goods 
or  otherwise.  In  my  opinion  they  are  all  knit  goods,  whether  of  worsted 
or  of  the  hair  of  any  animal.  I think  it  absolutely  necessary  that  the 
word  “ like  ” should  be  stricken  out.  I had  yesterday  some  gloves  on 
an  invoice,  which  were  made  from  camel’s  hair,  and  I found  them  soft 
and  pleasant  to  the  touch.  If  the  introduction  of  specific  terms  in  that 
section  could  be  avoided  by  some  general  term,  covering  all  manufac- 
tures of  wool  or  worsted,  I do  not  think  there  could  be  any  objection 
to  it. 

In  regard  to  hats  of  wool,  mentioned  in  this  same  section  1163,  there 
might  be  a question  raised  as  to  whether  a hat  was  a hat  when  it  first  • 
comes  from  the  hand  of  the  manufacturer.  When  it  is  a hat  body,  is  it 
a hat?  Yet,  I suppose  that  section  of  the  tariff  is  intended  to  cover 
hat  bodies  as  they  come  from  the  vat. 


W.  B.  HOYT.] 


WORSTED  DRESS  GOODS. 


457 


Another  question  which  is  troubling  us  is  the  question  of  Scotch  knit 
goods.  A cap  is  a cap  when  it  comes  from  the  frame.  The  body  of  the 
cap  is  completed  on  the  frame,  so  far  as  it  is  a cap  at  all,  and  whether 
we  must  wait  until  the  cap  is  finished  with  a visor  or  a lining  before  the 
duty  on  caps  applies,  or  not,  is  a question.  All  these  ambiguities  should 
be  removed  from  the  tariff. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  not  the  designation  of  the  specific  fabrics  mentioned  here  in  the 
section  for  the  purpose  of  classifying  them  under  a scale  of  minimums  ? — 
A.  There  are  different  rates  of  duty  here,  depending  upon  the  value. 

Q.  And  therefore  the  general  designation  which  you  propose  would 
not  accomplish  that  purpose? — A.  I would  retain  that,  because  by  such 
a scale  the  poorer  qualities  of  goods  would  pay  the  lower  rate  of  duty, 
which  is  fair  and  right.  When  we  attempt  to  designate  articles,  then 
there  comes  in  the  difficulty  of  meeting  just  the  term  indicated  in  the 
tariff.  As  I suggested  in  the  case  of  hats  of  wool,  is  it  a hat  of  wool 
when  it  comes  in  the  body  from  the  vat? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Whenever  a man  can  bring  in  a hat  body 
at  a cheaper  rate  he  will  always  claim  it  is  not  a hat  in  order  to  get  it 
in  at  a lower  rate. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  might  be  changed  so  as  to  read  (i  hats  of 
wool,  finished  or  unfinished.” 

The  Witness.  But  is  it  a hat  when  it  is  in  a body?  that  is  the  very 
question. 

The  President.  Would  not  that  be  obviated  by  saying  u hats  or  hat 
bodies  ” ? 

The  Witness.  There  should  be  some  definition  to  indicate  what  is 
meant  by  the  term  u knit  goods  ”. 

The  President.  Is  it  not  perfectly  understood  in  the  trade  what  is 
meant  by  the  term  u knit  goods”? 

The  Witness.  There  has  been  a long  controversy  on  that  very  point. 

The  President.  You  refer  to  the  recent  controversy  ? 

The  Witness.  No,  I mean  the  one  that  occurred  years  ago  when  the 
question  was  practically  settled  by  the  department.  I had  this  matter 
up  in  1876,  on  an  appeal  from  the  parties  interested.  I was  called  upon 
for  an  opinion,  which  I gave,  and  in  it  I held  that  knit  goods  were  goods 
made  by  interlooping  stitches,  in  contradistinction  to  those  made  on  a 
loom  with  a warp  and  woof,  and  that  was  accepted  by  the  department 
generally  as  indicating  what  knit  goods  were. 

The  general  subject  of  charges  and  commissions  also  has  troubled 
ns  considerably.  The  question  has  been  raised  whether  charges  and 
commissions  could  not  be  covered  in  some  general  provision  allow- 
ing, say,  five  per  cent,  to  cover  the  whole  matter,  or  some  fixed  rate  to 
avoid  the  difficulties  which  now  arise.  Section  2900  relates  to  the  duti- 
able value  of  goods  at  the  place  of  purchase.  Practically  we  endeavor 
to  ascertain  the  market  value  of  the  goods  at  the  place  from  which 
they  have  been  imported.  Our  practice  is  to  ascertain  the  value  of  the 
goods  at  the  time  and  place  of  purchase.  One  can  see  that  if  London, 
Liverpool,  and  other  points  in  Great  Britain  are  selected,  although  they 
are  athe  principal  markets  of  the  country,”  there  may  be  a shade  of 
difference  in  the  valuation  of  those  goods  at  those  different  markets. 
But  where  goods  are  purchased,  manufactured,  and  sold,  if  we  accept  the 
estimated  value  of  the  goods  at  that  place,  instead  of  being  compelled 
to  ascertain  the  price  of  the  goods  at  the  principal  markets  of  the  country, 
it  is  more  simple. 


458 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


|W.  1$.  HOYT.  ' 


Commissioner  McMahon.  Some  years  ago  the  Treasury  Department 
decided  that  Liverpool  was  the  principal  market  of  the  country  for 
Canada. 

The  Witness.  I remember  that  very  well. 

Commissioner  Garland.  Would  it  not  obviate  that  difficulty  to  apply 
to  these  fabrics  the  same  rule  that  is  applied  to  wool,  and  appraise  their 
value  at  the  last  port  from  whence  they  are  exported  ? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  only  relates  to  the  charges.  The 
section  provides  that  it  must  be  according  to  the  principal  markets  of 
the  country.  The  department  has  decided  that  the  word  “ country n 
embraces  all  the  possessions  under  one  government. 

The  Witness.  The  great  mart  for  worsted  dress  goods  in  England  is 
Bradford.  In  regard  to  goods  made  at  Lyons,  France,  the  value  should 
be  determined  by  the  price  at  Lyons  and  not  by  the  price  at  Paris,  and 
goods  made  in  Paris  should  not  be  subjected  to  the  values  that  may  ob- 
tain in  Lyons. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Then  you  would  take  the  prices  at  Nottingham,  Bradford,  or  Shef- 
field as  the  actual  market  value? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I would  take  prices  at 
the  places  from  which  they  came.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  fair  that  we 
should  determine  m regard,  to  the  Bradford  goods  that  the  price  of  the 
goods  in  the  London  market  should  prevail ; but  the  prices  should  be 
such  as  they  actually  were  at  the  place  of  manufacture.  Besides,  it 
would  be  impracticable.  WTe  know  whether  the  purchases  are  made  at 
Bradford,  and  we  know  the  specific  prices  paid  there,  but  we  cannot  tell 
what  those  goods  would  sell  for  on  the  same  day  in  London. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  difficult  to  ascertain  the  true  value  of  certain  goods 
goods  at  the  place  of  manufacture  when  they  came  from  Turkey  or  from 
Austria  or  other  distant  places? — A.  There  would  be  no  greater  difficulty 
than  at  present.  Wre  obtain  our  estimate  of  value  from  personal  inquiry r 
and  from  such  information  as  we  can  best  obtain  from  the  multiplicity  of 
invoices  that  are  coming  in.  We  also  estimate  the  value  by  the  informa- 
tion we  obtain  from  consuls,  price-lists,  etc.,  and  I think  there  would  be 
no  greater  difficulty  in  fixing  the  place  of  purchase  as  the  place  of  value 
than  to  fix  it  as  provided  for  under  the  present  tariff. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  If  what  you  recommend  were  adopted  and  the  present  rate  of 
duties  preserved,  would  it  or  not  have  the  effect  of  lowering  the  rates 
of  duty  ? — A.  No,  sir;  not  at  all.  Practically  we  do  that,  and  yet  it  is  in 
violation  of  the  phraseology  of  the  law.  It  would  be  impracticable  for 
us  to  do  otherwise.  If  there  be  an  impracticability  in  the  way  of  ex- 
ecuting the  law  as  it  reads,  then  change  the  law  so  as  to  enable  us  to 
do  as  the  law  requires  us  to  do. 

Q.  Then  what  you  suggest  would  have  no  effect  in  diminishing  the 
duty? — A.  None  at  all;  it  is  what  we  are  practically  doing  all  the  time,, 
and  what  is  being  done  I suppose  throughout  the  department. 

There  is  one  little  matter  connected  with  this  “worsted  fabric’7  class 
of  goods,  which  relates  to  button-cloth,  i.  e .,  cloth  furnished  for  buttons. 
It  is  found  on  page  238  of  Heyl’s  Digest,  section  2040,  as  follows : 

On  lastings,  mohair  cloth,  silk-twist,  or  other  inanftfactures,  or  whenever  woven, 
or  made  in  patterns,  of  such  size,  shape,  or  form,  or  cut  in  such  manner  as  to  be  lit 
for  buttons  exclusively,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

A very  great  difficulty  is  found  in  determining  just  what  goods  are 
herein  provided  for.  Possibly  that  section  was  designed  for  the  special 


W.  B.  HOYT.] 


WORSTED  DRESS  GOODS. 


459 

benefit  of  the  manufacturers  of  buttons;  but  difficulty  lias  arisen  in  de- 
termining what  amount  of  punching  done  to  these  cloths  unfits  them  for 
other  uses.  All  silk  fabrics  may  be  so  cut  as  to  leave  them  in  small  por- 
tions, and  yet  those  small  portions  may  be  available  for  various  purposes. 
So  with  some  classes  of  worsted  goods ; they  may  be  made  available  for 
other  purposes  although  they  are  punched,  apparently  for  a certain  spe- 
cific purpose.  There  is  a difficulty  there  in  the  law  as  it  now  stands. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  I know  the  Question  has  arisen  where  importers  have  brought  in 
goods  punched  here  and  there  with  holes  at  regular  intervals,  and 
claimed  that  the  goods  were  punched  for  buttons  exclusively,  when  it 
was  alleged  by  others  that  they  were  used  for  other  purposes — for  mak- 
ing neck-ties.  In  that  way  they  got  in  their  goods  at  ten  per  centum 
as  against  60  per  centum.  How  would  you  change  that? — A.  That  is  a 
very  hard  matter  to  deal  with.  We  cannot  be  supposed  to  follow 
the  goods  and  know  to  what  uses  they  are  put  after  they  leave  the 
custom-house.  All  we  can  do  is  to  presume  the  use  for  which  they  are 
intended.  But  after  they  have  passed  through  our  hands,  have  paid 
the  duties  assessed  upon  them,  and  have  gone  into  consumption,  even 
if  they  are  used  for  other  purposes,  we  cannot  be  supposed  to  follow 
them  and  find  out  that  fact.  We  can  only  say  presumably  they  are 
cut  for  the  purpose  claimed  they  were  cut  for,  and  used  for  that  purpose 
exclusively.  As  the  members  of  the  Commission  will  see,  this  gives 
an  opportunity  for  many  evasions  of  the  law.  It  is  very  difficult  to 
grade  this  line  of  goods — I mean  the  worsted  goods  which  pay  as  high 
as  75  to  80  per  cent,  duty — and  to  prevent  their  coming  in  at  10  per  cent, 
duty  under  that  clause  of  the  law. 

I have  made  a little  note  in  reference  to  the  duty  on  embroideries. 
Section  1264  reads  as  follows : 

Embroidery. — Manufactures  of  cotton,  linen,  or  silk,  if  embroidered  or  tambowed,, 
in  the  loom  or  otherwise,  by  machinery  or  with  the  needle,  or  other  process,  not  other- 
wise provided  for,  35  per  centum  ad  volorem. 

Worsted  yarns  are  paying  a mixed  rate  of  duty,  by  the  pound  and 
ad  valorem,  and  yet  these  same  yarns,  thrown  on  to  a cotton  basis  as 
embroideries,  are  admitted  here  at  35  per  centum.  I confess  I can  see 
no  reason  why  that  provision  was  ever  inserted  in  the  tariff.  How  to 
obviate  the  difficultiesarising  under  it,  if  it  is  allowed  to  remain  as  at 
present,  I cannot  ste.  Why  embroidery  should  be  singled  out  of  all 
other  articles  of  luxury,  1 do  not  know.  I cannot  see  how  any  manu- 
facturer could  be  benefited  by  that  clause.  I would  suggest  that  some 
such  provision  as  this  would  be  well:  “Fabrics  composed  wholly  or  in 
part  of  wool  or  worsted  and  valued  at  not  over  40  cents  per  pound,  20 
cents  per  pound  and  35  per  centum  ad  valorem ; valued  at  over  40  cents 
per  pound  and  not  exceeding  60  cents  per  pound,  40  cents  per  pound  and 
35  per  cent.”  That,  it  seems  to  me,  would  cover  worsted,  embroidery, 
and  knit  goods  as  well  as  all  other  goods  of  that  character. 

Kid  gloves  also  comes  under  my  supervision,  but  as  the  examiner  of 
kid  gloves  is  here,  I will  refer  you  to  him  for  such  information  as  you 
may  desire.  I suggested  a line  of  specific  duties  on  the  3d  of  January, 
1878,  at  the  request  of  the  Treasury  Department,  which,  at  that  time, 
about  equaled  the  duties  received  now  on  the  ad  valorem  methods.  The 
present  tariff  on  kid  gloves  is  contained  in  section  1287,  and  reads  as 
follows : 

Gloves,  kid  or  other  leather,  of  all  descriptions,  for  men’s,  women’s,  and  children’s 
wear,  50  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


460 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[V,-.  >s.  HOYT. 


The  President.  What  do  you  suggest  as  an  amendment  to  that? 

The  Witness.  My  suggestion  at  that  time  was,  that  gloves  should 
pay  a specific  duty.  If  valued  at  $4  or  less  at  the  port  of  shipment, 
they  should  pay  $2  per  dozen;  if  valued  at  over  $4  per  dozen,  they 
should  pay  $3.50  per  dozen ; if  valued  at  over  $12  per  dozen,  they  should 
pay  $6  der  dozen. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Yon  would  consider  that  to  be  merely  a sub- 
stitute for  the  present  ad  valorem  duties,  figured  out  in  that  propor- 
tion? 

. The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  the  difficulties  are  very  great  in  ascertain- 
ing the  values  of  kid  gloves,  especially  in  the  smaller  ports  of  the  coun- 
try, where  the  examiners  have  such  a varied  line  of  duties  to  perform 
that  they  cannot  become  experts  in  specialties.  Mr.  Leseur  has  made  a 
specialty  of  kid  gloves,  which  belong  to  his  department,  so  that  he  can 
distinguish  a kid  glove  from  a lamb-skin  glove,  and  that  is  difficult  to 
do  without  experience. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  There  is  one  point  I wish  you  to  illustrate.  In  making  up  the 
value  of  an  article  presented  for  importation  the  duties  on  which  are 
to  be  paid  on  the  ad  valorem  principle,  the  law  directs  that  you  shall 
add  charges  and  commissions.  I understand  what  commissions  mean 
perfectly  well,  but  I desire  to  know  precisely  what  the  word  charges 
covers  ? — A.  The  nature  and  character  of  the  charges  provided  for  are 
enumerated  in  section  2907,  Heyl’s  Digest,  as  follows : M The  cost  of 
transportation,  shipment,  and  transhipment,  with  all  the  expenses  in- 
cluded from  the  place  of  growth,  production  or  manufacture,  whether 
by  land  or  water,  to  the  vessel  in  which  shipment  is  made  to  the  United 
States  ; the  value  of  the  sack,  box,  or  covering  of  any  kind  in  which 
such  merchandise  is  contained.” 

Q.  Do  you  consider  the  cost  of  transportation  from  the  place  of 
manufacture  to  the  seaport  where  the  goods  are  shipped  as  one  of  the 
charges  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  include  that  item  of  freight  in  the  charges  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; 
All  the  transportation  charges  from  the  place  of  manufacture  to  the 
seaport.  If  goods,  for  instance,  are  purchased  at  Bradford,  England, 
the  charges  to  the  seaport  must  be  added  to  the  invoice. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  How  do  you  ascertain  the  charges  from  an  inland  port  ?—  A.  The 
current  prices  of  transportation  are  published  in  England  as  they  are 
in  this  country,  and  by  a comparison  of  the  charges  in  one  invoice  with 
the  charges  made  in  another  invoice  this  can  be  ascertained.  The  cost 
of  making  boxes  and  the  cost  of  transportation  are  items  of  value  as 
easily  understood  as  other  elements  that  enter  into  the  value. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  And  they  are  all  incorporated  in  the  invoice  ? — A.  They  should  be ; 
if  they  are  not  we  add  them. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Do  you  have  occasion  to  change  the  charges  much? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
we  frequently  have  either  to  change  the  charges  or  put  them  on  the 
invoice. 

Q.  If  the  charges  are  not  named  on  the  invoice  do  you  accept  the 
invoice  as  correct? — A.  No,  sir;  no  more  than  we  do  other  values. 


W.  B.  HOYT.] 


WORSTED  DRESS  GOODS 


461 


The  amount  of  charges  is  subject  to  our  appraisement  as  well  as  the 
i ntrinsic  value  of  the  articles  themselves. 

Q.  Are  they  often  changed? — A.  Yes,  sir;  additions  for  charges  are 
often  made. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Does  not  this  matter  of  charges  give  rise  to  a great  deal  of  trouble? 
— A.  Yes,  sir ; it  does. 

Q.  Could  you  name  a percentage  as  regards  the  goods  coming  under 
your  supervision  which  could  be  made  in  lieu  of  these  charges  as  an 
addition  ? The  rate  of  commission  seems  to  have  been  settled  at  2J 
per  cent. ; what  additional  percentage  would  cover  the  cost  of  charges? 
— A.  They  would  vary  on  the  different  classes  of  goods. 

Q.  What  would  be  a proper  amount  sufficient  to  protect  the  import- 
er and  the  government  and  be  satisfactory  to  all  parties? — A.*  I should 
say  from  1J  to  2J  per  cent,  would  be  a proper  figure. 

Q.  You  think,  from  your  experience,  that  that  would  cover  the  cost 
of  boxing,  freight,  and  charges,  say  from  Bradford  to  Liverpool,  or  to 
the  nearest  shipping  point? — A.  Yes  sir;  the  ordinary  charges.  But 
some  of  the  goods  in  my  line  are  purchased  in  paper  boxes,  and  the 
appraisers  of  these  different  classes  of  merchandise  know  when  they  are 
included  in  the  prices  of  the  goods  themselves.  If  you  buy  a dozen  pairs 
of  stockings  here  in  a carton,  you  pay  for  the  carton  when  you  pay  for 
the  stockings  and  take  it  with  you.  Throughout  Europe  that  is  the 
usual  way  of  buying  those  goods.  In  England  they  usually  make  an 
additional  charge  for  the  carton. 

Q.  Do  you  notice  many  goods  marked  “Free  on  board”? — Yes  sir. 

Q.  There  are  no  charges  in  such  cases,  are  there? — A.  No  sir;  un- 
less we  conclude  it  is  a doubtful  matter.  Parties  may  put  F.  O.  B.  on 
their  invoice  when  the  facts  do  not  warrant  it,  and  that  is  another 
point  we  cannot  always  determine.  The  percentage  of  cost  would  be 
so  small  that  we  could  not  say  that  the  value  is  not  covered  by  the 
invoice,  including  free  on  board. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  matter  which  has  given  rise  to  greater  com- 
plaiut  on  the  part  of  importers  than  this  matter  of  charges? — A.  It  is 
a matter  concerning  which  numerous  complaints  have  been  and  are 
being  made.  The  whole  subject  is  very  annoying.  It  is  trifling  in 
amount  usually  and  is  not  worth  the  trouble  it  costs  both  to  the  import- 
ers in  getting  their  invoices  through  the  custom-house  and  to  the 
custom-house  officials. 

By  the  President  : 

% You  would  recommend,  then,  the  adoption  of  a certain  specific  per- 
centage instead  of  the  allowance  for  charges? — A.  Yes,  sir,  I would;  I 
would  recommend  an  additional  5 per  cent,  to  be  put  on,  to  cover  all 
charges  and  commissions. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Does  not  this  matter  of  charges  frequently  throw  goods  from  one 
rate  of  duty  into  another  rate  of  duty  ? — A.  Yes,  sir,  it  does.  The  divid- 
ing line  of  20  cents  a square  yard  on  our  worsted  dress  goods  is  often 
affected  by  this  little  matter  of  charges.  It  sometimes  happens  that 
goods  that  will  pass  at  6 cents  per  square  yard  and  35  per  cent.,  if  there 
be  forty  pieces  in  a case,  will  pass  at  8 cents  per  square  yard  and  40 
per  cent,  if  there  be  only  thirty-nine  pieces  in  a case.  So  that  we  get 
two  rates  of  duty  on  precisely  the  same  class  of  goods  on  account  of 


462 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  B.  HOYT. 


this  trouble  we  have  in  the  matter  of  charges.  Now,  if  there  was  a rate 
of  5 per  cent,  or  3 per  cent,  or  any  percentage  that  is  thought  proper 
to  cover  these  charges  and  commissions  the  importers  would  not  have 
so  much  reason  to  complain.  It  is  not  so  much  because  of  the  amount 
that  complaint  is  made,  but  they  want  some  uniform  rate;  of  course, 
they  do  not  like  to  pay  different  rates  of  duty  on  the  same  goods. 


E.  C.  LESEUR.] 


KID  GLOVES. 


463 


E.  C.  LESEIJB. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  Avgust  16,  1882. 

Mr.  E.  C.  Leseur,  examiner,  kid  glove  division,  New  York  custom- 
house, made  the  following  statement: 

I would  state  that*  in  my  judgment,  based  on  four  years’  experience 
in  examining  leather  gloves  at  the  port  of  New  York,  the  most  just  and 
equitable  form  of  duty  is  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  providing  that 
certain  safeguards  are  placed  around  the  importation  of  these  goods. 
For  instance,  I think  the  examiner  of  leather  gloves  should  be  allowed 
to  devote  his  whole  time  and  attention  to  the  matter  of  gloves,  and 
that  all  gloves  coming  into  the  port  of  New  York  should  be  inspected 
and  appraised.  If  it  is  deemed  desirable  to  change  the  rate  of  duty  on 
leather  gloves,  *1  would  present  for  your  consideration  the  following  as 
a basis : 

I would  suggest  that  upon  all  leather  gloves  the  foreign  market  value 
of  which  is  less  than  $10  a dozen,  a specific  duty  of  $1.50  per  dozen  and 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  should  be  put.  On  all  gloves  costing  more  than 
$10  or  $12  a dozen  there  should  be  a duty  of  $3  per  dozen  and  20  per  cent, 
ad  valorem,  and  on  all  lined  leather  gloves  or  leather  gloves  trimmed 
with  fur,  a duty  of  $3  per  dozen  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  ad  va- 
lorem duty  would  be  so  small  that  there  would  be  no  temptation  for  manu- 
facturers or  consignors  to  undervalue  their  invoices.  In  my  opinion  it 
would  bring  in  an  amount  of  revenue  to  the  government  equal  to  that 
which  is  now  received.  I have  kept  a record  of  the  quantity  of  gloves 
imported  into  the  port  of  New  York  for  the  year  1879.  My  record  shows 
the  number  of  dozen  of  kid  and  lamb  skin  gloves,  for  men’s,  women’s,  and 
children’s  wear,  also  the  invoice  value  and  the  appraised  value,  with  the 
average  price  per  dozen,  of  kid  and  lamb  skin  gloves,  and  the  total  num- 
ber of  dozens  imported  during  the  calendar  year,  as  follows : 


KID  GLOVES. 

Number  of  dozen  of  men’s  gloves 22, 886 

Number  of  dozen  of  women’s  gloves 200, 316 

Number  of  dozen  of  children’s  gloves 4, 065 

Invoice  value $1, 607, 348 


Appraised  value 1, 794, 128 

Charges  and  commission,  4 per  cent 71,765 


Total 1,865,893 

Average  price  per  dozen,  $8,21. 

LAMBSKIN  GLOVES. 

Number  of  dozen  of  men’s  gloves 21, 693 

Number  of  dozen  of  women’s  gloves 329, 856 

Number  of  dozen  of  children’s  gloves 4, 673 

Invoice  value $1, 421, 896 


Appraised  value 1, 465, 561 

Charges  and  commission,  4 per  cent 58, 622 


Total 1,524,183 

Average  price  per  dozen,  $4.27. 

Total  number  of  dozen  leather  gloves  imported  during  1879 583, 489 

Total  value $3,390,076 

Total  duties  1,695,038 

Total  advance  in  value  by  appraiser 230. 445 


464 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[K.  C.  I.ESEl’R. 


I have  also  in  my  book  a similar  record  for  the  year  1881,  and  for 
the  year  1882  up  to  the  present  time,  but  it  is  not  footed  up,  and  it 
would  take  two  or  three  days  to  condense  it  in  this  form.  At  the  pres 
e-nt  time  there  may  be  600,000  dozen  gloves  imported  per  annum  at  the 
port  of  New  York  valued  at  $3,500,000,  on  which  the  present  duty  would 
be  $1,750,000.  If  there  is  a duty  imposed  of  $1.50  a dozen  on  600,000 
dozen  that  would  be  $900,000,  and  20  per  cent,  duty  on  $3,500,000  would 
be  $700,000,  and  the  extra  duty  on  gloves  costing  over  $10  per  dozen  and 
on  lined  or  fur- trimmed  gloves  would  bring  the  amount  up  to  about  the 
same  that  we  are  receiving  now  at  the  present  rate  of  duty. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  What  is  your  reason  for  recommending  a compound  duty  t 
— Answer.  Because  if  it  was  a purely  specific  duty  it  would  discrimi- 
nate in  favor  of  the  importers  of  French  gloves  and  against  the  importers, 
of  German  and  Italian  gloves.  It  would  have  the  effect  of  driving  the 
Italian  or  lower-grade  gloves  out  of  the  market,  and  poor  people  who 
desire  to  live  economically  would  have  to  pay  a larger  amount  of  duty, 
while  those  who  could  afford  to  pay  for  fine  gloves  would  not  have  to 
pay  as  much  duty  in  proportion  to  their  value. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  at  the  beginning  of  your  remarks  that 
the  present  ad  valorem  duty  was  the  best,  in  your  judgment? — A. 
Yes,  sir;  because  it  bears  equally  on  all  grades  of  goods. 

Q.  You  prefer  that  to  a compound  duty? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  if  it  is 
necessary  to  make  a change  in  the  rate  of  duty,  I would  recommend  a 
small  ad  valorem  duty  and  then  a specific  duty  of,  say,  $1.50  a dozen. 
The  ad  valorem  duty  would  be  so  small  that  even  if  the  gloves  were 
undervalued  it  would  not  afford  one  importer  any  great  advantage  in 
competition  with  other  importers. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  invoices  that  you  pass  do  you  find  it  nec- 
essary to  raise? — A.  We  raise  a great  many;  I could  not  tell  you  what 
proportion. 

Q.  Do  you  raise  one-half  of  them? — A.  I do  not  think  we  do  at  pres- 
ent ; four  years  ago  we  did. 

Q.  Do  you  raise  one-quarter  of  the  invoices  at  the  present  time? — A. 
Most  of  the  invoices  are  raised  on  entry,  the  same  class  of  gloves  that 
there  was  a contest  on  four  years  ago.  Four  years  ago  an  importer 
would  invoice  a glove  at  17  marks,  and  it  would  be  advanced  to  20 
marks  per  dozen.  If  under  the  reappraisement  it  was  placed  at  20 
marks,  he  would  write  to  the  consignor  on  the  other  side  and  tell  him  to 
make  the  invoice  out  at  20  marks,  so  that  the  invoice  would  not  show 
any  advance,  as  the  gloves  would  be  invoiced  at  20  marks.  But  other 
houses  have  for  the  past  four  years  invoiced  their  gloves  at  the  same 
prices  that  they  invoiced  them  at  previous  to  the  time  the  question  came 
up  in  regard  to  their  market  value;  and  on  entering  them  the  importer 
adds  to  the  invoice  to  make  up  the  market  value.  We  have  a glove  in- 
voiced to-day  at  30  francs  per  dozen  and  26  francs  per  dozen  added,  to 
make  the  market  value  on  entry  by  the  importers  to  bring  it  up  to  the 
price  that  they  were  appraised  at.  For  instance,  take  a Swede  glove 
that  was  entered  originally  at  20  to  22  francs  three  or  four  years  ago ; it 
has  been  advanced  until  now  they  pay  duty  on  38  francs  for  the  same 
glove,  and  on  entry  they  add  the  difference  between  22  and  38,  and  on 
the  longer  gloves  they  add  up  to  as  high  as  26  francs  per  dozen. 


E.  C.  LESEUR.] 


KID  GLOVES. 


465 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  say  that,  personally,  you  prefer  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty! 

— A.  I do. 

Q.  You  think  that  is  the  fairest  way  of  assessing  the  duty! — A.  Yes, 
sir,  I do,  providing  the  examiner  examines  all  leather  gloves  which  come 
into  port;  at  present  he  gets  only  a part. 

Q.  You  are  expert  in  your  business,  and  most  of  the  gloves  imported 
into  the  country  come  through  the  port  of  New  York ; as  a result  I 
suppose  the  very  best  talent  in  that  line  is  employed  to  appraise  these 
goods.  But  what  are  they  to  do  in  the  interior  ports,  where  the 
importations  are  small  and  the  appraisers  have  to  examine  all  classes 
of  goods,  not  only  kid  gloves  but  pig  iron,  chemicals,  and  everything 
else  that  comes  into  a port.  How  can  the  appraisers  at  such  places  tell 
when  an  article  is  undervalued  ! — A.  In  regard  to  gloves,  I may  say 
that  very  few  gloves  come  into  any  port  except  New  Yrork.  When  new 
goods,  or  goods  which  the  appraisers  are  not  familiar  with,  are  brought 
into  interior  p>orts,  the  officials  are  very  apt  to  send  samples  of  such 
goods  to  the  New  York  custom-house  for  our  opinion  upon  them. 

Q.  Verj-  likely  they  would;  but  I am  speaking  of  instances  where 
they  do  not  do  that.  Take  the  whole  country,  with  its  innumerable 
ports  and  its  continually  increasing  business ; would  not  the  proper 
way  of  collecting  duties  be  to  assess  a purely  specific  duty  in  lieu  of 
these  compound  duties,  so  that  equal  justice  could  be  done  to  every 
importer,  whether  he  is  a merchant  doing  business  along  the  banks  of 
the  Mississippi  River  or  in  NewT  York  City!  Can  the  appraisers  all 
over  the  country  tell  about  the  value  of  these  goods! — A.  No,  sir;  be- 
cause it  is  a matter  that  requires  constant  study  and  long  experience. 
In  that  case  a compound  duty  would  be  preferable. 

Q.  Cannot  a purely  specific  duty  be  imposed! — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not 
think  it  could  be  with  justice  to  the  importer  or  consumer. 

The  President.  Under  the  present  circumstances,  as  the  whole 
country  is  interested  in  this  matter,  do  you  prefer  the  system  you  re- 
commend— a compound  duty  ! 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  1 do,  taking  the  interests  of  the  whole  country 
into  consideration. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you  yourself  preferred  an  ad  valorem 
rate  of  duty. — A.  Yes,  sir,  I do ; but,  taking  the  matter  as  it  affects 
the  whole  country,  perhaps  a compound  duty  would  be  preferable. 

Q.  Then  you  recommend  a compound  duty  instead  of  an  ad  valorem 
duty,  do  you  ! — A.  As  it  affects  the  whole  country,  I do.  I do  not  know 
anything  about  the  qualifications  of  the  examiners  of  gloves  at  other 
ports,  but,  as  I have  said,  very  few  psloves  are  entered  at  other  ports 
than  New  York.  I pass  upon  ten  different  lines  of  goods.  The  inspec- 
tion of  gloves  is  only  a small  portion  of  my  duties.  Of  course  at  other 
ports  tLe  examiners  cannot  be  as  expert  in  this  matter  as  we  are  at 
New  York,  where  four-fifths  of  all  the  gloves  imported  into  the  United 
States  are  entered.  I recommend  that  all  gloves  should  be  ordered 
in  for  examination  in  the  event  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  or  a continuation 
of  the  present  duty,  and  I will  give  you  my  reason  for  that.  For  in- 
stance, an  invoice  comes  here  with  ten  cases  of  gloves  on  it,  the  deputy 
collector  orders  one  case  to  be  sent  to  the  public  store  for  examina- 
tion, and  the  balance  (the  nine  cases)  go  to  the  importer’s  store.  The 
importer  receives  his  nine  cases  within  a couple  of  days.  In  the  mean 
time  the  other  case  is  received  at  the  public  store,  and  is  examined  by 
H.  Mis.  6 30 


466 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  C.  LESEUR. 


the  examiner,  and  we  will  say  that,  in  his  judgment,  the  goods  are  in- 
voiced at  less  than  their  actual  market  value.  In  that  case  he  orders  in 
all  the  other  goods  for  examination,  supposing  they  must  he  all  under- 
valued. In  the  course  of  twenty-four  hours  the  importer  receives  a 
notice  that  his  goods  have  been  ordered  to  the  public  store.  “But,”  he 
says,  “I  have  not  got  them;  I had  to  send  them  to  my  customers.  I 
have  opened  the  cases  and  disposed  of  the  bulk  of  the  goods.”  What 
is  to  be  done  in  such  a case  as  that?  There  is  no  certainty  that  the 
gloves  returned  to  the  public  store  (often  the  cases  have  been  opened 
at  the  importer’s  store  and  their  contents  partly  disposed  of)  will  fairly 
represent  the  original  importation.  I have  ordered  goods  back  to  the 
public  store  where  I was  well  satisfied  that  they  did  not  represent  the 
value  of  the  original  importation — goods  which  had  apparently  been  on 
the  importer’s  shelves  for  six  months  or  a year.  That  is  the  reason  why 
I recommend  that  all  gloves  imported  shall  be  ordered  in  for  examin- 
ation. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  change  in  the  law  would  you  recommend  in  order  to  accom- 
plish that? — A.  Merely  that  all  leather  gloves  shall  be  examined  and 
appraised. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  If  the  appraiser  requested  the  collector  to  send  all  the  goods  to  the 
public  store,  would  it  not  be  done  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; I suppose  it  would. 
I have  requested  it  to  be  done,  and  it  has  been  done  for  a year  or  more, 
and  then  only  one  case  in  ten  would  be  ordered  in,  unless  another  special 
request  was  made  by  the  appraisers. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Then  it  is  a mere  matter  of  internal  dis- 
cipline and  regulation.  There  is  no  amendment  of  the  law  necessary. 

The  Witness.  But  if  all  cases  were  ordered  in  for  examination  an  ex- 
examiner of  a particular  line  could  examine  all  those  goods. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  still  it  is  a mere  matter  of  internal  dis- 
cipline and  regulation. 

The  President.  Have  you  any  recommendation  to  make  in  regard 
to  other  goods? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  I have  not. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Or  in  regard  to  the  working  of  the  act  relat- 
ing to  gloves  or  other  goods  which  come  under  your  supervision ; that 
is,  have  you  noticed  any  contradiction  in  the  wording  of  the  present  law 
where  you  could  suggest  a change? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Do  you  examine  feathers  as  well  as  gloves? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  trouble  of  late  in  that  line  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I have 
not.  I examine  only  crude  feathers. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Would  it  be  possible  in  your  line  of  goods  to  put  a home  valuation 
instead  of  a foreign  valuation  upou  them? — A.  No,  sir;  I think  not. 
There  is  no  staple  home  valuation  for  goods  of  this  class. 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB.] 


IMPORTED  WOOL. 


467 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB. 

Long  Branch,  H.  J.,  August  16,  1882. 

Mr.  Gustav  Schwab,  of  Hew  York  City,  importer  of  wool,  made  the 
following  statement : 

I desire  to  state  to  the  Commission  that  my  business  has  made  me 
familiar  with  the  tariff  on  raw  wool.  I have  imported  raw  wool  for  a 
number  of  years  from  all  quarters  of  the  world,  and  have  also  bought 
and  sold  considerable  quantities  of  American  or  domestic  wools.  The 
members  of  the  Commission  are  probably  aware  that  in  every  attempt 
that  has  been  made  to  revise  the  tariff  by  Congress  for  a number  of 
years,  wool  has  always  played  a conspicuous  part,  from  which  it  may 
be  inferred  that  the  wool  tariff  contains  a good  many  objectionable 
features. 

If  I were  allowed  to  follow  my  own  convictions,  I would  make  an 
argument  in  favor  of  free  wool,  and  try  to  show  that  such  a change 
would  be  the  greatest  possible  boon  to  our  large  woolen  industry,  while 
its  effect  on  the  wool-growing  interest  would  in  no  way  be  destructive. 
Believing,  however,  that  such  an  argument  would  not  be  acceptable  to 
your  body,  I propose  to  confine  myself  to  those  features  of  our  present 
complicated  wool  tariff  which  do  not  affect  the  principle  of  protection  to 
our  wool  growers,  and  which  can  be  shown  to  operate  to  the  detriment 
of  our  woolen  industry,  of  the  honest  importer,  and  of  the  revenue. 

By  our  present  tariff  all  raw  wools  are  divided  into  three  classes,  viz, 
clothing,  fine  combing,  and  carpet  wools,  each  class  being  made  subject 
to  a different  duty. 

Experience  has  proved  that  this  country  cannot  and  does  not  produce 
all  the  necessary  qualities,  or  a sufficient  quantity,  of  either  of  these  three 
classes,  and  that  our  varied  industry  requires  a greater  or  smalller  an- 
nual supply  of  foreign  wools  of  all  three  classes.  The  effect  of  the  tariff, 
however,  is  different  on  each  class,  and  they  have,  therefore,  to  be  con- 
sidered separately. 

Class  I.  Clothing  wool  is  subject  to  a specific  and  ad  valorem  duty 
combined,  the  specific  duty  being  the  main  charge  j there  are  two  rates, 
the  lower  one  being  applicable  to  wool,  the  foreign  value  of  which,  ex- 
clusive of  charges,  does  not  exceed  32  cents  per  pound  of  unwashed 
wool,  and  the  higher  rate  to  wool  costing  over  32  cents.  This  distinc- 
tion frequently  compels  our  manufacturers  to  use  a grade  of  wool  inferior 
to  what  is  really  wanted,  the  latter  being  placed  beyond  their  reach  by 
the  higher  duty. 

On  washed  wool  of  this  class  the  rate  of  duty  is  doubled,  and  scoured 
wool  has  to  pay  treble  duty.  Both  washed  and  scoured  wools,  which 
form  a large  portion  of  the  supplies  of  European  markets,  are  thereby 
excluded  from  our  markets,  since  the  double  and  treble  duties  exacted 
by  this  provision  of  our  tariff  far  exceed  the  duty  imposed  on  the 
unwashed  wool,  which  falls  on  the  scoured  wool  when  cleaned  here. 
Our  industry  is  therefore  compelled  to  rely  entirely  on  a supply  of 
unwashed  wool  of  this  class,  and  to  pay  transportation  charges  on  50 
to  75  per  cent,  of  impurities  contained  therein. 

By  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  duty  being  specific  and  assessed  by 


468 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GUSTAV  SCHWAB. 


weight,  our  tariff  discriminates  against  all  heavy  and  dirty  wools,  which 
are  made  correspondingly  cheaper  to  the  European  manufacturer,  and 
our  manufacturers  are  compelled  to  compete  exclusively  for  the  lighter 
classes  of  foreign  wools,  though  their  intrinsic  qualities  may  he,  and  in 
fact  usually  are,  inferior  to  those  of  the  heavy  wools.  These  disadvan- 
tages would  disappear  if  in  the  place  of  our  present  complicated  rates 
a uniform  and  simple  ad  valorem  duty  were  imposed  on  all  tine  wool, 
unwashed,  washed,  or  scoured. 

As  to  the  proper  rate  to  be  imposed,  I will  only  remark,  that  by  far 
the  largest  portion  of  wools  produced  in  the  United  States,  including 
all  California  and  Texas  wool,  is  of  a medium  grade,  the  value  of  which 
is  already  so  low  that  no  foreign  wools  can  be  imported  which  can  com- 
pete with  them  at  any  rate  of  duty.  As  the  carcass  of  the  sheep  becomes 
more  valuable,  the  raising  of  merino  sheep  grows  less  and  less  profit- 
able; and  as  our  population  increases,  the  present  high  duties  become 
less  and  less  effective  for  the  protection  of  tine-wool  growers,  and  very 
little,  if  any,  depreciation  of  even  fine  domestic  wool  is  to  be  apprehended 
from  a moderate  ad  valorem  rate,  say  25  per  cent.,  on  all  clothing  wool. 

The  present  duty  on  Class  II,  tine  combing  wool,  differs  from  the  duty 
on  clothing  wool  mainly  in  this,  that  washed  combing  wool  is  admitted 
at  the  same  rate  as  unwashed,  and  that  this  class,  therefore,  is  imported 
exclusively  in  the  washed  condition,  which  places  the  consumers  of  this 
class  on  a much  more  favorable  footing  than  that  of  the  manufacturers 
using  clothing  wools. 

There  are,  however,  peculiar  provisions,  which  it  is  not  necessary  to 
specify,  that  interfere  with  the  easy  importation  of  wool  of  this  class, 
and  which  would  be  removed  by  making  it  subject  to  the  same  ad  valo- 
rem duty  that  is  recommended  for  Class  I,  and  by  thus  removing  all 
distinction  between  the  two  classes. 

Class  III.  Carpet  wools  now  pay  a simple  specific  duty,  graded  ac- 
cording to  the  foreign  first  cost  or  value  of  the  wool,  exclusive  of  charges 
at  the  last  port  or  place  of  shipment,  the  duty  being  3 cents  per  pound 
when  this  first  cost  does  not  exceed  12  cents  per  pound,  and  6 cents  per 
pound  when  the  first  cost  is  over  12  cents. 

I have  been  informed,  and  your  president  probably  will  confirm  the 
fact,  that  when  these  two  rates  of  duty  of  3 and  6 cents  were  proposed, 
it  was  assumed  that  the  lower  rate  would  apply  exclusively  to  unwashed 
carpet  wool,  while  the  higher  rate  would  fall  only  on  washed  wool  of  this 
class.  But  the  law  makes  no  reference  to  any  such  distinction,  and  the 
first  cost  is  therefore  the  only  criterion  by  which  the  rate  applicable  to 
carpet  wool  of  any  condition  is  determined.  In  practice  the  above-men- 
tioned expectations  of  the  framers  of  our  wool  tariff  have  proved 
entirely  fallacious,  since  during  the  operation  of  this  tariff,  various  peri- 
ods have  occurred  when  prices  of  coarse  wools  were  depressed  so  low  as 
to  allow  even  the  best  white  washed  wools  to  be  bought  abroad  below 
12  cents  first  cost,  and  to  be  entered  here  at  3 cents  duty,  while  at  other 
times  the  better  grades  of  unwashed  wools  were  too  high  in  value  to  be 
brought  in  here  at  3 cents  duty. 

Aside  from  the  fact  that  such  assessment  of  duties  discriminates 
against  and  generally  excludes  from  our  markets  the  numerous  half- 
washed  wools  of  this  class,  which  frequently  cost  over  12  cents,  but  are 
not  clean  enough  to  bear  the  6 cent  duty,  this  so-called  low  duty  limit 
has  proved  a great  source  of  vexation  to  the  importers  and  their  cus- 
tomers, and  has  undoubtedly  caused  more  fraud  and  evasion  of  duties 
than  any  other  of  the  intricate  features  of  our  wool  tariff.  The  honest 
importer  is  continually  prevented  from  buying  abroad  wools  costing  a 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB.] 


IMPORTED  WOOL. 


469 


little  over  12  cents,  which  his  less  scrupulous  competitor  brings  in  here 
at  3 cents  duty  by  invoicing  the  excess  of  cost  over  12  cents  under  the 
guise  of  fictitious  charges,  and  by  various  other  manipulations  of  a sim- 
ilar kind. 

If  desired,  I should  have  no  difficulty  in  substantiating  this  particu- 
lar part  of  my  statement  by  further  details,  and  to  prove  that  this  assess- 
ment of  varying  duties  according  to  the  first  cost  of  the  article  is  a 
most  serious  error  that  calls  loudly  for  correction.  This  evil  would  be 
undoubtedly  corrected  by  the  imposition  of  a simple  ad  valorem  duty, 
which  duty  would,  however,  have  to  be  a lower  one  than  is  likely  to 
be  imposed  on  wools  of  Classes  I and  II,  since  the  present  specific 
duty  on  carpet  wool  will  be  found  to  average  little  if  anything  over  20 
per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

I submit,  however,  that  what  is  really  called  for  with  regard  to  car- 
pet wool,  Class  III,  is  the  abolishment  of  all  duty,  and  its  being  placed 
on  the  free  list,  since  there  is  nothing  of  any  consequence  in  this  class 
of  wool  produced  in  the  United  States.  Certainly  90  per  cent,  of  all 
wool  consumed  by  our  carpet  mills  is  of  foreign  origin,  and  what  little 
short  coarse  wool  is  produced  in  this  country  would  scarcely  be  affected 
by  such  a change,  which  on  the  other  hand  would  enable  our  carpet 
industry  to  compete  with  its  products  in  foreign  markets. 

I submit  that  a simple  ad  valorem  duty  on  wool  is  capable  of  being 
controlled  by  our  appraisers  with  greater  facility  than  can  be  d<  newith 
almost  any  other  raw  material.  In  most  foreign  markets  wool  is  being  sold 
in  periodical  public  sales,  and  where  this  is  not  the  case,  sales  gener- 
ally are  reported  in  public  and  private  prices  current,  and  the  value  of 
any  class  of  wool  at  any  particular  time  and  place  is  therefore  accessi- 
ble and  generally  known  all  over  the  world. 

This  low-duty  limit  is  really  an  abominable  nuisance.  I will  give  you 
an  instance  illustrating  it,  which  has  been  developed  in  a suit  which  is 
pending  at  the  present  time.  A large  portion  of  these  carpet  wools 
come  from  Eussia.  In  Eussia  they  are  bought  and  washed,  and  are 
contracted  for,  usually  between  the  months  of  January  and  August. 
When  we  make  a contract,  we  pay  the  peddler  or  agent  who  promises 
to  briug  in  the  wool  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  of  the  value  of  the  wool 
in  cash.  But  we  are  unable  to  fix  the  price.  The  price  of  the  wool  is 
fixed  at  the  large  fairs  which  are  held  in  different  parts  of  Eussia  in  the 
chief  cities  and  towns,  in  July,  August,  and  September,  and  sometimes 
we  have  had  to  fight  for  the  price  until  October.  We  have  had  occasions 
arise  where  the  wool  which  we  bought  and  paid  for  in  January,  Feb- 
ruary, and  March,  was  delivered  to  us  in  May,  washed,  and  shipped  to 
New  York,  where  it  arrived  before  we  knew  what  the  first  cost  would  be. 
We  cannot  change  that  order  of  business.  It  is  the  order  of  business 
in  Eussia,  not  only  in  regard  to  wools,  but  in  regard  to  wheat,  linseed, 
and  everything. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  If  that  is  the  case,  and  it  is  so  difficult  to  arrive  at  the 
price,  why  do  you  advocate  an  ad  valorem  duty? — Answer.  If  it  is  an 
ad  valorem  duty,  we  know  within  20  or  25  per  cent,  what  we  have  to 
pay. 

Q.  But  you  have  just  been  telling  us  of  the  difficulty  you  have  in  as- 
certaining the  value  of  the  wool  you  have  advanced  on. — A.  Yes,  be- 
cause the  value  depends  upon  whether  the  duty  is  10  or  12  cents.  There 
is  the  unwashed  wool  ana  the  washed  wool.  The  washed  wool  contains 
50  per  cent,  more  wool  than  the  unwashed,  according  to  the  bulk. 


470 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB. 


Q.  How  would  it  do  to  put  a duty  of  50  per  cent,  upon  every  pound 
of  wool? — A.  If  you  could  place  a certain  duty  on  the  unwashed  wool, 
and  double  the  rate  on  washed  wool,  that  would  do. 

Q.  But  you  have  just  stated  to  us  that  you  cannot  ascertain  the  cost 
of  the  wool  sometimes  until  months  after  the  time  it  has  been  bought. 
How  is  it  possible  for  you  to  take  a consular  invoice,  and  assess  an  ad 
valorem  rate  of  duty,  when  you  do  not  know  what  the  wool  has  cost  you 
until  three  months  after  you  receive  it? — A.  There  are  some  kinds  of 
wool  sold,  cash  down,  and  that  establishes  the  price,  but  not  for  the 
contracts.  The  consul  would  have  to  certify  to  an  invoice  at  the  price 
of  the  wool  at  the  time  of  his  making  the  certificate. 

Q.  1 do  not  understand  why  it  is  that  you  should  advocate  ad  valorem 
duties  while  you  are  at  the  same  time  explaining  to  us  that  in  regard 
to  this  important  article  of  wool  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  ascertain  the 
price  of  it  until  long  after  the  time  at  which  you  receive  it  in  this  coun- 
try. You  recommend  that  the  duties  be  assessed  on  the  cost,  and  yet 
you  do  not  know  the  cost  until  two  or  three  months  after  the  goods 
arrive. — A.  But  of  course  you  are  aware  that  the  ad  valorem  duties  are 
assessed,  not  only  on  the  cost,  but  on  the  market  value.  If  the  cost  can- 
not be  obtained  when  the  invoices  are  made  out,  the  shippers  take  the 
market  value. 

Q.  I am  aware  of  that;  but  would  it  not  be  better  in  regard  to 
sugar,  wool,  and  other  articles  of  that  class  to  assess  the  duties  at  fixed 
rates  per  pound  ? — A.  But  there  again  comes  in  the  difficulty  of  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  different  kinds,  and  that  is  the  trouble  we 
labor  under  at  present.  If  you  say  the  duty  shall  be  3 cents  on  un- 
washed carpet  wool,  and  6 cents  on  washed  carpet  wool,  what  should  be 
done  with  all  the  half  washed  wools  ? 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Put  another  price  on  them. 

The  Witness.  Then  you  would  have  to  have  a running  scale  of  duties 
of  30,  40,  or  50  per  cent.,  or  else  do  injustice.  But  this  low-duty  limit 
is  the  thing  which  I would  like  to  have  abolished.  We  are  now  in  this 
condition : Last  year  the  Russian  washed  wools  had  to  pay  G cents  duty, 
and  there  was  no  doubt  about  it ; there  was  no  question  raised  in  regard  to 
the  duty.  The  New  York  market  was  not  affected  at  all.  But  this  year 
the  wools  have  gone  down,  and  the  price  now  being  paid  on  the  Black 
Sea  for  the  unwashed  wools  is  within  2 or  3 per  cent,  of  the  low- 
duty  limit  when  the  wool  is  washed.  It  is  just  a question  of  whether 
we  can  bring  our  wools  here  costing  12  cents  or  under,  or  whether  they  will 
enter  over  12  cents  here  as  white  washed  wools.  That  has  disorganized 
the  whole  marketfor  about4,000  balesof  last  year’s  wool  that  is  still  lying 
on  our  market.  We  can  sell  nothing  because  we  do  not  know  whether 
the  new  wools  pay  3 or  6 cents  duty.  If  it  is  3 cents  duty  we  are  all 
right;  if  not,  we  have  to  lose  the  rate.  It  is  a variable  thing.  If  I buy 
wool  in  Moscow  or  anywhere  in  the  interior  of  Russia,  it  is  always  sold 
there  packed  and  ready  for  shipment.  If  I buy  it  there  for  14  cents  1 
must  invoice  it  at  14  cents,  packed;  and  the  few  charges  and  brokers’ 
commissions  of  3 or  4 per  cent,  are  added.  That  wool,  when  it  comes 
here,  will  pay  6 cents  duty.  Another  man  buys  the  same  wool  offered  to 
me  at  14  cents  in  Russia,  and  he  has  it  forwarded  to  Riga,  the  great 
port  of  Russia,  and  there  has  it  invoiced  at  12  cents  with  25  j)er  cent, 
charges  on  it,  and  brings  it  in  here  at  3 cents  duty.  That  is  being  done 
all  the  time,  so  that  1 cannot  buy  wools  in  Moscow. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Would  the  imposition  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  prevent  that? — A. 
Yes,  sir.  The  aggregate  amount  of  these  invoices  is  correct  ; but,  as  I 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB.] 


IMPORTED  WOOL. 


471 


have  said,  they  take  1,  2,  or  3 cents  off  the  cost  of  the  wool  and  in- 
voice it  as  charges,  and  the  appraiser  cannot  find  it  out;  he  cannot  tell 
whether  that  is  correct  or  not. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  state  that  washed  wools  shrink  about  50  per 
cent. — A.  Carpet  wools  usually  do.  We  lose  about  50  per  cent,  in  the 
washing  on  these  Russian  unwashed  wools. 

Q.  What  do  you  lose  on  the  washed  wools? — A.  They  shrink  from  7 
to  12  per  cent. 

Q.  How  much  do  the  scoured  wools  shrink? — A.  They  ought  not  to 
shrink  any;  but  they  are  never  imported  scoured,  because  they  would 
have  to  pay  18  cents  duty.  When  the  washed  wools  go  over  7 to  12 
per  cent,  they  are  called  half- washed. 

Q.  In  speaking  of  combing  wools,  you  referred  to  the  fine  combing 
wools;  is  the  clause  in  the  tariff  worded  in  that  way? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it 
says  4< combing  wools,  viz: . Leicester,  Cotswold,  Lincolnshire,  down 
combing,  Canada  long  wools,  or  other  like  combing  wools  of  English 
blood,”  &c. 

Q.  Those  you  term  fine  combing  wools? — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  fine  combing  carpet  wools. 

Q.  You  do  not  mean,  then,  the  fine  merino  wools  which  are  combed? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  certain  disadvantages  surrounding  the  impor- 
tation of  wool, but  I do  not  think  ;you  enumerated  them;  will  you  please 
enumerate  some  of  them?— A.  I will  specify  a few  that  occur  to  me. 
These  English  combing  wools  are  imported  here  by  only  a very  few  manu- 
facturers, who  use  them  to  a large  extent  and  who  have  their  buyers  in 
England.  Under  the  law  they  are  not  allowed  to  buy  the  wool  as  it  is 
sold  in  the  English  market,  where  there  are  a great  many  portions  of 
the  fleeces  that  they  do  not  want.  According  to  the  law  they  must  buy 
them  as  they  are  usually  sold  in  the  English  market;  but  that  does 
not  suit  them,  and  therefore  they  have  to  get  up  establishments  there 
for  sorting  the  wool  and  shipping  to  the  United  States  only  that  portion 
which  they  want.  That,  strictly  speaking,  is  illegal;  some  people  con- 
sider it  illegal.  So  that  the  importer  never  knows  what  he  can  do.  A 
few  large  manufacturers  do  that,  but  the  importer  is  always  afraid  of 
doing  it.  Then  another  question  frequently  arises,  as  to  whether  Aus- 
tralian wool  should  come  in  under  the  class  of  combing  wool  or  under 
class  No.  1 ; whether  it  can  be  imported  in  the  usual  condition  at  the 
simple  rate  of  duty,  or  whether  it  has  to  pay  the  double  rate  of  duty. 
There  are  Australian  wools  derived  from  this  same  class  of  sheep  that 
the  tariff  speaks  of,  that  is  to  say,  the  Cotswold  and  the  Leicester,  pro- 
ducing these  long  English  luster  wools.  But  when  they  are  produced 
in  Australia,  if  they  are  brought  from  there  the  importer  runs  great 
risk  of  the  custom-house  inspector  saying  to  him,  “I  find  a few  fleeces 
of  wool  in  these  bales,  of  merino  blood.”  That  is  the  difficulty ; and, 
therefore,  we  cannot  import  these  combing  wmols  except  from  England, 
where  the  different  classes  of  wool  are  kept  distinctly  separate. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  mestizo  wools? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I im- 
port a great  many  of  them.  They  come  in  under  class  No.  1. 

Q.  What  would  these  wools  pay  under  your  suggested  arrangement 
of  25  per  cent.? — A.  The  value  of  mestizo  wools  varies  from  £9  ster- 
ling to  £11,  at  Montevideo  and  at  Buenos  Ayres,  or  £8  sterling,  for  the 
lowest  grade.  From  16  to  22  cents  is  the  value  of  the  unwashed  wool. 
Twenty-five  per  cent,  of  that  would  be  from  4 to  5 or  5£  cents.  They 
now  pay  about  12 J cents. 

Q.  What  would  x>robably  be  the  effect  on  the  production  of  fine  wool 


472 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GUSTAV  SCHWAB. 


if  the  United  States  should  admit  these  wools  at  4J  cents? — A.  Ido  not 
believe  it  would  have  any  great  effect. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  they  would  not  be  imported? — A.  Ok,  yes;  they 
would  be  imported,  but  it  would  not  have  much  effect  on  the  price  of  our 
domestic  fleece  wools.  It  would  take  the  place  only  of  our  American 
fleece  wools,  but  the  supply  of  American  domestic  fleece  wools  is  already 
insufficient  for  the  wants  of  this  country.  The  result  would  be,  we  should 
import  a larger  quantity  of  mestizo  or  Buenos  Ayres  wools,  which  are 
almost  excluded  by  our  tariff  now,  on  account  of  their  heavy  weight 
We  used  to  import  from  20,000  to  30,000  bales  of  these  wools  before  the 
present  tariff  was  enacted;  now  we  only  import  from  1,000  to  2,000  bales 
annually. 

Q.  What  wool  takes  the  place  of  that  mestizo  wool? — A.  We  use 
more  Australian  wools  now  because  they  only  shrink  54  or  55  per  cent. 

Q.  What  portion  of  the  fine  merino  wools  used  in  our  manufactures 
are  grown  in  this  country? — A.  More  than  75  per  cent.,  undoubtedly. 

Q.  Where  does  the  deficiency  come  from  ? — A.  From  Australia,  from 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  from  the  river  Plate,  and  from  a few  other 
countries,  but  not  to  a great  extent.  For  the  last  ten  years  we  have 
imported  from  Australia  from  5,000  to  30,000  bales  per  annum,  accord- 
ing to  the  state  of  the  market. 

Q.  What  is  the  average  duty  paid  upon  wool  ? — A.  Upon  unwashed 
wool  about  12  to  12^  cents.  The  duty  is  10  cents  per  pound  and  11  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  and  the  ad  valorem  price  in  Australia  is  about  25 
cents.  That  brings  it  from  12  to  13  cents,,  I might  say.  Cape  wools 
pay  from  11J  to  12  cents. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  sham  or  mock  sales  of  wool  being  held  in 
order  to  fix  the  foreign  price  which  importers  are  obliged  to  pay  for 
their  wools  ? — A.  Uo,  sir ; that  could  never  be  done  to  any  extent.  A 
quarter  of  a penny  variation  is  a very  important  item  in  the  purchase 
of  wools.  All  merchants  know  every  day  the  price  of  wool  at  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  and  in  Australia ; the  price  is  telegraphed  all  over  the 
world.  Frauds  that  could  be  committed  under  a regular  ad  valorem 
duty  would  be  very  small  indeed,  and,  I think,  such  a duty  would  do 
away  with  a great  deal  of  difficulty.  The  appraisers  now  are  obliged 
to  have  several  hundred  different  samples  in  every  custom-house  as 
standards  for  them  to  go  by. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  You  made  a statement  at  the  commencement 
of  your  remarks  to  which  I wish  to  call  your  attention.  You  said: 

If  I were  allowed  to  follow  my  own  convictions  I would  make  an  argument  in  favor 
of  free  wool,  and  try  to  show  that  such  a change  would  be  the  greatest  possible  boon 
to  our  large  woolen  industry,  while  its  effect  in  the  wool-growing  interest  would  be  in 
no  way  destructive.  Believing,  however,  that  such  an  argument  would  not  be  accept- 
able to  your  body,  &c. 

I would  like  to  know  upon  what  that  belief  is  founded.  Why  do  you 
think  that  such  an  argument  in  favor  of  free  wool  as  you  speak  of  would 
not  be  acceptable  to  this  body  ? 

The  Witness.  Because  I believe  that,  as  your  president  told  me 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I want  your  answer  to  that  question.  You 
seem  to  be  acting  upon  a theory,  which  exists  in  the  minds  of  some  peo- 
ple, that  this  Commission  is  not  disposed  to  treat  everybody  fairly  and 
squarely;  at  least  I infer  that  from  your  argument. 

The  Witness.  Oh,  no;  but  I believe  this  Commission  is  required  to, 
and  is  looking  at  other  things  connected  with  the  tariff  than  those  that 
merchants  are  asking  for  simply.  You  have  political  considerations 
which  surround  you. 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB.] 


IMPORTED  WOOL. 


473 


Commissioner  Kenner.  Ko,  we  have  not,  and  you  have  no  authority 
to  say  any  such  thing.  You  have  said  that  you  believe  that  an  argu- 
ment presented  by  you  advocating  free  trade  would  be  unaccepted  by  us. 
I ask  you  what  you  predicate  your  belief  on,  and  I have  a right  to  put 
that  question  to  you,  because  you  have  made  the  assertion  boldly  and 
unequivocally,  so  that  it  goes  abroad  to  the  world,  and  if  we  submit  to 
it  we  submit  to  the  assertion  that  we  are  disposed  to  be  unjust  and  un- 
fair in  our  consideration  of  this  question.  I should  like  a definite  an- 
swer on  this  point. 

The  Witness.  I did  not  intend  to  make  any  reflections  upon  the  Com- 
mission, but  having  been  before  Congressional  committees  a number  of 
times  in  reference  to  this  same  subject,  and  having  always  found  it  was 
of  no  use  to  talk  about  free  wool,  having  always  been  told  that  the 
wool-growing  interest  would  never  permit  it  (and  the  wool-growing  in- 
terest, as  we  all  know,  is  very  powerful),  I was  led  to  take  that  view  of 
the  question. 


474 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[m.  j.  cokbett. 


M.  J.  CORBETT. 

Long  Branch,  NT.  J.,  Avgust  16,  1882. 

Mr.  M.  J.  Corbett,  assistant  appraiser,  New  York  custom-house, 
appeared  before  tlie  Commission  and  made  the  following  statement: 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Please  state  what  division  of  the  appraiser’s  office  you  are 
connected  with. — Answer.  I am  examiner  of  silks  and  ribbons. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  employed  in  the  custom-house? — A. 
About  twelve  years. 

Q.  Will  you  please  indicate  to  us  in  what  respect,  if  any,  the  present 
tariff  laws  affecting  your  department  are  a source  of  trouble  or  annoy- 
ance?— A.  The  greatest  difficulty  we  have  at  all  times  is  to  ascertain 
the  market  value  of  goods  that  are  brought  into  this  country.  I do  not 
know  how  that  matter  could  be  remedied.  I have  made  it  more  of  a 
study  to  try  and  do  well  under  the  laws  as  they  exist  than  to  attempt 
to  devise  any  new  way  of  assessing  duties. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  Can  you  suggest  any  changes  which  would  be  desirable  in  the 
mode  of  classifying  the  duties  imposed  upon  silk  goods? — A.  Most  of 
the  silks  imported  are  received  on  consignment.  I think  perhaps  if 
there  was  a specific  duty  imposed  on  them  it  would  make  the  collection 
of  the  duties  much  more  certain.  I regard  a specific  duty,  however,  as 
a rather  unjust  way  of  arriving  at  that  result.  Still,  I think  it  would  be 
more  certain  and  more  uniform,  and  would  enable  us  to  place  the  same 
rate  of  duty  on  the  same  goods  every  time. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Have  not  your  duties  in  the  silk  and  ribbon  department  been  con- 
siderably lightened  since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  February  8, 1875? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  that  has  been  a great  relief  to  us,  because  all  the  manufact- 
tures  of  silk  now  come  in  under  one  clause. 

Q.  Is’  not  the  greatest  practical  difficulty  you  have  to  contend  with, 
that  of  determining  the  line  at  which  the  component  material  of  chief 
value,  or  the  component  material  of  a certain  specified  class,  is  to  be 
fixed? — A.  We  find  it  very  difficult  to  do  that. 

Q.  What  would  you  suggest  as  a remedy  ? — A.  I would  suggest  that 
the  clause  be  made  a little  broader,  and  include  more  mixed  materials 
under  one  rate.  For  instance,  if  the  article  was  one  where  the  chief 
value  was  silk,  let  it  pay  the  silk  duty;  if  its  chief  value  was  cotton,  let 
it  pay  the  cotton  duty.  When  an  article  has  as  its  chief  value  cotton, 
it  is  so  evident  that  it  is  no  trouble  to  distinguish  between  it  and  the 
25  per  cent,  goods,  which  are  very  difficult  to  distinguish. 

Q.  Inasmuch  as  silk  is  so  much  more  valuable  than  cotton,  whenever 
an  article  is  cotton  it  follows  as  a consequence  that  there  is  but  little 
silk  in  it,  does  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  your  idea  would  be,  as  I understand,  to  first  fix  duties  as  far 
as  possible  on  the  articles  that  pass  your  division  eo  nomine , and  then 
to  make  a class  which  will  cover  mixed  materials? — A.  Yes,  sir;  the 


m.  J.  CORBETT.]  APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  475 

more  simple  it  can  be  made  the  better  it  will  be  and  the  more  easily 
administered. 

Q.  When  any  question  arises  as  to  the  component  material  of  chief 
value,  how  do  you  ascertain  whether  the  value  is  up  to  a certain  stand- 
ard or  not? — A.  We  separate  the  component  materials  and  ascertain  as 
nearly  as  possible  the  proportions  by  weight,  and  estimate  the  raw  ma- 
terial. 

Q.  Do  you  often  have  to  subject  your  goods  to  analysis? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  It  requires  the  services  of  one  man  constantly,  to  analyze  our  goods, 
because  the  law  fixes  a line  of  values  for  component  materials,  and  that 
difficulty  would  be  obviated  by  a general  sweeping  clause.  We  take 
the  materials  as  we  find  them  in  the  article,  dyed  and  finished,  and  as 
there  has  never  been  any  specific  instructions  in  regard  to  them  it  is 
rather  an  open  question  in  the  courts  as  to  the  course  we  should  adopt. 

Q,  Are  not  what  are  commercially  known  as  silk  ribbons,  as  matter 
of  fact  silk  and  cotton  ribbons? — A.  Yes,  sir;  a great  many  of  them ; in 
the  retail  trade  they  would  be  known  as  silk  ribbons.  Among  the  large 
buyers,  however,  it  is  understood  pretty  well. 

Q.  Can  you  suggest  a sweeping  clause  which  would  take  in  silk  fabrics, 
such  as  piece  silks  and  ribbons,  which  are  the  principal  articles  of  im- 
portation; have  you  any  suggestion  to  make  which  would  include  those 
goods  which  are  bought  by  the  consumer  as  silk,  when  in  fact  they 
are  not  composed  wholly  of  silk? — A.  I think  the  “ component  material 
of  chief  value”  clause  would  do  that. 

Q.  That  would  open  up  the  question  of  value  again.  What  would  be 
the  effect  if  all  silk  goods  should  pay  a duty  by  weight?  How  would 
that  compare  with  an  ad  valorem  rate? — A.  That  would  depend,  of  course, 
upon  the  rate  of  the  specific  duty  which  would  be  applied. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  a great  many  fabrics  of  silk  are  “loaded.”  as 
it  is  called,  with  other  materials  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  many  are  weighted  fully 
100  per  cent. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  That  is  confined  altogether,  I suppose,  to  black  goods? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  The  100  per  cent,  weighting  is  only  on  black  goods. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  that  they  are  all  loaded? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  are 
all  more  or  less  loaded. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  What  rate  of  duty  per  pound  would  cover  the  present  ad  valorem 
rate  of  60  per  cent.? — A.  On  the  bulk  of  the  black  goods  we  get,  about 
$3.50  would  cover  the  largest  proportion ; and  on  the  colored  goods  about 
$4.50;  wlfich  rates  would  amount  to  about  40  and  45  per  cent,  on  the 
finer  goods  and  fancy  silks.  Very  few  silks  are  purchased  abroad  now'; 
they  are  most  all  in  the  hands  of  the  manufacturers’  agents  here,  and  it 
is  very  difficult  for  us  to  ascertain  the  market  value  of  the  goods.  Some 
of  the  importers  themselves  have  suggested  that  they  would  prefer  a 
specific  duty,  so  that  they  could  knowr  just  how  they  are  situated  in 
that  respect,  and  also  know  what  they  had  to  do. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Hnder  an  ad  valorem  duty  the  importer  is  fearful  that  his  competi- 
tor is  getting  the  advantage  of  him,  is  he  not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is 
what  they  fear.  One  of  the  largest  manufacturers  of  Europe  said  that, 
however  honest  he  might  be,  the  greatest  fear  he  had  was  that  some  of 


476 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[M.  J.  COKBETT. 


Ms  neighbors  would  undervalue  their  goods  and  get  ahead  of  him  in 
the  market. 

Q.  Have  you  conversed  with  any  importers  who  have  expressed  a 
desire  to  have  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem  rates  of  duty? — A.  Yes, 
sir ; a great  many  of  them  have  expressed  that  desire  to  me. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Are  they  the  importers  of  the  higher-priced  goods  or  of  goods  of 
the  cheaper  class  ? — A.  They  are  the  importers  of  general  merchandise 
and  of  all  classes  of  goods. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  you  hear  much  complaint  from  the  importers  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  charges  and  commissions? — A.  We  have  not  had  so  much 
complaint  recently  in  regard  to  that. 

Q.  Can  you  name  an  average  rate  of  percentage  which  could  be  added 
to  the  regular  commission  fixed  by  law  which  would  cover  the  charges 
in  the  line  of  goods  which  you  have  been  accustomed  to  examine  ? — 
A.  I think  one-half  of  one  per  cent,  would  be  a fair  average  rate. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  one-half  of  one  per  cent,  would  be  sufficient? — 
A.  Yes,  sir ; that  would  cover  the  charges  on  silks  fully. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  trade  would  be  satisfied  with  a fixed  rate  of  that 
kind  on  silk,  in  lieu  of  the  allowance  for  charges? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it 
would  be  much  better,  for  the  reason  that  as  the  instructions  are  now 
given,  when  the  charges  are  included  in  the  invoice  we  are  bound  to  be 
governed  by  it  unless  we  can  discover  a misrepresentation,  and  it  is 
impossible  for  anybody  to  discover  a wrongful  charge  of  40  or  50  francs 
on  a large  invoice  of  goods. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  The  instructions  of  the  department  at 
Washington  are  these:  That  if  an  invoice  states  that  the  charges  are 
included  in  the  prices,  that  statement  is  to  be  accepted  unless  the 
appraiser  is  convinced  it  is  false.  The  testimony  not  only  of  Mr.  Cor- 
bett, but  of  other  custom-house  officers,  which  has  been  given  before  the 
Commission  to-day,  is  to  the  effect  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  whether 
such  statements  are  false  or  not. 

The  Witness.  That  matter  does  not  trouble  us  so  much  now,  for  the 
reason  that  charges  are  included  in  the  invoice  as  a rule. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  You  say  it  does  not  trouble  you  ; do  you  mean  by  that,  that  you 
do  not  make  any  effort  to  find  out  whether  the  item  is  correct  or  not  ? — 
A.  No,  sir;  I mean  that  it  is  so  small  in  amount  that  it  is  impossible  to 
find  it  out  in  the  different  items. 


EDWARD  SHERER.] 


SUGAR  TESTS. 


477 


ED  WALD  SHEKEL. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  16,  1882. 

Mr.  Edward  Sherer,  chemist  in  charge  of  the  United  States  labora- 
tory at  New  York,  upon  the  request  of  the  Commission,  made  the  follow- 
iug  statement : 

I understand  the  Commission  desire  me  to  state  my  views  in  regard 
to  the  subject  of  the  importation  of  sugar  and  the  tests  applied  to  ascer- 
tain its  value  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  duties.  I will  remark,  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  Dutch  standard,  as  applied  to  natural  sugars,  or 
sugars  not  subjected  to  special  processes  of  manufacture  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  them  a dark  color  not  corresponding  to  their  saccharine 
strength,  is  a measure  of  value,  or  of  saccharine  strength,  which  in  accu- 
racy is  second  only  to  the  polariscopic  test,  and  has  the  advantage  over 
the  latter  in  requiring  no  special  expert  skill  in  its  use.  I am  of  opinion 
that  the  present  system  of  collecting  duties  upon  sugar  by  the  Dutch 
standard  should  be  supplemented  by  a provision  that  will  permit  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  determine  by  chemical  analysis  or  other 
means  the  true  color,  Dutch  standard,  of  sugars  the  general  character 
of  which  leads  to  the  assumption  that  their  saccharine  strength  is  in 
excess  of  that  of  the  class  to  which  they  would,  when  compared  by  their 
color,  seem  to  belong. 

The  gain  to  the  revenue  for  the  year  1880  over  1879  by  reason  of  the 
importation  of  sugars  of  lighter  color  was  $2,067,940,  a result  due  to 
the  Treasury  Department  order  of  September  2,  1879.  This  gain  was 
in  addition  to  that  derived  from  increase  of  duties  collected  by  the 
polariscope  test,  which  latter  has  been  refunded  to  the  importers  under 
the  Supreme  Court  decision. 

The  gain  for  the  year  1881  over  1880,  by  reason  of  higher  classifica- 
tion, was  $1,857,324.10,  of  which  there  was  paid  on  polariscope  test 
$708,810.99,  and  refunded.  The  gain  about  which  there  is  no  contro- 
versy was  $1,148,513.11. 

A provision  of  law  empowering  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  de- 
termine the  true  color,  Dutch  standard,  of  artificially  colored  sugars, 
would  stop  the  artificial  coloration  of  raw  sugars  and  restore  to  the 
Dutch  standard  its  true  character  as  a measure  of  saccharine  strength 
or  value. 

In  support  of  this  opinion  I would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
number  of  sugars  the  grade  of  which  was  varied  by  polariscopic  test, 
under  the  order  of  September  2,  1879,  diminished  greatly  under  the 
operation  of  that  order. 

The  system  of  classification  by  the  Dutch  standard  possesses  the  ad- 
vantage of  simplicity  in  its  application  over  the  polariscopic  test,  and 
with  the  provision- 1 have  suggested  to  prevent  its  falsification  no  better 
system  for  the  assessment  of  substantially  ad  valorem  rates  can  be  de- 
vised. A change  in  the  direction  of  simplification  might  be  made  by 
taking  Nos.  10, 16,  and  20  as  the  limits  of  the  different  classes  instead  of 
Nos.  7,  10,  13,  16,  and  20  as  at  present. 

On  the  25th  of  September,  1880,  the  Government  of  Holland  issued 
an  edict  subjecting  sugar  recognizably  colored  to  chemical  analysis,  to 


478 


TARIF1  COMMISSION. 


[edward  sherer. 


determine  the  class  to  which  it  should,  according  to  the  color  standard, 
belong,  retaining  the  color  standard  alone  for  all  other  sugars.  In 
France,  iu  1875,  a law  was  passed  providing  that  where  the  color  of  the 
sugars  does  not  appear  to  correspond  with  their  effective  richness,  re- 
course should  be  had  to  polariscopic  test  for  the  definite  classification  of 
sugars. 

If  it  be  not  considered  advisable  to  place  such  power  in  the  hands  of 
the  department  by  the  enactment  of  similar  laws  to  that  of  France  and 
Holland,  the  simple  adoption  in  the  tariff  laws  of  the  department  order 
of  September  2, 1879,  would  afford  ample  protection  to  the  revenue  and 
be  entirely  just  to  the  importers.  The  order  I refer  to  is  as  follows : 

“All  sugars,  the  apparent  color  of  which  as  imported  is  not  above 
No.  7 Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  which  contain  over  ninety -three 
per  cent,  and  not  over  ninety-seven  per  cent,  of  crystallizable  sugar,  in 
100  parts  of  the  dry  substance,  shall  be  classified  as  above  number 
seven  and  not  i.bove  number  ten,  Dutch  standard. 

“All  sugars,  the  apparent  color  of  which  as  imported  is  not  above 
No.  10  Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  which  contain  over  ninety-seven 
per  cent,  of  crystallizable  sugar,  in  one  hundred  parts  of  the  dry  sub- 
stance, shall  be  classified  as  above  number  ten  and  not  above  No.  13 
Dutch  standard.” 

In  concluding  this  hurried  statement  of  facts,  I will  simply  refer  to  one 
or  two  authorities  on  this  subject.  Dr.  Richard  von  Kaufmann,  one  of 
the  most  eminent  European  authorities  on  the  subject  of  the  relation 
of  the  sugar  industry  to  the  customs  and  internal-revenue  laws,  says, 
regarding  the  Dutch  standard: 

This  valuation  of  colonial  sugar  by  the  so-called  color  standard  originated  at  a time 
when  saccharometry  lacked  the  optical  aids  to-day  in  our  possession,  and  one  in  which 
sugars  of  tropical  origin  alone  came  under  consideration.  The  necessity  was  at  that 
time  already  felt  to  conduct  the  purchase  of  larger  quantities  of  sugar  on  the  basis  of  a 
certain  normal  sample.  The  Dutch  agents  and  brokers  came  to  a mutual  understand- 
ing, and  mixed  average  samples  of  the  Indian  sugars  handled  in  the  Dutch  market, 
of  which  the  best,  marked  No.  20,  represented  a nearly  pure  sugar,  which  was  dry, 
sharply  crystallized,  and  somewhat  grayish  white  in  color,  while  the  lowest  number 
represented  an  average  of  the  darkest-brown  sugars.  The  lowest  sort  of  those  that 
uow  appear  in  commerce  is  marked  No.  6,  and  represents  a dark-brown,  soft  sugar, 
rich  in  sirup.  The  numbers  lying  between  Nos.  20  and  6 are  progressive  transitions 
between  these  extremes. 

This  in  itself,  aud  under  the  then  existing  conditions,  not  unpractical  method  was 
at  the  time  adopted  with  all  the  greater  readiness  for  the  reason  that  the  need  of  a 
method  of  determining  the  value  of  crude  sugars  of  different  qualities,  resting  on  the 
simple  indications  of  the  senses,  had  been  equally  keenly  felt  both  by  the  manufact- 
urers aud  the  dealers,  in  the  estimation  of  the  commercial  value  of  the  article,  and 
the  revenue  authorities  ( fiscus ) for  the  correct  adjustment  and  apportionment  of  tax- 
ation. 

The  introduction  of  this  method  is  based  on  the  observation  that  sugar  in  a pure 
state  is,  in  itself,  throughout  white ; on  this  was  founded  the  theory  (annahnie)  that 
the  degree  of  coloration,  which  could  only  be  caused  by  the  intermixed  substances  or 
decomposition  products  of  sugar  adhering  to  the  sugar,  was  to  be  considered  as  a 
measure  of  the  lower  value  of  the  sugar.  At  the  same  time,  as  a conversion  of  the  crys  - 
tals to  powdered  sugar  caused  the  mass  to  seem  less  intensely  colored  than  would 
otherwise  be  the  case,  it  was  sought  to  perfect  the  method  by  testing  the  sugar  as  to 
the  sharpness  of  the  graiu,  which  could  be  felt  by  rubbing  it  between  the  fingers,  and 
finally  it  was  sought  to  estimate  the  degree  of  dampness  of  the  sugar  in  order  to  be 
able  to  approximately  determine  or  estimate  the  amount  of  water  contained  therein. 

The  color  types,  which  by  this  method  furnished  the  principal  criterion  of  the  value 
of  the  sugar,  had  originally  in  the  case  of  colonial  sugars  a tolerably  well  justified  im- 
portance, which,  however,  can  no  longer  be  ascribed  to  them,  since  technical  progress 
has  made  it  easy  for  the  industry  to  effect  the  coloration  of  raw  sugars  by  artificial 
means  without  materially  altering  the  value  of  its  yield  in  pure  sugar  (refined  sugar) 
— i.  e.,  ita  refinery  yield.  It  is  at  present  not  only  possible  to  prepare  raw  sugars  with 
a lighter  color,  which  shall  show  a bright  luster  even  iu  the  last  products,  without 
their  containing  any  more  pure  sugar  than  the  far  darker-colored  products  of  other 


EDWARD  SHERER.] 


SUGAR  TESTS. 


479 


manufactories,  but  sugars  of  high  percentage  are  frequently  colored  dark  in  order  to 
reduce  the  tax  or  duty  to  which  they  are  liable,  without  causing  them  to  suffer  any 
reduction  of  rehnery  yield. 

Dr.  Moore,  commenting  upon  this,  in  his  statement  relative  to  the 
artificial  coloring  of  imported  sugars  published  by  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, says: 

“ It  will  be  observed  that  the  authority  cited  defines  the  Dutch  stand- 
ard as  a measure  of  value  and  saccharine  strength  only;  the  compari- 
son of  the  shade  of  color  being  one  of  the  principal  indications,  but 
supplemented  by  other  tests,  having  for  their  object  primarily  to  ascer- 
tain whether  any  cause  exists  that  would  disturb  that  relation  between 
color  and  saccharine  strength  which  the  employment  of  the  shade  of 
color  as  a means  of  comparison  presupposes  as  an  indispensable  condi- 
tion. The  theory  underlying  the  Dutch  standard  is  clearly  enunciated, 
and  it  is  that  the  saccharine  strength  of  raw  sugar  varies  inversely  as 
the  intensity  of  the  coloration,  and  conversely,  that  the  species  of  color 
of  which  alone  the  Dutch  standard  takes  cognizance  is  that  species  of 
color  which*  varies  inversely  as  the  saccharine  strength.  That  this  is  the 
sole  sense  in  which  the  physical  attribute  of  color  is  employed  as  an  in- 
dication in  the  Dutch  standard  is  clearly  shown  in  the  description  of 
the  mode  of  applying  it;  the  precautions  as  to  the  feel  of  the  grain, 
&c.,  being  employed  to  ascertain  if  the  external  or  visible  color  of  the 
sample  does,  in  fact,  bear  that  relation  to  saccharine  strength  which 
alone  would  permit  the  application  of  the  Dutch  standard  by  simple 
visual  inspection  and  comparison. 

“The  Dutch  standard  is  described,  not  as  a series  of  colored  sub- 
stances, for  which  a series  of  strips  of  colored  card-board  might  with  per- 
fect propriety  and  vastly  greater  convenience  be  substituted,butasaseries 
of  sugars  representing  different  commercial  grades,  varying  progress- 
ively in  saccharine  richness  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  percentage 
of  saccharine  strength,  and  which  are  not  compared  with  the  sample  to 
be  tested  by  color  alone  without  careful  preliminary  tests  to  make  sure 
that  this  color  bears  a definite  relation  to  saccharine  strength.  Hence, 
from  the  first  origin  of  the  Dutch  standard,  and  in  the  country  where 
it  originated,  and  from  whom  we  first  learned  to  use  it,  it  was  the  cus- 
tom to  use  in  connection  with  it  the  best  tests  then  at  hand  to  make 
sure  that  the  external  color  of  the  sample  bore  this  necessary  definite 
ratio  to  the  saccharine  strength. 

“During  the  investigation  of  the  question  of  taxation  of  sugars  by 
the  French  ministry  of  agriculture  and  commerce,  Mr.  Peligot,  member 
of  the  Institute,  verificator-in-chief  of  the  assays  at  the  mint,  and  one 
of  the  most  eminent  chemists  of  France,  testified  as  follows  : 

“That  as  an  indication  of  saccharine  richness  of  a sugar  he  would  give  the  prefer- 
ence to  the  shade  of  color,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  types  (color  standard  tr.)  over  sacchar 
ometry  and  chemical  analysis,  always  on  the  condition  that  the  types  he  suitably 
prepared  and  renewed  whenever  necessary.  It  is  necessary  to  reserve  the  right  to 
have  recourse  to  saccharometry  in  certain  cases  as  a means  of  veriiication.  In  prac- 
tice for  the  government  the  shade  of  color  gives  results  as  exact  as  possible. 

“ Concerning  the  specimens  that  have  been  produced  of  low  numbers  (color  stand- 
ard tr.),  giving  a considerable  excess  (in  saccharine  strength  tr.),  they  have  been  made 
for  the  needs  of  the  cause;  they  do  not  constitute  the  effect  of  a new  and  bona-fide 
( loyale ) manufacture,  but  a means  of  defrauding  the  revenue.” 

“And  during  the  same  investigation  the  representatives  of  the  Agri- 
cultural Society  of  France  stated: 

“ In  short,  one  may  say  that  sugar  is  a docile  substance,  lending  itself  to  the  designs 
of  the  manufacturer,  who  can  make  of  it  a white  or  brown  sugar  as  he  pleases.  To- 
day he  uses  this  liberty,  thanks  to  the  system  of  types  (color  standard  tr.),  to  make  a 


480 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWARD  SHERER. 


sugar  of  a very  high  price  with  a shade  of  color  that  corresponds  to  a strength  of  only 
88  degrees.  The  sugar  is  colored  with  caramel ; this  operation  is  so  publicly  performed 
that  there  exists  at  Arras  a manufactory  hearing  the  sign  * caramel  for  coloring  sugar.,,■ 

u The  foregoing  ex-tracts  from  the  leading  authorities  in  the  principal 
countries  of  Europe,  as  well  as  in  the  United  States,  show  conclusively 
that  the  employment  of  the  indication  of  color  as  a means  of  compari- 
son for  classification  rests  exclusively  on  the  existence  of  a definite 
relation  between  color  and  saccharine  strength.  The  operation  of  classi- 
fication by  color  is  universally  held  to  be  identical  with  that  of  classi- 
fication by  saccharine  strength.  The  only  color  that  can  be  made  a 
basis  for  classification  is  hence  that  species  of  color  that  bears  a definite 
relation  to  saccharine  strength ; it  is  the  only  species  of  color  that  can 
be  measured  by  any  color  standard  for  purposes  of  classification.” 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  What  are  your  precise  duties  in  the  custom-house1? — A.  My  posi- 
tion is  that  of  chemist  in  charge  of  the  United  States  laboratory.  My 
duties  have  been  hitherto  mostly  in  the  testing  of  sugars ; that  is  my 
specialty.  I have  also  charge  of  all  the  chemical  work  done  at  the 
laboratory,  such  as  chemical  analyses  made  of  samples  sent  by  the 
appraiser’s  office  to  the  laboratory ; all  that  is  done  either  by  myself  or 
under  my  direction. 

Q.  I presume  that  you  have,  then,  a practical  experience  in  the  use  ot 
the  polariscope. — A.  I have  for  the  last  ten  years  made  that  a specialty. 
I have  been  in  charge  of  the  United  States  laboratory  for  the  last  two 
years.  For  eight  or  ten  years  before  that  my  business  was  testing 
sugars  for  the  brokers,  importers,  and  traders  in  Kew  York. 

Q.  You  have  quoted  at  length  the  order  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  of  September  2,  1869.  During  the  year  or  two  within  which 
that  order  was  acknowledged  as  authority  from  the  government  to  test 
sugars  by  the  polariscope,  what  was  the  result  of  your  testing  as  com- 
pared with  the  testing  by  the  importers ; was  it  identically  the  same, 
or  was  there  a broad  difference  between  the  two  tests,  the  government 
arriving  at  one  result  and  the  importer  at  another? — A.  There  was  a 
very  slight  difference.  In  many  instances  the  same  result  exactly  was 
obtained;  and  the  difference,  where  any  existed,  of  more  than  one- 
quarter  to  one-half  per  cent,  was  found  to  be  due  to  the  difference  in 
samples.  When  comparisons  were  made,  the  same  result  on  the  same 
sample  was  obtained  by  chemists  outside  the  department  as  was  ob- 
tained by  us.  There  was  a remarkable  uniformity  in  the  tests  made 
by  the  trade  and  by  the  government. 

Q.  The  difference  that  existed  was  caused,  not  by  the  difference  in 
the  instruments  but  in  the  difference  of  sampling,  as  I understand 
you. — A.  Yes,  sir.  The  instrument  is  one  of  the  most  exact  known  to 
chemical  science ; the  sugar  fairly  registers  itself — the  sugar  solution. 

Q.  The  point  you  make,  then,  is  that  the  slight  difference  of  one-third, 
one-fourth,  or  even  one-half  percent.,  between  yourself  as  the  government 
agent  and  the  importer’s  test  made  by  the  polariscope,  was  due  to  the 
difference  in  sampling,  and  not  to  the  difference  in  the  instrument? — A. 
Yes,  sir.  We  found  that  such  was  the  case  wherever  there  was  a varia- 
tion and  we  had  an  opportunity  of  making  an  investigation. 

Q.  Then  in  grading  sugar  by  the  eye,  which  is  tfie  Dutch  standard, 
that  same  cause  of  difference  would  exist?  Of  course  you  aud  the  im- 
porter draw  samples,  and  you  ask  a man  to  test  that  by  the  naked  eye. 
The  difference  you  think  between  the  test  of  the  government  and  the 
test  of  the  importer  would  simply  result  from  the  difference  in  sain- 


EDWARD  SHERER.] 


SUGAR  TESTS. 


481 


pies? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Differences  of  opinion  frequently  arise  between  tlie 
importer  and  the  custom-house  officers,  in  classification  by  the  Dutch 
standard,  in  that  way,  by  their  having  different  samples. 

Q.  The  fact  remains,  then,  that  in  the  Netherlands  and  in  France, 
where  the  Dutch  standard  was  first  adopted,  and  where  the  polariscope 
was  invented,  they  no  longer  test  by  color,  but  prefer  the  polariscope. 
Do  you  think  that  it  is  pretty  good  evidence  that  in  the  country 
where  the  polariscope  is  best  known  it  is  regarded  as  the  best  test  of 
the  quality  of  the  sugar  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  read  the-decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  on  the  question  of  the  issuance  of  this  circular  by  the  Treasury 
Department? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  objection  made  by  the  court  to  that  was  that  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  had  assumed  to  make  the  law  instead  of  following  the  law 
as  it  existed.  It  did  not  effect  the  question  of  the  value  of  the  polar- 
iscope as  a means  of  testing  the  quality  of  sugar,  in  preference  to  the 
old  method  of  testing  it  by  the  naked  eye  ? — A.  I do  not  understand 
that  the  decision  reflected  at  all  on  the  method  of  testing  sugar  by  the 
polariscope. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  It  simply  was  that  the  executive  department 
had  construed  a law  different  from  the  intention  Congress  had  in  mind 
when  it  passed  the  law. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir  $ I so  understood  it. 

H.  Mis.  6 31 


482 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GUSTAV  SCHWAB. 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  16,  1882. 

Mr.  Gustav  Schwab  of  New  York  City,  importer,  made  tlie  following 
statement  : 

I would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  fact  that  the 
use  of  the  polariscope  is  the  very  best  known  means  of  determining  the 
qualities  of  sugar.  It  is  acknowledged  to  be  very  accurate  indeed.  The 
differences  which  have  occurred  between  the  importer  and  the  govern- 
ment in  the  results  of  the  analyses  by  the  polariscope  are  caused  by  the 
sampling.  I happen  to  have  a cargo  of  muscovado  sugars  on  hand  at 
the  present  time.  When  the  cargo  came  in  and  was  landed,  our  broker, 
as  is  the  usual  custom,  had  the  sugar  sampled.  These  sugars  came 
from  a plantation  which  usually  turns  out  sugars  of  about  88°— a low 
grade  of  sugars.  When  the  samples  were  drawn  by  our  broker,  they 
Avere  immediately  sent  to  the  chemist,  who  analyzed  them  by  the  polar- 
iscope, and  we  received  the  report  that  300  hogsheads  of  that  sugar 
only  tested  85°  and  a fraction  over.  That  surprised  us  very  much.  The 
broker  also  informed  us  that  the  refiners,  who  also  draw  their  own 
samples  and  abide  by  their  own  tests,  only  made  these  hogsheads  test 
83  per  cent.  That  surprised  us  still  more,  and  I instructed  the  broker 
to  send  to  Brooklyn,  where  the  sugars  were,  and  have  them  resampled 
and  retested.  He  did  so,  and  the  result  was  they  produced  88  per  cent. 
Now  there  was  a difference  of  5 per  cent,  between  our  test  and  the  re- 
finers, test,  and  3 per  cent,  between  our  own  tests.  Therefore,  I say,  the 
great  difficulty  in  the  matter  arises  from  the  sampling.  It  depends 
upon  whether  you  draw  out  the  samples  from  the  top  or  the  bottom  of  the 
hogshead.  You  can  make  almost  any  difference  within  5 or  6 per  cent., 
according  as  you  draw  the  samples  from  the  top  or  bottom  of  the  hogs- 
head. That  fact  ought  to  be  considered  by  the  Commission  in  recommend- 
ing the  use  of  the  polariscope  as  a means  of  testing  sugar  to  determine  the 
rate  of  duty  to  be  paid.  I have  been  familiar  with  the  subject  for  many 
years,  and  I think  from  my  experience  that  you  can  make  no  better 
rate  of  duty  on  sugars  than  a simple  ad  \mlorem  rate.  The  value  of 
sugar  is  well  known  throughout  the  world.  No  great  frauds  can  be 
committed  on  the  revenue  by  the  undervaluation  of  sugars.  It  is  a low- 
priced  article  anyway,  and  if  you  put  an  ad  valorem  duty  upon  it,  what- 
ever it  may  be,  it  will  be  just  to  all  the  different  interests,  to  the  refin- 
ers and  to  the  importers. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  I do  not  know  whether  I fully  understand  your  views  in 
regard  to  the  polariscope.  Do  you  accept  the  polariscope  as  being  as 
nearly  complete  and  perfect  an  instrument  as  can  be  made  to  test  the 
value  of  sugar,  provided  the  same  samples  can  be  used  in  both  instances 
by  the  government  and  by  the  importer? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  say,  that  in  the  case  you  cited,  there  was  a difference  of 
5°  in  the  different  tests  made  from  the  same  sugars. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  if  you  draw  a sample  from  the  bottom 


SUGAR. 


GUSTAV  SCHWAB.] 


483 


of  the  hogshead  and  one  from  the  top,  that  the  difference  in  color  as 
seen  by  the  naked  eye  will  be  more  than  5°  ? A. — Not  always. 

Q.  But  as  a rule? — A.  O,  yes,  of  course  the  color  is  darker  where  the 
sugar  is  taken  from  the  bottom  of  the  hogslie.ul  than  if  it  is  taken  from 
the  top. 

Q.  Then  what  we  ought  to  do,  would  be  to  provide  a proper  system 
of  sampling,  provided  we  do  not  adopt  your  principle  ot  the  ad  valorem 
duty.  But  I am  not  discussing  that  subject  now  ; I am  only  ascertain- 
ing your  views  as  to  the  polariscope.  If  we  are  able  to  make  proper 
laws  in  regard  to  sampling  sugars,  you  think  the  polariscope  would  be 
as  good  a test  as  the  naked  eye  ? — A.  Yes  sir,  as  good  a test,  and  a 
more  proper  test,  because  it  gives  the  real  value  of  the  sugar  more  ac- 
curately. 

Q.  When  you  buy  sugars  yourself  in  your  own  business,  what  means 
do  you  employ  to  ascertain  the  quality0? — A.  I never  buy  anything  ex- 
cept refined  sugars.  But  I sell  sugars. 

Q.  I mean  when  you  buy  or  sell  sugars.  What  does  the  trade  gener- 
ally use  in  testing  the  value  of  sugars  ? — A.  The  first  thing  is  to  have 
the  samples  drawn  and  tested  by  the  polariscope,  by  some  recognized 
chemist  connected  with  these  broker’s  offices,  who  does  nothing  else  but 
examine  sugars. 

A.  Do  you  know  of  any  low  grade  sugars  passed  in  New  York  at  all 
which  are  not  bought  or  sold  by  the  polariscope  test  ? — A.  I do  not 
believe  there  are  many  at  this  time. 

Q.  Of  course  the  honesty  of  the  sampler  is  a great  protection  between 
the  buyer  and  the  seller.  If  a party  goes  into  the  market  in  New  York 
and  trusts  to  his  eye  alone  in  buying  sugars,  would  he  not  make  a sad 
mistake,  and  one  that  you  never  have  made? — A.  The  refiners  have 
acquired  great  dexterity  in  judging  of  sugars  by  the  touch  or  the  eye. 
An  experienced  refiner  will  come  very  near  the  true  proportion  of  sac- 
charine matter  in  the  sugar  by  looking  at  it,  or  by  touch  ; the  touch  is 
a very  important  point. 

Q.  The  law  does  not  provide  for  the  touch;  it  only  provides  for  the 
color. — A.  I know  it  does  not,  but  all  the  large  refiners  makes  the  po- 
lariscope test  of  every  particle  of  sugar  they  buy.  They  are  always  in 
the  habit  of  drawing  the  samples  poorer  than  our  brokers  do  because  it 
is  their  interest  in  crying  the  sugars  down.  But  that  comes  out  all 
right  in  the  long  run ; and  when  there  is  a way  of  sampling  sugars  accu- 
rately, that  does  not  enable  them  to  buy  the  sugars  cheaper.  But  it  is 
of  course  to  their  interest  to  decry  the  quality  of  the  sugar. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  an  instrument  in  use  (as  you  admit  the 
polariscope  is),  as  a tester  of  sugars  between  the  buyer  and  the  seller  all 
over  the  civilized  world,  is  an  instrument  that  could  be  well  adopted 
by  the  government? — A.  Yes,  sir,  as  an  instrument,  certainly;  I think 
it  is  a safe  instrument  to  adopt. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  You  say  you  would  recommend  the  imposing  of  ad  valorem  in- 
stead of  specific  duties? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  please  give  your  reason  for  that? — A.  Because  they  will 
operate  evenly  on  all  classes  of  sugar.  If  you  put  a specific  duty  of,  say. 
two  cents  a pound  on  refined  sugars,  all  the  East  India  sugars  will  pay 
one-fourth  to  one  half  a cent  more  duty  than  the  centrifugal  sugars 
from  Cuba,  because  they  contain  so  many  more  impurities;  that  is  self- 
evident,  I believe.  If  you  make  the  duty  simply  a specific  duty,  what- 
ever rate  it  may  be,  you  would  discriminate  against  the  low  grades  of 


484 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GUSTAV  SCHWAB. 


sugar  and  in  favor  of  tlie  high  grades  of  sugar.  If  it  is  only  a differ- 
ence of  one  cent  in  the  duty,  of  course  nobody  would  complain.  But 
the  effect  would  be  that  you  put  so  much  more  money  into  the  pockets 
of  the  Cuban  planters  who  raise  centrifugal  sugars,  and  you  make  East 
India  sugars  comparatively  cheaper  because  they  cannot  get  as  much 
for  their  sugars  as  the  Cuban  planter  who  pays  less  duty. 

Q.  Have  you  considered  the  liability  of  undervaluation? — A.  Of 
course  there  are  some  little  chances  of  undervaluation,  but  you  must 
not  forget,  gentlemen,  that  at  the  present  time  the  value  of  all  raw  ma- 
terials is  very  well  known  all  over  the  world.  We  get  importations 
from  Manila  and  other  East  India  countries  every  day,  which  have  been 
bought  on  telegraphic  orders,  naming  the  rate,  so  many  pounds  sterling 
per  ton  free  on  board.  * 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  Do  they  not  usually  add  u polarizing  such  and  such  a degree”  ? — 
A.  Ko$  they  do  not  guarantee  the  polarizing;  but  superior  sugar  will 
polarize  from  85  to  87 ; extra  superior  will  polarize  from  90  to  92.  In 
those  foreign  countries  we  cannot  buy  by  the  polariscope ; we  buy  by  the 
classification  which  is  established  in  every  place.  In  Manila,  for  instance, 
there  is  a certain  standard  of  a cargo;  it  is  always  bought  in  large  car- 
goes. There  is  a certain  standard,  which  is  obliged  to  be  two-thirds  of 
what  we  call  superior  sugars,  and  one-third  of  ordinary  sugars;  that  is 
the  standard  cargo  by  which  they  are  sold.  If  the  cargo  turns  out  better, 
it  is  something  extra;  if  it  turns  out  lower,  the  sellers  have  to  make  an 
allowance. 

Q.  I suppose  you  frequently  see  the  Havana  price  current? — A. 
Every  day  at  eleven  o’clock  you  have  in  the  sugar  exchange  the  quota- 
tions. 

Q.  Do  you  not  see  occasionally  the  Havana  price  current? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  always  stated  in  that  price  current  that  the  price  of  sugar, 
polarizing  such  a degree,  is  such  a price? — A.  I think  that  is  the  case 
in  Cuba  on  centrifugal  sugars,  but  not  on  muscovado  sugars.  .This 
whole  matter  is  governed  by  the  commercial  rules  which  apply  at  the 
place  from  which  the  sugar  comes. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say,  if  a duty  of  2 cents  a pound  should  be 
put  on  sugars,  it  would  discriminate  against  certain  kinds  of  sugars. 
Suppose  the  same  rate  of  duty  was  put  upon  every  pound  of  crystalliz- 
able  sugar,  as  determined  by  the  polariscope;  would  that  attain  the 
same  object  that  you  aim  at  in  suggesting  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  ? — 
A.  It  would ; that  would  be  an  ad  valorem  duty  essentially. 


GEORGE  W.  WEIKEL.] 


SPICES. 


485 


* GEORGE  W.  WEIKEL. 

Long  Branch,  K.  J.,  August  16,  1882. 

Mr.  George  W.  Weikel,  of  Philadelphia,  president  of  the  Weikel 
and  Smith  Spice  Company,  made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  I have  not  come  here 
with  any  set  speech  or  any  prepared  argument  to  lay  before  you,  but 
simply  in  response  to  the  invitation  which  was  given  to  me.  We  have  no 
favors  to  ask,  nor  are  we  dissatisfied  with  the  present  condition  of  things. 
We  have  no  complaints  to  make.  So  far  as  we  are  concerned,  in  the 
matter  of  spices  and  the  duties  laid  upon  them,  we  shall  be  perfectly 
satisfied  if  no  changes  are  made  in  the  present  tariff.  We  would,  how- 
ever, state  that  if  it  is  considered  a wise  policy  to  put  spices  or  any 
portion  of  them  upon  the  free  list,  you  should  have  regard  to  the  dis- 
tinction that  is  made  between  crude  spices  and  ground  spices.  At 
present  there  is  a difference  probably  of  50  per  cent.  Peppers,  for  in- 
stance, pay  a duty  of  5 cents  a pound;  prepared  or  ground  pepper  of 
different  grades  pays  a duty  of  10  cents  a pound.  Ginger  is  on  the 
free  list;  ground  ginger  pays  a duty  of  3 cents  a pound.  Mustard, 
which  is  not  strictly  speaking  a spice,  but  comes  under  that  head,  has 
different  rates  of  duty  upon  it ; mustard  seed  is  admitted  free,  while 
prepared  mustard,  which  requires  considerable  labor  to  put  it  into  mar- 
ketable shape,  pays  a duty  of  10  cents  a pound  in  bulk  and  14  cents  a 
pound  put  up  in  tins.  I do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  to  go  over  all 
the  articles ; there  are  but  very  few,  only  about  a half  a dozen,  upon 
which  any  change  would  affect  our  business.  We  would  be  perfectly 
satisfied  to  have  the  duties  on  spices  remain  as  they  are,  because  we 
think  they  are  not  burdensome.  The  consumer  certainly  does  not  feel 
the  burden.  There  has  been  no  change  in  the  duty  on  spices  for  ten 
years  probably,  although  I am  not  quite  sure  of  the  exact  length  of 
time.  The  collection  of  the  duties  and  the  prices  fixed  in  the  market 
for  these  things  seem  to  be  so  well  understood  that  any  change  might 
cause  a demoralizing  effect.  I do  not  know  that  I have  any  other  sug- 
gestions to  offer.  As  far  as  the  manufacturers  are  concerned,  I do  not 
know  that  they  are  feeling  the  burden  any.  The  price  of  pepper  to-day 
is  17  cents  a pound  and  the  duty  upon  it  is  5 cents  a pound. 

By  the  President: 

Question.  The  question  is  whether  the  consumers  would  receive  a 
benefit  if  there  was  a reduction  of  duty,  or  if  spices  were  placed  on  the 
free  list;  would  that  benefit  the  consumers  or  not  Answer.  I do  not 
believe  the  consumers  would  feel  it.  There  are  as  many  pounds  of  pepper 
used  by  consumers  in  this  country  as  of  all  the  other  spices  together,  and, 
therefore,  pepper  may  be  taken  as  a sample  of  the  rest.  I suppose  we 
manufacture  100  pounds  of  pepper  to  every  75  pounds  of  all  the  other 
spices. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  you  manufacture  it? — A. 
1 mean  that  we  grind  it  up  and  put  it  into  portable  shape  in  papers 


486 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEOBGE  W.  WEIKEL, 


And  tins  and  glasses  for  family  use.  A quarter  of  a pound  of  pepper  is 
usually  sold  at  retail  for  10  cents.  Competition  sometimes  brings  the 
price  down  to  8 cents.  I suppose  a half  pound  of  pepper  is  as  much 
as  the  average  consumer  uses  in  a year,  and  for  that  reason  we  say  that 
none  of  the  consumers  would  feel  the  effect  if  pepper  was  put  upon  the 
free  list  or  the  duty  upon  it  reduced. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Is  the  operation  of  grinding  pepper  a costly  one? — A.  No,  sir  ; it 
is  not  costly,  but  in  the  case  of  some  other  spices  the  grinding  is  costly. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a mill  do  you  use  to  grind  spices  in  ? — A.  We  use 
the  ordinary  burr  mill ; the  same  that  is  used  in  grinding  corn  and  flour. 
It  costs  from  75  cents  to  $1  a hundred  for  grinding,  and  then  there  is 
the  packing,  and  a certain  percentage  should  be  added  for  loss. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  is  the  percentage  of  tare  allowed? — A.  We  generally  cal- 
culate about  3 per  cent,  for  tare ; sometimes  not  so  much,  depending 
upon  the  condition  the  pepper  is  in.  Other  spices  cost  more  for  grind- 
ing ; they  cost  from  2 to  4 or  5 cents  a pound.  Take,  for  instance,  cay- 
enne pepper ; that  is  a very  hard  thing  to  grind,  and  the  process  very 
unpleasant,  and  then  there  is  not  so  much  demand  for  it.  When  we 
can  run  a mill  and  grind  from  5,000  to  10,000  pounds  of  spices  without 
stopping  we  can,  of  course,  make  the  cost  per  hundred  pounds  much  less 
for  grinding  than  if  we  only  ground  400  or  500  pounds  at  a time. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  there  is  a housewife  anywhere  throughout  the 
Western  country  who  does  not  grind  her  own  cayenne  pepper? — A. 
Ko,  sir ; there  is  a kind  of  cayenne  pepper,  called  Jersey  pepper,  raised 
in  this  State,  but  they  find  difficulty  in  grinding  it  or  having  it  ground. 
Years  ago  the  millers  used  to  grind  it  for  them,  but  they  have  stopped 
doing  that,  and  it  is  sometimes  sent  to  us  to  grind.  We  ground  some 
last  week  for  a party  who  lives  in  Trenton. 

Q.  I suppose  the  investment  required  for  the  process  of  grinding  is 
simple;  these  burr  mills  do  not  cost  a great  deal? — A.  That  depends 
upon  the  amount  of  business  a person  does.  You  cannot  start  a mill 
by  hand;  it  is  necessary  to  have  steam  machinery,  and  one  mill  will 
hardly  pay  a man  to  run  it.  We  run  three  or  four  mills  grinding  spices. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  spices  brought  into  this  country  are  man- 
ufactured?— A.  There  is  considerable  ground  mustard  brought  in,  but 
not  many  ground  spices.  We  seldom  come  in  competition  with  them. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  If  spices  were  put  upon  the  free  list  do  you  think  that  they  would 
be  brought  into  this  country  in  a manufactured  form? — A.  I think  if 
the  crude  and  prepared  goods  were  all  put  on  the  free  list  there  would 
be  a tendency  to  bring  in  manufactured  goods. 

Q.  Would  the  manufacturers,  as  a rule,  like  to  have  the  rude  goods 
put  upon  the  free  list,  and  the  duty  kept  on  the  manufactured  arti- 
cle?— A.  I have  not  heard  any  expression  from  any  of  them  upon  that 
subject.  I do  not  know  that  it  would  make  any  difference  to  us  whether 
they  are  put  on  the  free  list  or  not. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you  preferred  that  the  present  rates 
of  duty  should  be  kept  on  spices. — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  prefer  that  no 
change  should  be  made. 

Q.  Do  you  not  fear  that  if  a change  is  made,  and  any  of  these  items 
are  placed  on  the  free  list,  the  manufactured  article  will  be  brought  in 
from  abroad? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  think  that  it  would. 


GEORGE  W.  WEIKEL.j 


SPICES. 


487 


By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  In  your  opinion,  wliat  would  be  the  effect  upon  the  quality  of  the 
goods  if  the  foreign  manufactured  spices  were  brought  in? — A.  Ido 
not  think  it  would  have  any  effect  upon  the  quality. 

Q.  You  think  that  foreigners  are  no  more  apt  to  adulterate  spices 
than  parties  engaged  in  the  business  in  this  country  are? — A,  I do  not 
think  they  would  be ; I suppose  they  are  about  the  same  as  we  are  in 
that  respect. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  A suggestion  has  been  made  that  some  of  the  articles  used  for 
adulteration,  now  on  the  free  list,  should  have  a duty  put  upon  them, 
as,  for  instance,  almond  shells. — A.  We  do  not  have  occasion  to  use  a 
single  article  for  adulteration  or  for  mixing  that  is  not  raised  in  this 
country. 

Q.  Almond  shells  are  not  raised  in  this  country. — A.  No,  sir,  and 
we  have  never  had  occasion  to  use  them.  We  never  have  used  more 
than  a thousand  pounds  altogether,  and  that  was  simply  as  an  experi- 
ment. We  do  not  have  occasion  to  use  anything  of  that  kind  which 
would  be  imported.  Everything  we  use  is  the  same  as  on  the  free  list 
already,  because  it  is  not  imported. 

Q.  Would  there  be  any  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  importation  of 
ground  spices  from  the  fact  that  they  would  get  stale  and  unsuitable 
for  use? — A.  No,  sir;  I think  not.  Of  course  spices  deteriorate,  but 
not  rapidly.  They  will  lose  their  strength  in  time  unless  put  in  air- 
tight glasses.  I do  not  think  they  could  be  brought  to  this  country  in 
this  shape  unless  put  up  in  glasses  or  tins. 


488 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  T.  RYERSOX. 


WILLIAM  T.  BYEBSOH. 

Long-  Branch,  H.  J.,  August  17,  1882. 

Mr.  William  T.  Byerson,  of  the  firm  of  Byerson  & Brown,  of  Hew 
York,  made  the  following  statement : 

The  present  duty  on  hay  is  10  per  cent.  We  claim,  as  it  is  a raw  ma- 
terial, that  it  should  be  duty  free.  It  is  a very  bulky  article,  and  of 
course  the  further  it  is  transported  the  greater  the  expense.  It  is  an 
article  we  never  call  on  foreign  countries  for,  unless  we  have  a season 
of  scarcity.  In  ordinary  seasons  we  raise  all  that  we  need  in  this 
country.  Two  years  ago  we  had  a short  crop,  and  we  had  to  call  on 
Canada  quite  largely  for  hay,  and  we  found  the  duty  of  10  per  cent, 
added  very  materially  to  our  tax,  while  it  did  not  benefit  the  farmers 
throughout  the  country,  generally,  because  they  depend  mostly  upon 
their  local  trade.  Hew  York  City  supplies  not  only  this  local  trade,  but 
it  supplies  the  South  and  other  sections  with  hay.  I do  not  think  any 
interest  would  suffer  by  removing  this  present  duty  of  10  per  cent,  on 
hay  ; and,  if  we  should  be  cursed  by  a bad  season  again,  the  community 
would  derive  a benefit  from  the  repeal  of  the  present  rate. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  How  would  the  removal  of  the  duty  affect  the  American 
growers  of  hay  on  our  frontier  adjoining  Canada ? — Answer.  They  only 
raise  hay  for  their  own  use;  and  in  regard  to  their  location  on  the 
frontier,  the  freight  would  be  so  heavy  from  there  to  He  w York  (amounting 
to  at  least  $4  a ton)  that  I don’t  think  it  would  interfere  with  them  at  all. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Are  you  a farmer  ? — A.  Ho,  sir ; I am  consumer  only,  and  I appear 
here  only  as  a consumer. 

Q.  Your  place  of  business  is  in  Hew  York  City  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  - 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Are  you  a dealer  in  hay*? — A.  Ho,  sir;  only  a consumer. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  What  effect  would  the  repeal  of  this  duty  have  upon  other  localities 
besides  Hew  York1? — A.  I do  not  think  it  would  have  any  detrimental 
effect.  Take  Long  Branch,  for  instance.  We  are  consumers  at  Long 
Branch  as  well  as  in  Hew  York.  The  price  of  hay  at  Long  Branch  does 
not  depend  upon  the  price  in  Hew  York.  We  are  paying  $1.20  a hun- 
dred here,  while  in  Hew  York  it  is  only  90  cents  a hundred. 

Q.  What  effect  would  it  have  upon  the  Western  farmers? — A.  I do 
not  think  it  would  have  any  effect.  There  they  raise  hay  only  for  their 
own  use. 

Q.  When  you  speak  of  the  effects  on  the  border,  do  you  mean  on 
the  Canadian  side  or  on  this  side  ? — A.  I mean  on  both  sides.  The 
only  benefit  they  can  derive  from  shipping  hay  is  when  they  are  near  a 
shipping-point. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  States  do  you  refer  to  when  you  speak  of  the  farmers  raising 
hay  for  their  own  use  only  ? — A.  I refer  to  the  United  States  generally. 


WILLIAM  T.  RYEltSON.] 


HAY. 


489 


I am  told  that  the  South  looks  to  New  York  and  Maine  for  its  supply 
of  hay. 

Q.  Do  you  speak  advisedly  on  that  subject? — A.  I am  so  told  by 
people  in  the  trade. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  The  people  in  the  South  do  not  buy 
their  hay  from  New  York ; they  buy  it  from  Ohio,  Indiana,  Kentucky, 
and  Illinois. 

Commissioner  Garland.  It  is  within  my  knowledge  that  thousands 
of  tons  of  hay  are  shipped  from  Illinois  to  the  East  and  South. 

The  Witness.  I was  informed  this  morning  by  a gentleman  in  the 
trade,  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  hay  shipped  to  the  South  comes  from 
New  York  and  Maine ; he  is  in  the  room  now. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  In  the  small  city  in  which  1 live  I never 
have  heard  of  the  use  of  a bale  of  hay  that  came  from  New  York.  Our 
hay  comes  from  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois. 

Commissioner  Garland.  [To  the  witness.]  I think  the  gentleman 
who  told  you  that,  could  only  have  been  partially  informed. 

The  Witness.  I can  only  speak  from  tny  knowledge  of  the  trade  at 
New  York,  and  from  what  I learned  from  the  gentleman  who  gave  me 
this  information  this  morning.  He  is  in  the  room,  and  can  be  called 
upon  if  you  desire. 

Q.  You  do  not  vouch  for  the  reliability  of  his  statement  ? — A.  No, 
sir;  I only  appear  as  a consumer,  and  am  not  able  to  state  what  the 
facts  in  the  case  are  in  that  respect. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  revenue  is  derived  from  the  duty  on 
hay  ? — A.  Ordinarily  it  amounts  to  a very  trifling  sum.  Some  two 
years  ago  we  had  a very  short  crop  of  hay,  and  then,  so  I was  informed, 
we  imported  some  500,000  tons  from  Canada.  But  that  was  an  excep- 
tional year. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  was  the  average  price  of  that  hay  ? — A.  About  $10  a ton 
in  Canada. 

Q.  And  it  paid  a duty  of  10  per  cent.  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  If  the  duty  amounts  to  little  or  nothing,  why  take  it  off  to  favor 
one  locality,  when  all  the  great  agricultural  districts  are  concerned  in 
hay,  and  the  price  of  it  in  our  markets?' — A.  I do  not  think  the  agri- 
cultural districts  are  interested  in  the  question  of  the  duty ; I think 
it  is  only  the  large  centers  of  trade  that  are  affected  by  that.  Each  sec- 
tion, as  a general  thing,  raises  only  hay  enough  to  supply  its  own  wants. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  I can  only  speak  of  my  own  section — the 
valley  of  Virginia.  We  bale  hay  and  send  it  off  to  market,  and  it  is  a 
very  important  interest  with  us.  Perhaps  some  of  it  gets  to  New  York ; 
I do  not  know  about  that.  We  have  indigenous  grasses  that  are  very 
luxuriant  in  West  Virginia;  but  in  the  Valley  of  Virginia  a great  deal 
of  hay  is  sent  away  in  bales.  It  is  baled  in  presses  to  a very  consider- 
able extent. 

The  Witness.  We  receive  all  our  hay  in  that  way. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Frazee,  of  New  York  City,  dealer  in  hay,  said : 

Our  business  is  selling  hay  on  commission.  We  do  not  have  hay 
enough  in  this  country  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  consumers,  and  we 
desire  to  increase  its  production  in  every  way. 


490 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  T.  RYEKSON. 


By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Where  does  the  most  of  the  hay  which  you  get,  come  from  ? — A. 
New  York  furnishes  more  hay,  1 think,  for  this  market  than  any  other 
State,  and  I suppose  the  State  of  Maine  would  come  second,  and  Penn- 
sylvania third  in  order. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  get  supplies  from  Pennsylvania  as  well  as  from  New  York  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I suppose  the  hay  crop  in  Pennsylvania  pays  them  more 
than  any  other  one  crop  which  they  raise. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Do  you  desire  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  hay  ? — A.  No,  sir ; we  do 
not;  we  are  middlemen  and  do  not  make  any  recommendation  on  that 
point. 

Q.  You  are  not  asking  for  the  abolition  of  the  duty  on  hay,  then? — A. 
No,  sir ; we  are  not. 


A.  L.  SMITH.] 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


491 


A.  L.  SMITH. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  17,  1882. 

Mr.  A.  L.  Smith,  examiner  in  the  United  States  appraiser’s  Depart- 
ment, New  York,  made  the  following  statement: 

I desire  to  state  to  the  Commission  the  difficulty  which  has  arisen 
quite  recently  in  regard  to  ascertaining  the  foreign-market  value  of 
Mediterranean  fruits.  Mr.  Sturges  has  already  stated  that,  owing  to 
the  establishment  of  steamship  lines  to  the  Mediterranean  ports,  the 
fruit  trade  has  been  entirely  revolutionized.  Oranges  and  lemons  of 
every  possible  grade,  from  the  veriest  refuse  to  those  of  the  highest 
quality,  are  now  brought  in  immense  quantities,  and  are  for  the  most 
part  consigned  by  the  foreign  packers  to  their  agents  here,  and  invoiced 
at  nominal  prices.  Frequent  advances  are  made  upon  these  goods  by 
the  appraiser,  but  in  cases  of  reappraisement,  which  are  frequent,  it  is 
often  impossible  to  prove  the  foreign -market  value,  from  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  knowledge  of  any  cash  sales,  of  corresponding  dates,  to  be 
obtained  from  the  witnesses  called  upon  to  testifyj  although  these  em- 
brace the  entire  trade.  This  is  especially  true  in  the  case  of  fruits  from 
Palermo,  which  are  almost  universally  shipped  here  on  consignment. 
These  goods,  also,  being  of  a perishable  nature,  are  necessarily  permitted, 
landed,  sold,  and  dispersed  immediately  upon  their  arrival,  so  that  in 
case  of  reappraisement  they  cannot  be  produced  in  evidence.  Under 
these  circumstances  I think  it  has  become  an  absolute  necessity  to  im- 
pose a specific  duty  upon  these  goods  in  lieu  of  the  present  ad  valorem 
one.  This  duty  should  be  graduated  according  to  the  size  of  the  pack- 
ages j for  example,  so  much  upon  boxes  not  exceeding  a certain  meas- 
urement, and  a proportionate  increase  for  cases  and  unusually  large 
boxes.  The  statistics  necessary  to  formulate  this  can  be  obtained  at  the 
New  York  custom-house. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I would  suggest  to  the  witness'  that  he 
prepare  a paper  giving  details  and  hand  it  to  the  Commission. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Would  it  not  be  better,  instead  of  specifying  the  size  of  the 
boxes,  to  specify  the  fruit  by  the  dozen  or  hundred  ? — Answer.  I think 
not.  Boxes  of  the  same  size  contain  such  different  numbers  of  fruits 
that  all  would  have  to  be  counted  or  otherwise  estimated. 

Q.  Will  not  the  importers  increase  the  size  of  the  boxes,  as  in  the  case 
of  fire  crackers  ? — A.  The  size  of  the  box  could  be  definitely  specified 
so  that  any  increase  in  the  present  standard  sizes  would  involve  a pro- 
portionate additional  duty. 

Q.  Could  not  the  average  weight  of  the  box  be  ascertained  and  the 
duty  be  assessed  by  weight  ? — A.  It  could,  but  I think  the  cubic  con- 
tents of  the  packages  would  afford  a more  convenient  and  equitable  basis 
for  the  assessment  of  duty. 

Q.  Would  you  not  generally  prefer  a specific  to  an  ad  valorem  duty ; 
is  it  not  a better  method  of  collecting  the  revenue,  and  would  it  not  bet- 
ter satisfy  the  importers  ? — A:  In  cases  where  a specific  duty  would 
operate  equitably  it  is  to  be  preferred.  In  the  case  of  these  fruits,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  both  the  interests  of  the  department  and  of  the  im- 


492 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A.  L.  SMITH. 


porters  would  be  promoted  by  its  adoption,  and  that  the  importers 
would  be  better  satisfied.  A suggestion  has  been  made  that  the  duty 
upon  these  goods  should  be  assessed  upon  the  home  value , but,  as  they 
are  nearly  all  sold  at  auction  immediately  upon  their  arrival,  this  would 
necessitate  liquidation,  at  the  custom-house,  upon  the  auctioneer’s  ac- 
count of  sales  instead  of  upon  the  invoices.  For  similar  reasons  I would 
recommend  a specific  duty  upon  West  Indies  fruits.  I would  also  rec- 
ommend a specific  duty  upon  soaps,  in  lieu  of  the  present  mixed  duty. 
This  would  cause  the  badly  adulterated  soaps  to  pay  a higher  rate  than 
at  present. 


At 


DAVID  C.  STURGES.  ] 


APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y. 


493 


DAVID  0.  STURGES. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  17,  1882. 

Mr.  David  0.  Sturges,  assistant  appraiser  in  the  appraiser’s  depart- 
ment, port  of  New  York,  in  response  to  an  invitation  from  the  Commis- 
sion, made  the  following  statement: 

My  division  (the  tenth),  in  the  appraiser’s  department,  includes  gro- 
ceries, provisions,  wines,  cigars,  statuary,  and  furniture.  There  are, 
perhaps,  in  my  division,  fewer  incongruities  than  in  some  other  divisions. 
I have  not  many  suggestions  to  make,  except  in  the  direction  of  a simpli- 
fication of  the  tariff  and  the  advocacy  of  uniform  rates  of  duty  upon 
articles  of  the  same  class.  The  first  articles  upon  my  miscellaneous  and 
immethodical  notes  to  which  I would  call  attention  are  pease,  beans,  and 
buckwheat.  Pease  and  beans  belong,  generically,  to  the  order  of  seeds, 
and  should  be  classified  under  some  one  of  the  provisions  for  seeds; 
but  they  are,  by  a decision  of  the  department,  subject  to  two  rates  of 
duty.  (1)  When  they  are  intended  to  be  consumed  as  food  they  are 
admitted  as  “vegetables  not  otherwise  provided  for”  (10  per  cent.),  and 
(2)  when  imported  for  use  as  seeds  they  are  charged  with  the  duty  im- 
posed upon  agricultural  or  garden  seeds  (20  per  cent.).  Buckwheat  be- 
longs as  much  to  the  class  of  seeds  as  pease  and  beans,  and  is  quite  as 
much  of  a vegetable  as  either,  yet,  under  the  decision  of  the  department, 
it  is  not  classified  as  a’ “vegetable  not  otherwise  provided  for  (10  per 
cent.),”  nor  as  seed,  but  as  a “ non-enumerated  unmanufactured  article,” 
at  10  per  cent.  duty.  I would  suggest  that  one  rate  of  duty  be  placed 
upon  all  seeds,  except  medicinal  seeds.  The  provisions  for  “seeds  for 
agricultural  purposes ,”  &c.,  as  the  phraseology  of  the  law  is,  has  led  to 
the  decisions  of  the  department  which  I have  just  referred  to.  It  seems 
to  me  that  seeds,  excepting  strictly  medicinal  seeds,  irrespective  of  the 
“purposes”  for  which  they  are  imported,  should  be  classified  at  one  rate 
of  duty. 

The  next  article  to  which  I desire  to  call  attention  is  olive  oil,  referred 
to  in  paragraph  1344  to  1346  inclusive,  “ Heyl’s  United  States  Import 
Duties.”  Olive  oil,  under  the  present  law,  pays  a specific  duty  when 
“not  salad,”  of  25  cents  a gallon,  and  when  “salad,”  $1  per  gallon.  The 
practical  difficulty  we  have  had  in  administering  that  law  is  just  here: 
that  the  line  between  oil  “not  salad”  and  “oil  salad”  is  purely  imag- 
inary, and  the  constant  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  importer  is  to  get  in 
the  best  oil  he  can  at  25  cents,  as  oil  “not  salad.”  If  we  were  to  take 
the  dictum  of  Judge  Blatchford,  in  a case  tried  before  him,  for  a guide 
in  the  matter  of  classification  of  oil,  we  should  have  to  call  in  the  judge 
himself  to  determine  the  question.  He  said  that  oil  that  might  be  con- 
sidered and  used  as  “salad  oil”  by  a poor  Italian  or  Spaniard  would  not 
be  used  by  a connoisseur.  I suggest,  therefore,  a uniform  rate  of  duty 
upon  olive  oil,  either  specific  or  ad  valorem,  and  preferably  an  ad  valo- 
rem rate. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  Would  you  prefer  a specific  or  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty? — 
Answer.  I am  in  favor  of  the  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  whenever  practi- 
cable, because  of  its  abstract  justice. 


494 


TARIFF  C0MM1ISS0N. 


[DAVID  C.  STURGES. 


Q.  Are  you  in  favor  of  it  in  all  cases  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  or  with  very  few 
exceptions. 

Q.  Do  you  have  any  difficulty  in  arriving  at  the  true  value  of  olive 
oil?— A.  No,  sir;  I would  suggest  that  a low  rate  of  duty  be  imposed 
upon  olive  oil.  I think  that  what  we  consume  in  this  country  and  produce 
here  as  “ salad  oil,”  is  relatively  poor  stuff*.  It  maintains  about  the  same 
relation  to  good  olive  oil  as  oleomargarine  does  to  good  butter,  and  I 
would  give  it  about  the  same  relative  consideration.  I think  about 
nine-tenths  of  all  the  u salad  oil”  consumed  in  this  country  is  cotton-seed 
oil. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  objection  is  there  to  the  use  of  cotton-seed  oil? — A.  My 
objection  is  one  of  taste,  more  than  anything  else.  I do  not  think  it 
makes  a fine  salad  dressing  or  satisfies  the  taste  as  well  as  the  other. 
Nor  do  1 think  it  so  wholesome  or  so  easily  digested  as  olive  oil. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  taste  the  cotton-seed  oil? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I have.  In 
Providence,  R.  I.,  there  is  a large  establishment  mating  u salad  oil” 
of  pure  cotton  seed  oil.  It  is  not  a bad-tasting  oil  by  any  means,  and 
perhaps  the  more  obvious  differences  in  the  physical  properties  of  the 
oils  are  discoverable  when  you  come  to  make  them  up  into  the  form  of 
salad  dressing.  I should  think  there  could  be  no  doubt  at  all  that  olive 
oil  is  much  better  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  how  much  pure  olive  oil  is  received  into  the 
United  States? — A.  I could  hardly  approximate  that.  Perhaps  Mr. 
Examiner  Smith  could  tell  you. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Do  you  call  pure  olive  oil u salad  oil”?-*-A.  Yes,  sir;  unless  it 
becomes  decomposed  and  rancid,  and  then  it  does  not  rate  as  u salad  oil,” 
dutiable  at  $1  a gallon,  but  simply  as  oil  ‘‘not  salad,”  dutiable  at  25  cents 
a gallon.  The  department  has  held  that  the  very  offensive  olive  oil 
extracted  from  the  refuse  of  the  olive,  by  the  process  known  as  the 
sulphide  of  carbon  process,  is  entitled  to  free  entry  as  a u soap  stock.” 
Thus  we  have,  in  fact,  three  classifications  of  olive  oil. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  I desire  to  know  how  much  olive  oil  is  introduced  into  this  country; 
but  as  you  cannot  answer  that  question,  I will  ask  you  another:  Are 
you  aware  that  all  the  cotton  seed  oil  of  America,  except  what  is  manu- 
factured into  salad  oil  at  Providence,  R.  I.,  goes  to  the  Mediterranean 
ports;  that  is,  nine-tenths  of  it? — A.  1 have  heard  that  there  is  a large 
exportation  of  cotton  seed  oil  to  the  Mediterranean  ports,  and  that  it 
comes  back  to  us  from  Marseilles,  and  other  places,  mixed  with  olive  or 
sesame  oils. 

Q.  And  you  think  olive  oil  ought  to  be  assessed  at  a small  rate  of 
duty  ?— A.  I think  it  should  be  assessed  at  a rate  lower  than  the  present 
rate. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Nine-tenths  of  all  the  cotton  seed  oil  made 
in  the  United  States  is  sent  to  Marseilles,  Trieste,  and  other  Mediter- 
ranean ports,  and  made  into  olive  oil,  and  there  reshipped  to  the  United 
States.  I want  to  know,  if  we  allow  that  to  be  done,  why  they  should 
not  pay  a d uty  ? 

The  Witness.  There  might  be  some  difficulty,  perhaps,  in  detecting 
the  adulteration,  and  we  therefore  must  assume  that  it  is  olive  oil  when 
imported  in  forms  indicating  that  it  is  to  be  used  as  salad  oil. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  My  own  opinion  is  that  there  is  no  aduitera- 


DAVID  C.  STUKGES.  1 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


495 


tion.  I do  not  think  you  can  detect  the  cotton  seed  oil,  because  it  has 
all  the  characteristics  of  the  olive  oil.  It  is  easily  assimilated  and  com- 
pounded, and,  when  compounded,  it  is  returned  here,  and  any  one  who 
did  not  know  about  it  would  take  the  compound  or  mixture  as  pure 
olive  oil,  and  use  it  as  such.  Therefore  I do  not  see  why  it  should  not 
pay  a duty. 

The  Witness.  I am  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  imposition  of  a duty 
upon  it,  and  of  a duty  equal  to  that  imposed  upon  olive  oil.  But  what- 
ever rate  of  duty  is  imposed,  it  should  be  a uniform  duty  on  all  kinds  of 
olive  oil,  or  of  oils  clearly  similar  thereto.  We  want  to  avoid  the  difficulty 
of  drawing  the  line  between  oil  that  is  “ salad  oil”  and  oil  that  is  “not 
salad.”  I simply  recommend  that  one  rate  of  duty  be  imposed,  leaving 
it  to  the  discretion  of  the  Commission  to  determine  what  that  rate 
shall  be.  It  is  clear  that  it  must  be  an  ad  valorem  rate. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  As  a matter  of  fact,  oils  have  been  passed 
for  years  as  olive  oil  at  25  cents  a gallon,  which  have  been  afterwards 
used  for  salad  purposes. 

The  Witness.  I haven’t  a doubt  of  that.  The  poorer  classes  of  Ital- 
ians prefer  the  second  or  third  pressing  to  the  first.  There  is  a pun- 
gency and  bitter  flavor  obtained  in  those  grades  of  the  oil  to  which  they 
are  accustomed,  and  which  commends  them  to  the  Italians,  and  they 
prefer  them  to  the  finer  oils. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Your  point  is,  that  the  use  of  the  word  “salad,”  inasmuch  as  it  is 
descriptive,  not  of  the  article  itself,  but  rather  of  the  use  to  which  the 
article  is  to  be  put,  makes  too  indefinite  a line;  you  cannot  fix  it? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I would  recommend  that  the  law  should  read  simply  “olive 
oil.”  As  a matter  of  practice,  all  table  oils,  though  mixed,  are  invari- 
ably classified  as  olive  oil,  “salad,”  because  they  are  put  up  manifestly  for 
that  use  and  for  no  other. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  not  olive  oil  used  in  the  manufacture  of  wool,  and  in  the  arts  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir.  The  finest  salad  oils  only  can  be  used  for  that  purpose. 
That  is  an  additional  reason,  perhaps,  why  the  duty  on  olive  oil  should 
be  reduced. 

The  next  thing  I desire  to  call  attention  to  is  statuary.  There  is  a 
great  deal  of  confusion  in  the  law,  and  a great  deal  of  confusion  in  the 
decisions  of  the  department  respecting  the  meaning  of  that  word,  and 
what  is  intended  to  be  covered  by  it.  I would  suggest,  simply  as  a 
remedy  for  the  whole  trouble,  that  the  definition  of  the  word  “ statuary” 
(Heyl,  1349)  be  stricken  from  the  law,  and  that  the  word  “ statuary”  be 
left  there  without  qualification.  We  have  had  a great  deal  of  trouble 
about  the  words  “ professional  productions  ” in  that  definition.  The 
words  were  used,  apparently,  to  distinguish  professional  productions 
from  non-professional  productions,  or  original  works  from  copies,  per- 
haps ; but  I never  could  quite  understand  what  a non-professional  pro- 
duction of  an  artist  is. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  It  probably  means  the  production  of  an 
amateur. 

The  Witness,  No,  sir.  Copies  are  often  productions  from  the  same 
hand  that  produces  original  work.  My  recommendation  is  that  the  defi- 
nition in  the  law  be  stricken  out. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  You  suggest  “ paintings  or  statuary  not  otherwise  provided  for”  at 


496 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  C.  STURGES 


whatever  rate  may  be  decided  upon  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  I should  favor 
the  free  importation  of  all  works  of  art. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Would  you  include,  in  the  term  statuary,  that  which  we  see  on 
every  tombstone  in  America,  or  in  every  church  fa9ade,  on  every  altar, 
and  in  almost  all  of  our  public  buildings'? — A.  Statues  of  whatever 
kind,  when  imported  for  certain  purposes  and  under  certain  specified 
conditions,  are  already  entitled  to  free  entry. 

Q.  Do  they  come  in  free  under  the  section  you  have  just  referred  to  ? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  No;  they  come  in  under  paragraph  1726, 
when  “ specially  imported”  for  such  institutions. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  These  articles  would  not  be  specially  imported 
for  grave-yards  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  when  in  the  form  of  or  for  use  as  monuments. 
Grave-yard  statuary  is  statuary,  though  often  of  the  lower  order. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  There  are  thousands  of  these  objects  made 
at  home  by  our  own  people.  The  question  is  whether  we  will  ignore 
them. 

The  Witness.  We  haven’t  the  kind  of  marble  in  this  country  out  of 
which  statues  for  out-of-door  use  can  be  wrought.  Statuary  marble  is 
imported  from  abroad.  The  kind  of  American  marble  fit  for  sculpture 
does  not  seem  to  be  able  to  resist  the  effects  of  the  elements — the  frost, 
rain,  heat,  and  cold. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Your  suggestion,  if  adopted,  would  allow  all  kinds  of  statuary, 
including  church  statuary  and  ornamental  statuary  for  public  buildings, 
for  tombstones  and  monuments,  to  be  brought  in  free  ? — A.  I simply 
say  it  should  all  come  in  as  statuary,  at  a uniform  rate  of  duty ; but  I 
shoidd  favor,  as  I have  said,  the  free  introduction  of  all  works  of  art. 

The  next  item  I desire  to  call  your  attention  to  is  “ Bologna”  sausages. 
As  the  law  now  stands  “ Bologna”  sausages  are  admitted  free  of  duty. 
I would  recommend  the  striking  out  of  the  word  ‘‘Bologna”  and  leaving 
in  the  word  “sausages.”  A “Bologna”  sausage  is,  strictly  spejaking, 
a sausage  of  a particular  character,  and  made  originally  at  Bologna; 
but  it  has  been  imitated  and  made  elsewhere,  especially  in  France.  The 
design  of  that  law  was  undoubtedly  to  give  our  German  fellow-citizens 
free  sausages;  but,  as  the  law  stands  at  present,  it  only  embarrasses 
us  with  an  unnecessary  definition.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  law 
making  “Bologna”  sausages  free,  all  the  German,  Italian,  and  French 
sausages  came  in  under  their  proper  names,  but  as  soon  as  the  law  was 
passed  making  “Bologna”  sausages  free,  then  all  sausages  brought  in 
from  abroad,  from  all  quarters,  were  immediately  invoiced  as  “Bologna” 
sausages. 

The  next  item  on  my  notes  is  “cocoa.”  “Prepared  cocoa”  is  charged 
in  the  law  with  a duty  of  2 cents  a pound,  and  chocolate  with  a duty  of 
5 cents  a pound.  There  is  no  substantial  or  definable  distinction  be- 
tween the  two,  and  I recommend  a uniform  rate  of  duty  for  these  two 
articles. 

Q.  Are  they  produced  in  this  country  at  all,  or  can  they  be'? — A.  The 
cocoa  bean,  from  which  chocolate  and  cocoa  are  produced,  is  imported. 
The  cocoa  manufacturer  describes  his  commodity  as  chocolate  or  cocoa, 
according  to  his  fancy.  There  is,  as  I have  said,  no  substantive  dis- 
tinction between  the  two. 

I have  next  to  speak  of  boxes  made  of  American  shooks,  in  which 


DAVID  c.  sturges.  ] APPRAISERS  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  497 

fruits  are  imported — from  the  Mediterranean  chiefly.  The  law,  as  it  at 
present  stands,  would  seem  to  offer  encouragement  to  fraud.  It  has 
been  discovered  that  boxes  which  are  claimed  to  be  made  from  American 
shooks  have  only  their  tops,  bottoms,  or  sides  made  of  such  shooks, 
while  their  ends  have  been  made  from  foreign  boards,  or  vice  versa , 
and  it  is  simply  impracticable,  where  there  are  several  thousands  of 
these  boxes  arriving  almost  every  day,  for  any  corps  of  examiners  that 
the  appraiser’s  department  can  command,  to  examine  in  detail  all  these 
boxes  to  determine  whether  they  are  made  entirely  from  American  shooks 
or  not.  • To  admit  to  free  duty  boxes  made  abroad  from  American  shooks 
would  seem  to  be  a violation  of  the  principle  which  has  governed  Con- 
gress heretofore  in  admitting  free  of  duty  “American  products”  returned 
to  this  country.  Hitherto,  American  products  returned  were  entitled 
to  free  entry  only  when  returned  “in  the  same  condition  as  when  ex- 
ported.” The  American  shook  comes  back  to  us  in  the  form  of  boxes, 
with  foreign  nails,  and  made  by  foreign  labor.  I would  make  a dis- 
tinction between  boxes  made  in  America,  exported  and  returned,  filled 
or  empty,  and  boxes  made  of  shooks  simply  of  American  production. 

Q.  Would  not  that  whole  matter  come  in  under  what  is  called  the 
charges'? — A.  No,  sir;  because  in  the  matter  of  fruits  the  immemorial 
custom  has  been  to  make  no  charges;  fruits  are  always  sold  by  the  box 
or  case  at  a price  which  includes  all  charges,  even  the  shipping  charges. 
But  when  it  is  claimed  that  the  goods  are  imported  in  boxes  made  of 
American  shooks  or  in  American  boxes,  then  an  appraisement  is  made 
of  the  boxes,  and  the  value  of  the  box  is  deducted  from  the  value  of  the 
fruit  in  making  entry.  I do  not  know  but  what  my  suggestion  might 
result  in  checking  the  exportation  of  American  shooks  for  that  purpose, 
because  I doubt  if  boxes  could  be  made  up  and  taken  out  in  that  form 
profitably ; it  is  only  when  they  are  in  shooks  and  bundles  that  they 
can  be  exported  with  profit.  That  is  a matter  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Commission. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  You  simply  say  that  the  present  law  is  impracticable  and  cannot 
be  executed'? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  cannot  be  executed  with  any  certainty. 

The  next  item  to  which  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commis- 
sion is  starch.  My  only  suggestion  upon  that  is,  that  one  rate  of  duty 
shall  be  levied  upon  all  starch.  It  is  impossible  to  distinguish  between 
potato  starch  and  other  starches  without  a microscopic  examination, 
wliich  is  impracticable.  Besides,  different  kinds  of  starch  may  be 
mixed  and  mingled  together,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  separate 
them.  The  advisability  of  having  one  rate  of  duty  for  starch  will,  I 
I think,  commend  itself  at  once  to  the  Commission. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  the  object  of  having  a higher  rate  of  duty  on 
starch  which  is  made  of  rice1? — A.  No,  sir;  I see  no  reason  for  it. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Is  it  not  a better  article? — A.  No,  sir.  I think  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  say  that  one  kind  of  starch  is  “ better”  than  another.  None 
of  our  American  starch  is  made  from  rice,  that  I know  of.  Kings- 
ford,  the  largest  manufacturer  in  this  country,  makes  his  starch  from 
the  cereals  chiefly,  I think,  but  starch  is  also  made  largely  from  pota- 
toes. There  is  really  nothing  but  a distinction  of  form  between  the 
starches. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  market  price  of  the  two  varieties? — 

H.  Mis.  0 32 


4.98 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  C.  STUHGES- 


A.  Bice  starch  is  not  imported  mice  in  five  or  ten  years,  and  then  only 
as  a private  importation.  It  costs  about  the  same  as  other  starches. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Is  there  any  large  quantity  of  starch  of  any  variety  imported? — 
A.  There  is  a very  considerable  quantity  of  potato  starch  imported,  in 
one  form  or  another.  It  is  sometimes  attempted  to  be  brought  in  under 
the  name  of  farina.  Some  one  had  the  ingenuity  to  go  to  Congress 
some  years  ago  and  get  a provision  inserted  in  the  law  for  “root  flour, ,r 
whatever  that  may  mean.  The  first  result  of  that  was  that  arrowroot 
(provided  for  eo  nomine  at  30  per  cent.)  was  admitted  free.  But  that 
was  soon  corrected.  I would  also  suggest  that  where  a provision  in 
the  law  fixes  the  rate  per  gallon  or  per  bushel,  there  should  be  a defini- 
tion of  the  gallon  or  bushel,  and  so  of  the  barrel,  box,  case,  &c. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Articles  which  come  in  in  tin  cans  cannot 
be  gauged,  and  so  they  have  to  be  weighed. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  Paragraph  985,  Heyl,  contains  two  provis- 
ions for  spirits  under  proof;  one  provision  being  that  it  shall  pay  not  less 
than  spirits  of  proof;  and  the  other  provision  being  that  it  shall  pay  not 
less  than  50  percentum  ad  valorem.  The  first  in  the  order  of  these  pro- 
visions is  the  latest,  in  point  of  fact,  in  the  order  of  legislation,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  one  was  intended  to  repeal  the  other.  It  would 
be  desirable  to  have  but  one  provision,  and  I recommend,  therefore, 
that  all  spirituous  liquors  under  proof  be  made  dutiable  as  proof  at  $2 
per  gallon,  if  that  shall  be  the  rate  of  duty  decided  upon.  The  provision 
imposing  the  ad  valorem  duty  of  50  percentum  operates  only  when 
brandy  is  “under  proof,”  and  the  result  is  that  a very  fine  old  brandy, 
almost  always  “ under  proof,”  is  brought  to  proof  in  order  to  avoid  the 
ad  valorem  duty,  and  thus  all  fine  old  brandy  is  received.  Farina,  in 
paragraph  1585,  Heyl,  is  in  the  free  list,  but  flour  of  every  kind  is  re- 
quired to  pay  20  per  cent.  duty.  Either  you  should  make  farina  pay  20 
per  cent,  duty  or  admit  flour  free.  Why  should  curry  and  “curry  pow- 
ders” be  admitted  free,  and  spices  be  variously  provided  for  at  different 
rates  of  duty?  Why  should  not  all  spices  pay  a uniform  rate?  There 
are  now  almost  as  many  rates  as  there  are  spices.  They  come  in  com- 
petition with  no  domestic  industry  except,  perhaps,  in  the  production  of 
mustard.  We  cannot  grow  pepper  here,  cinnamon,  nor  all  spice,  which 
are  imported  under  these  provisions. 

Q.  Could  not  all  unmanufactured  or  unground  spices  be  admitted  free, 
and  all  manufactured  spices  be  put  at  one  rate  of  duty  ? — A.  That  would 
be  a very  fair  provision. 

Q.  Would  you  suggest  the  phrasing  of  the  law,  manufactured  or 
ground  spices,  or  what? — A.  Ground  spices,  I think,  would  cover  it. 
Sauces  made  of  spices  are  already  provided  for;  and  mustard  alone, 
when  mixed  in  pots,  is  classified  as  a “ sauce”  at  35  per  cent.  These 
distinctions  in  rates  of  duty  might  be  done  away  with  without  any 
detriment  to  our  industries. 

Iu  paragraph  1597  (HeyPs  U.  S.  Import  Duties),  you  will  find  a pro- 
visiou  for  “fruit-plants,  tropical  and  semi-tropical.”  I would  suggest 
the  making  of  a uniform  duty  on  all  plants,  or  let  all  plants  come  in 
free. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Do  you  mean  all  plants,  or  simply  all  fruit-plants? — A.  I do  not 
know  why  all  plants  and  all  fruit-plants  should  not  be  admitted  at  the 
same  rate,  or  all  be  made  free. 


DAVID  C.  STUBGEb.  1 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


499 


By  the  President  : 

Q.  Would  that  not  affect  our  nurserymen? — A.  Not  any  more  than  it 
would  affect  the  florist. 

Q.  But  it  would  affect  both  of  them,  would  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but 
beneficially,  I think,  in  the  long  run. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  The  introduction  of  plants  is  generally  made 
for  the  purpose  of  enlarging  the  character  and  species  of  the  plants. 
No  one  can  grow  plants  in  Europe  and  compete  with  our  domestic 
growers. 

The  President.  Rhododendrons  and  azalias  are  imported  in  large 
quantities  from  Europe.  They  are  grown  in  the  gardens  and  nurseries 
of  Europe,  and  compete  with  our  own  productions.  I know  there  are 
enormous  importations  of  them.  I know  one  gentleman  who  has  intro- 
duced thousands  of  them  from  different  ports  in  Europe. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Then  your  suggestion  is  that  the  words  u tropical  and  semi-tropi- 
cal,” in  paragraph  1597,  should  be  stricken  out? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; all  that 
paragraph  or  provision.  1 suggest  that  so  as  to  make  the  rate  uniform. 

Paragraph  No.  1281,  in  Heyl’s  Digest,  has  a provision  for  green 
fruits.  By  reading  that  provision  you  will  find  that  certain  fruits  are 
charged  with  a duty  of  10  percentum,  while  othe  rs  are  charged  with  a 
duty  of  20  percentum.  I see  no  reason  for  that  distinction.  It  would 
simplify  the  matter  very  much  to  put  them  all  at  one  rate  of  duty. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  have  you  to  say  about  the  clause  providing  for  damage  or 
decay,  contained  in  the  same  paragraph ; is  not  that  a source  of  a great 
deal  of  trouble ; is  it  not  a blind  section? — A.  That  section  was  adapted 
to  importations  as  they  used  to  be  made  in  sailing  vessels,  before  the 
introduction  of  direct  steam  transport  from  the  Mediterranean. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  The  Treasury  Department  has  decided  in 
different  ways  in  regard  to  that  paragraph ; there  have  been  at  least 
four  different  decisions  in  regard  to  it. 

The  Witness.  After  many  decisions,  I think  the  department  has  at 
last  come  to  a proper  determination  of  the  meaning  of  the  law.  But 
this  paragraph  allows  only  for  an  excess  of  damage  over  25  per  centum, 
and  that  would  not  now  seem  to  be  just.  Under  the  old  system  of  im- 
portation, by  sailing  vessels,  it  was  probably  a fact  that  an  average  of 
25  per  cent,  of  the  fruit  would  be  spoiled.  The  government  thought  it 
ought  not  to  allow  any  abatement  of  duty  on  decayed  fruit  necessarily 
decayed;  that  that  was  a risk  properly  belonging  to  the  importer  or 
shipper.  But  since  we  began  to  import  fruit  from  the  Mediterranean 
almost  exclusively  in  steam  vessels  there  is  a much  smaller  average  per- 
centage of  damage  on  the  voyage.  Under  existing  circumstances  1 
think  an  allowance  for  damage  should  be  made  upon  the  excess  over  10 
or  15  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Would  you  not  favor  instead  of  that  an  allowance  of  a certain  per- 
centage in  lieu  of  damages,  the  same  as  the  law  at  present  provides  for 
the  breakage  on  bottles  ? How  would  it  do  to  say  10  or  15  or  25  per 
cent.,  or  whatever  rate  is  agreed  upon,  as  an  allowance  upon  all  impor- 
tations of  green  fruits  in  lieu  of  all  damages,  and  making  no  further 
allowance  ? — A.  While  that  would  simplify  the  matter  at  the  custom- 
house it  would  perhaps  work  a great  injustice  to  the  importer.  An  im- 


500 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  C STURGES. 


porter  getting  his  fruit  in  sound  condition  under  the  provision  you  pro- 
pose would  beallowed  the  damage,  while  another  who  had  suffered  much 
greater  damage  than  the  allowed  percentage  would  cover  would  not  get 
a proper  allowance,  and  in  a single  importation  it  might  work  the  for- 
tune or  ruin  of  the  one  or  the  other  importer.  Many  boxes  of  fruit  are 
imported  which  are  found  to  be  entirely  sound.  I do  not  know  that 
there  are  any  invoices  brought  in  where  the  whole  amount  could  be  said 
to  be  sound,  though  the  whole  may  be  nearly  sound. 

Q.  Are  fruits  insured  against  such  damage? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I believe 
so. 

Q.  Then  it  is  an  insurable  interest  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  an  importer  need  not  be  ruined  if  he  takes  the  precaution  of 
insuring  his  goods  ? — A.  No,  sir;  but  that  would  add  an  item  of  ex- 
pense for  insurance  which  they  do  not  incur  now,  and  so,  indirectly,  in- 
crease the  rate  of  duty. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  There  are  a great  many  chances  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in 
the  shipment  of  fruit? — A.  Yes;  it  is  very  much  a matter  of  chance, 
but  not  so  much  so  as  formerly.  Nearly  all  the  fruit  sent  here  is  sent 
on  consignment. 

The  next  article  on  my  notes  is  bulbs,  mentioned  in  paragraph  No. 
1221  of  Heyl : “ Bulbous  roots  not  otherwise  provided  for,  30  per  centum 
ad  valorem.”  I do  not  see  why  bulbs  might  not  be  put  with  plants 
under  section  1388,  and  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty — 20  per  centum. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Have  you  not  had  the  question  brought  up  as  to  what  was  a root, 
and  what  was  a bulb? — A.  Yes,  sir;  especially  in  reference  to  u lilies  of 
the  valley,”  so  called.  In  the  catalogues  they  are  put  among  the 
liliums , or  bulbs,  but  they  are  not,  strictly  speaking,  bulbs,  and  are  now 
classified  as  plants. 

I have  made  a note  in  my  memoranda  in  regard  to  apollinaris  and 
other  mineral  waters,  although  they  do  not  come  in  through  my  divis- 
ion. I should  suggest  a simplification  of  the  law  by  such  changes  in  it 
as  would  make  its  purpose  clear.  Under  paragraph  1672,  natural 
mineral  waters  are  now  free.  I believe  there  was  an  extra-natural 
amount  of  carbonic  acid  gas  said  to  be  found  in  the  apollinaris  water, 
and  there  was  some  addition  made  to  it  of  chloride  of  sodium,  or  salt. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  not, 
therefore,  made  an  artificial  mineral  water,  and  I agree  with  him.  Mr. 
Shultz,  a manufacturer  of  imitation  or  of  purely  artificial  waters,  thought 
that  the  addition  of  salt  and  an  assumed  artificial  introduction  of  car- 
bonic acid  gas  made  it  “ artificial,”  and  that  it  ought  to  pay  duty  as 
such.  I would  change  the  law  so  as  to  make  “ imitations  of  natural 
mineral  waters,  or  waters  wholly  artificial,”  chargeable  with  the  duty 
now  chargeable  upon  artificial  waters. 

Q.  You  would  simply  recommend  a simplification  of  the  present 
phraseology  of  the  law? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  about  what  it  would 
amount  to.  At  present,  jellies  pay  50  per  cent,  duty,  and  preserves  35 
per  cent.  duty.  I see  no  reason  for  a discrimination  between  them. 

Section  953  (Heyl),  relating  to  u glass  bottles,  or  jars,  filled  with 
articles  not  otherwise  provided  for,”  is  a much  contested  provision.  I 
would  suggest  a repeal  of  this  provision.  1 think  no  member  of  the 
Commission  could  read  that  paragraph  without  a first  impression  that 
the  duty  was  intended  to  be  imposed  upon  the  u articles”  with  which 


DAVID  C.  STURGE6.  1 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


501 


the  bottle  was  filled;  but  the  department  has  decided  that  the  duty 
falls  upon  the  bottle  “not  otherwise  provided  for,”  and  not  upon  the 
article  that  fills  it,  “not  otherwise  provided  for,”  and  T believe  that  is 
the  true  construction  of  the  law. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  would  you  suggest  as  an  amendment! — A.  I would  suggest 
the  repeal  of  this  provision  which  relates  to  the  duties  on  “ bottles  filled 
with  articles.”  When  articles  that  pay  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  get 
into  bottles,  the  rate  on  the  bottle  is  the  same  as  the  rate  on  its  con- 
tents. I suppose  it  is  not  the  intention  of  this  Commission  to  depart 
from  the  old  rule  that  “free  goods  make  free  packages,”  and  will  con- 
clude that  free  contents  make  free  bottles. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  What  do  you  recommend  in  regard  to  paragraph  954,  providing 
for  “ glass  bottles  or  jars  filled  with  sweetmeats  or  preserves”! — A.  I 
would  recommend  that  that  portion  of  the  paragraph  be  repealed. 

I would  also  like  to  say  a word  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  charges 
and  commissions.  1 would  recommend  a return  to  the  law  abolishing 
the  duties  upon  charges  and  commissions.  I can  see  no  reason  why  a 
box  sent  with  silks  from  Lyons  should  pay  00  per  cent,,  and  another  box 
sent  with  figs  from  Smyrna  should  pay  nothing.  Boxes  are  merely 
vehicles  of  trade.  Commissions  are  purely  imaginary  and  arbitrary. 
The  statute  says  that  in  all  cases  not  less  than  2J  percent.,  or  the  usual 
commission  of  the  place  in  which  the  goods  are  brought,  shall  be  added 
to  make  dutiable  value. 

These  commissions  are  never  paid,  of  course,  in  cases  where  goods 
are  consigned;  and  I presume  that  in  99  per  cent,  of  the  purchases  there 
is  no  charge  incurred  for  commissions.  The  goods  are  purchased  by 
the  agent  of  the  merchant  who  goes  to  the  other  side,  and  you  might  as 
well  provide  that  he  should  render  an  account  to  the  government  of  the 
cost  of  his  voyage,  and  that  at  the  end  of  the  year  the  entire  sum  of  the 
importation  should  be  made  up,  and  that  whatever  percentage  his  ex- 
penses would  make  upon  that  sum  should  be  fixed  as  a dutiable  charge. 
I never  could  see  any  justice  or  equity  in  charging  upon  costs  that  do 
not  exist. 

Q.  Aside  from  these  considerations,  is  it  not  a source  ot  constant  an- 
noyance and  trouble,  both  to  the  importer  and  the  custom-house  officer, 
in  distributing  these  charges  and  commissions  on  different  goods  and 
different  invoices! — A.  Yes,  sir,  it  is.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
that  matter  in  our  department  except  to  add  them.  But  the  depart- 
ment has  made  some  remarkable  decisions  in  regard  to  this  matter  of 
charges  in  the  last  two  or  three  years.  For  instance,  from  time  imme- 
morial, fruits  have  been  bought  by  the  case  or  box,  “free  on  board,”  in- 
cluding all  charges.  The  department  made  a rule  to  the  effect  that  the 
appraiser  should  not  recognize  that  existing  practice,  but  should  add 
charges  and  commissions  in  all  cases  where  they  were  not  “ specified 
upon  the  invoices,”  or  where  the  invoices  did  not  claim,  in  words,  that 
they  were  “included  in  the  price”  of  the  goods.  In  other  words,  to 
neglect  to  put  “ f.  o.  b.”  on  the  invoices  was  punished  by  a very  heavy 
penalty,  which  was  in  the  nature  of  a penalty  for  not  putting  charges 
on  the  invoices  which  did  not  belong  there. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  The  department  went  further  than  that. 
If  an  invoice  was  presented  and  the  letters  “f.  o.  b.”  were  omitted,  a 
subsequent  invoice  produced  with  the  letters  “f.  o.  b”  omitted,  and  the 


502 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  C.  STURGES. 


appraiser  attempted  to  correct  it,  lie  must  make  a double  addition  in 
estimating  tlie  duty,  because  the  first  invoice  did  not  show  “f.  o.  b.” 

The  Witness.  I believe  that  it  did  go  to  that  extent.  But  in  every 
report  which  I have  made  on  such  a case  I have  said,  “It  is  the  judg- 
ment of  the  expert,  in  which  I concur,  that  the  prices  cover  the  charges.” 
There  has  been  a modification  of  that  decision,  I believe,  recently. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  was  not  the  intent  originally,  in  putting 
charges  and  commissions  on  goods  dutiable  ad  valorem,  to  have  the 
cost  the  same  to  all  importers?  Take,  for  instance,  a house  which  has 
an  agency  in  New  York,  and  the  manufacturer  sends  his  goods  without 
cost ; they  are  at  no  expense  at  all  in  regard  to  the  buying.  Their 
goods  come  in  without  these  charges  and  commissions  really  having 
been  incurred.  You  have  referred  to  cases  where  you  say  you  have 
doubt  as  to  whether  any  charges  and  commissions  were  paid.  Smaller 
importing  houses  are  compelled  to  send  their  buyers  to  the  other  side, 
and  spend  money  in  order  to  examine  the  goods,  and  they  are  at  a cost 
which  the  government  has  heretofore  allowed  at  2J  per  cent.,  as  laid 
down  in  the  statute.  If  the  smaller  house  spends  that  money,  the  larger 
house  with  its  agent  here  spends  nothing.  One  house  gets  the  2^  per 
cent,  commission  without  having  paid  it,  and  they  would  have  a direct 
advantage  if  the  government  did  not  say  that  it  costs  so  much  money 
to  buy  these  goods.  The  average  cost  of  buying  goods  is  2J  per  cent., 
because  they  have  to  employ  a broker  or  a buyer  on  the  other  side  and 
pay  other  expenses  that  everybody  knows  are  connected  with  the  pur- 
chase of  goods. 

The  Witness.  If  you  will  just  reverse  your  statement  you  will  be 
nearer  the  fact  than  you  are.  It  is  not  the  large  house  which  pajTs  the 
commission,  but  the  small  one. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  is  what  I said.  I say  that  the  small 
house  pays  the  commission  generally. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  but  the  larger  house  sends  out  its  buyer,  while 
the  smaller  house  buys  through  an  agent.  It  has  to  pay  a small  com- 
mission, but  that  does  not  amount  to  as  much  in  making  limited  pur- 
chases as  sending  a man  to  Europe. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  We  all  recognize  the  trouble  arising  in  regard 
to  this  matter  of  charges.  The  commissions  are  fixed.  Now,  suppose 
the  rate  of  percentage  were  fixed  and  added  on  all  goods  for  charges 
and  commissions,  would  not  that  relieve  you  of  all  these  troubles  you 
have  spoken  of? — A.  There  would  be  less  objection  to  the  commission 
if  it  was  done  in  that  way — by  putting  a uniform  rate  of  duty  on  the 
commissions  or  on  the  charges. 

Q.  There  is  no  question  but  what  the  invoice  is  made  as  low  as  it  is 
possible  to  make  it? — A.  Of  course. 

Q.  Then  their  intention  is  to  add  the  expenses  of  packing,  freights, 
commissions  to  brokers  and  buyers,  telegraphing,  and  postage,  and  all 
these  small  items  that  are  directly  chargeable  upon  the  purchase  and 
sale  of  goods.  If  a sum  was  fixed — a general  percentage  to  cover  that 
— would  not  that  do  away  with  all  the  trouble  ? — A.  Supposing  an  arti- 
cle is  made  dutiable  at  the  rate  of  100  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  another 
article  at  the  rate  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  That  100  per  cent,  is 
charged  on  the  box  that  brings  the  goods,  and  the  25  per  cent,  is  charged 
in  the  same  way.  The  two  importers  are  unequally  taxed  on  the  charges, 
because,  under  the  present  law,  the  duty  is  levied  on  the  charges  at  the 
same  rate  that  it  is  levied  on  the  commodity.  I think  it  would  be  better 
to  make  your  rate  of  duty  upon  the  merchandise  cover  all  that,  and  dis- 
regard commissions  and  charges  as  separate  dutiable  elements. 


pavid  c.  sturges.  ] APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  503 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  that  not  the  very  reason  for  the  charges — that  they  increase 
practically  the  rate  of  duty? — A.  They  undoubtedly  do.  and  most  un- 
equally. 

Q.  Taking  off  the  charges  would  diminish,  for  instance,  the  protective 
effect  of  the  duty? — A.  Yes,  sir;  where  the  duty  is  designedly  “protect- 
ive.” But  all  duties  are  not  “protective.” 

Commissioner  Oliver.  There  is  no  question  about  that. 

The  Witness.  But  if  you  make  your  duty  with  reference  to  the  ex- 
isting state  of  things,  you  can  meet  that  objection. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  In  regard  to  silks,  if  you  make  a rate  of  duty 
on  them  manufactured  in  Lyons,  and  on  shawls  made  in  India,  in  the 
same  way,  the  transportation  would  be  quite  an  item.  The  intent  is  to 
ascertain  the  cost  of  the  goods  at  the  shipping  port  and  to  fix  a uniform 
rate. 

The  Witness.  I would  make  that  upon  the  merchandise  and  not 
upon  the  vehicle  in  which  it  is  brought.  Many  invoices  show  the  actual 
charges,  and  there  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  any  hypothesis. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  But,  on  3rour  principle,  if  the  invoice  comes  with  2£  or  5 per  cent, 
commission  on  it,  that  would  have  to  be  deducted  from  the  entry ; in 
making  the  entry  at  the  custom-house  you  would  have  to  deduct  it  from 
the  entry.  I should  advocate  the  addition  of  1^  per  cent.,  say,  to  the 
present  duties,  to  cover  shipping  charges.  Iu  all  these  cases  you  would 
have  to  take  the  amount  of  commissions  from  every  entry. — A.  I see  no 
objection  in  that.  If  the  law  were  changed,  the  arbitrary  “charges” 
would  be  immediately  omitted  from  the  invoices,  and  there  would  be  no 
need  of  making  the  deductions  on  entry. 

I will  now  proceed  to  enumerate  some  other  articles  on  which  the  rate 
of  duty  seems  to  be  unequal.  Why  should  tapioca  be  free  and  arrow- 
root  be  charged  a duty  of  30  per  cent.?  I should  recommend  on  all 
these  articles  a uniform  rate  of  duty.  I would  also  make  a uniform  pro- 
vision for  “soap  stocks”  (paragraph  1758),  and  “for  grease  for  use  as 
soap  stock  only,”  (paragraph  1G08,  Heyl’s  Digest).  These  two  provisions 
seem  to  cover  the  same  thing.  I would  make  them  more  explicit  by 
simply  providing  that  “ grease  and  oil  fit  for  use  only  as  soap  stock” 
should  be  admitted  free.  There  is  another  provision  for  yeast  cakes, 
admitting  them  iree,  while  all  other  kinds  of  cakes  pay  20  per  cent, 
duty.  I see  no  reason  for  this  discrimination.  Yams  are  admitted  free, 
while  potatoes  pay  15  cents  a bushel.  I see  no  reason  for  yams  being 
admitted  free.  Mustard,  provided  for  in  paragraph  1341,  I would  put 
with  all  other  spices.  Cleaned  rice  is  provided  for  under  the  present- 
law  at  2£  cents  a pound,  and  uncleaued  rice  at  1J  cents  a pound,  and 
paddy  1£  cents  a pound.  A great  deal  of  difficulty  has  arisen  as  to 
“ cleaned  rice.”  The  machinery  for  cleaning  rice  in  the  East  Indies  is 
much  less  perfect  than  that  used  in  England  and  in  this  country.  Bice 
that  is  bought  aud  sold  as  “cleaned  rice”  in  India  is  not  recognized  in 
this  market  as  such,  and  the  India  “cleaned  rice”  comes  in  here  at  a 
lower  rate  of  duty  than  the  English  cleaned.  There  is  very  little  or  no 
difficulty  in  determining  the  market  value  of  rice  in  the  various  mar- 
kets; it  is  so  extensively  dealt  in  that  a uniform  ad  valorem  duty  might 
be  substituted  for  the  present  specific  rates. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  In  changing  that  paragraph  the  word  used 
should  be  “hulled”  rice  instead  of  “cleaned”  rice.  It  costs  precisely 
three-quarters  of  a cent  to  clean  rice  at  Kew  Orleans,  and  the  other 


504 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  C.  8TURGE&. 


quarter  of  a cent  is  allowed  for  the  manufacturer’s  industry.  If  the 
word  u hulled  ” rice  could  be  used  instead  of  “ cleaned  ” rice,  that  would 
meet  the  objection,  I think. 

The  Witness.  Again;  why  should  rye  flour  pay  a duty  of  10  per 
cent,  and  Indian  meal,  wheat,  and  other  flours  pay  a duty  of  20  per 
cent.  ? 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Do  you  notice  that  there  is  no  provision  made  for  wheat  flour  at 
all ? — A.  There  is  none ; therefore  it  comes  under  the  general  provision 
of  unenumerated  manufactured  articles  at  20  per  cent.  (Heyl,  1810.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  reason  why  it  was  omitted  ? — A.  I have  not  the 
slightest  idea.  I should  suppose  that  so  important  an  article  as  flour 
would  certainly  not  have  escaped  the  attention  of  Congress. 

Under  the  supplementary  tariff  law,  sardines  and  anchovies,  when  in 
boxes  of  specified  sizes,  pay  so  much  per  box.  I think  it  would  be  well 
to  put  sardines,  and  all  other  fish  put  up  and  prepared  in  a manner  sim- 
ilar to  sardines,  at  one  rate  of  duty.  I think  the  duty  is  very  high  on 
sardines.  It  conflicts  with  none  of  our  industries  here,  and  I cannot 
understand  why  they  should  be  so  taxed,  except  on  the  theory  that  they 
are  a luxury. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  They  are  manufactured  in  Maine  very  largely. — A.  Oh,  that  is 
a very  different  commodity.  I think  the  American  sardine  is  a fish  en- 
tirely unfit  to  eat. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  We  have  a fish  caught  on  the  banks  of  the 
Mississippi  called  sardine,  which  is  caught  in  large  quantities,  but  it  is 
unfit  to  put  up. 

The  W itness.  Peanuts  shelled  are  classified  at  one  rate  of  duty  and 
various  other  nuts  at  various  rates  of  duty,  shelled  and  unshelled.  Why 
not  put  all  nuts  shelled  at  one  rate  of  duty,  and  add  another  single  rate 
for  unshelled  nuts? 

I would  suggest  a uniform  rate  on  all  candles,  and  on  all  materials 
from  which  candles  are  made.  At  the  present,  wax  candles,  paraffine 
candles,  adamantine,  and  stearine  candles  are  variously  provided  for  at 
specific  rates  of  duty.  I do  not  see  any  reason  for  complicating  the  law 
with  these  various  rates.  It  seems  to  me  that  a uniform  rate  might  be 
made  for  all  these  varieties  of  candles,  and  another  uniform  rate  for  all 
materials  from  which  candles  are  made. 

Paragraphs  1232  and  1233  cover  two  articles  which  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated, and  which  are  provided  for  under  the  name  of  “chiccory  root.”" 
Paragraph  1232  provides  for  “chiccory  root,  ground  and  unground,”  at 
1 cent  per  pound;  and  paragraph  1233  provides  for  “chiccory  root, 
burned  or  prepared,”  5 cents  per  pound.  Chiccory  root  cannot  be  ground 
unless  it  is  burned.  Elsewhere,  in  paragraph  1183,  there  is  a provision 
for  “coffee  substitutes”  at  3 cents  a pound.  These  consist  of  acorns, 
pease,  and  the  refuse  of  figs,  dandelion  root,  and  various  other  things; 
while  chiccory  is  introduced  here  simply  for  the  purpose  of  adulterating 
coffee,  and  I am  not  disposed  to  show  much  mercy  to  it.  I recommend 
a duty  of  3 cents  a pound,  or  the  equivalent  of  that,  in  ad  valorem,  on 
all  forms  of  chiccory. 

Kow  I come  to  a matter  which  may  involve,  perhaps,  some  discus- 
sion. There  is  a provision  of  law  that  when  merchandise  is  advanced 
10  per  centum  or  more  upon  its  invoice  value,  that  that  advance  shall 
carry  with  it  a penal  duty  of  20  per  cent,  additional  upon  tha  article  ad- 
vanced. There  have  been  various  decisions  on  that  question  by  the 


505 


DAVID  c.  sturges.  ] APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y. 

department.  I suppose  tlie  intention  of  the  law  was  to  advance  the 
duty  20  per  cent,  on  the  one  article  that  was  advanced;  whereas  it  has- 
often  been  spread  over  a whole  invoice,  even  where  the  goods  were  not 
identical  in  character,  and  the  other  similar  articles  on  the  invoice  have 
been  charged  at  their  full  value. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  has  been  done  as  a punishment  merely. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  and  that  possibility  of  incurring  a penal  duty 
of  20  per  cent,  for  undervaluing  merchandise  has  saved  the  government 
millions  of  dollars  in  duties ; but  it  has  not  been  entirely  successful  in 
preventing  attempts  at  undervaluation.  In  my  opinion,  the  law  does 
not  go  far  enough.  I would  suggest  that  this  penal  duty  be  increased 
to  40  per  cent.,  more  or  less,  as  may  seem  proper  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Commission;  and  I think  it  would  have  an  immense  restraining  influ- 
ence upon  attempts  at  undervaluation.  Following  that  same  line  of 
^suggestion,  I would  recommend  that  all  merchandise,  where  advanced 
25  per  cent,  or  more,  should  be  forfeited.  I think  this  severer  penalty 
would  be  very  effective.  At  present,  no  goods  can  be  forfeited  unless 
upon  proof  of  the  fraudulent  intent,  and  there  have  been  undervalua- 
tions to  the  extent  of  75  per  cent,  or  more,  in  which  the  intent  to  com- 
mit fraud  could  not  be  legally  established.  I have  had  recently  an 
invoice  of  furniture  in  my  division,  invoiced  in  francs  (at  19^-  cents), 
where  my  advance  to  make  value  was  more  than  equal  to  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  pound  sterling  for  the  franc.  It  would  probably  be  impos- 
sible, in  a court,  to  establish  the  fact,  or  to  establish  the  “intent,”  rather, 
of  fraud  in  that  case,  on  the  part  of  the  importer  and  the  persons  im- 
mediately interested  in  the  merchandise  ; and  that  is  the  reason  why  so 
few  cases  of  that  kind  have  been  brought  before  the  courts.  The  diffi- 
culty of  proving  the  “intention”  of  the  party  to  commit  the  fraud,  while 
the  moral  evidence  is  overwhelming  and  conclusive,  has  probably  de- 
terred the  collector  from  prosecuting  many  cases  of  this  kind.  I merely 
make  this  as  a suggestion  to  the  Commission,  and  think,  perhaps,  the 
percentage  I have  named  should  be  30  or  40  per  cent,  instead  of  25,  to 
work  a forfeiture  of  the  goods ; or  there  might  be  a scale  carrying  with 
it  many  different  penalties,  as,  for  instance,  where  the  market  value  is 
increased  10  per  cent,  it  might  be  20  per  cent,  penal  duty,  as  now;  where 
it  is  increased  20  per  cent,  it  might  be  made  30  per  cent. ; and  so  om 
until  you  finally  reach  a point  where  the  undervaluation  is  of  such  a 
character  that  nothing  but  forfeiture  could  properly  punish  the  person 
who  attempted  it. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Do  I understand  that  you  wish  that  that  part  of  the  clause  refer- 
ring to  fraud  should  be  stricken  out  entirely,  and  that  these  penalties 
should  be  inflicted  whether  the  fraud  is  established  or  not"? — A.  The 
last  provision  I proposed  was  that  the  forfeiture  should  be  based  upon 
the  fact  of  undervaluation,  not  the  proof  of  fraudulent  intent.  The 
statute  should  make  the  undervaluation  conclusive  of  the  intent. 

In  paragraphs  1277  and  1278  fire  crackers  are  provided  for.  When 
the  first  of  these  provisions  was  made,  the  fire-cracker  of  commerce  was 
about  2 inches  in  length,  or  less,  and  was  generally  put  up  in  packs  of 
80  crackers  to  the  pack,  and  40  packs  to  the  box  (a  box  containing  3,200 
crackers),  and  a specific  duty  of  $1  per  box  was  levied  upon  them.  China 
is  a progressive  country  as  well  as  our  own,  and  the  Chinese  are  now 
making  fire-crackers  of  all  sizes  intermediate  between  the  2-inch  crack- 
ers of  commerce  and  crackers  9£  to  12  inches  long,  with  proportional 
diameters;  and  it  has  been  insisted  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  importers 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  C.  STURGES. 


506 

that  3,200  of  these  crackers,  which  cost  $4  or  $5  a box  (of  200  crackers, 
more  or  less,)  should  be  admitted  at  the  same  duty  as  the  ordinary 
crackers  costing  only  75  cents  a box.  It  would  seem  to  be  a mere  farce 
to  impose  such  a duty,  for  it  amounts  to  a very  small  fraction  of  1 per 
cent,  on  some  of  them.  I would  propose  a uniform  ad  valorem  duty  on 
firecrackers. 

There  are  various  provisions  for  dried  fruits  under  the  names  of  cur- 
rants, plums,  prunes,  raisins,  &c.  I would  suggest  a uniform  duty  on 
these  articles;  I would  suggest,  at  any  rate,  the  abolishment  of  the 
very  absurd  distinction  between  prunes  and  plums,  the  one  paying  1 
cent  per  pound,  and  the  other  2J  cents  per  pound.  The  only  difference 
is  a technical  one.  In  Europe  a prune  is  a grafted  plum,  and  we  only 
know  the  difference  by  the  peculiarity  of  its  size,  and  more  especially 
hv  the  shape  of  the  pit.  A great  many  persons  have  imported  plums 
do  good  faith  as  prunes,  and  have  had  to  pay  the  duty  of  2J  cents  a 
pound.  This  is  an  unreasonable  distinction.  Before  the  revision  of  the 
law  they  paid  a uniform  rate  of  duty,  as  I now  propose  they  should  do. 

Furniture  is  also  in  my  division.  I would  recommend  one  rate  of  duty 
for  furniture ; or,  if  that  does  not  meet  the  views  of  the  Commission, 
I should  say  furniture,  if  in  part  of  wool  or  worsted,  any  rate  which 
you  might  agree  upon  ; and  if  in  part  of  silk,  at  any  other  rate  you  may 
agree  upon.  But,  for  simplification,  I shall  say  that  it  would  be  better 
to  put  all  furniture  at  one  rate,  of  whatever  material  composed.  Under 
the  “ little  tariff  act7’  of  1878,  if  a chair  is  upholstered  with  silk  or  plush 
which  happens  to  be  of  more  value  than  the  actual  wood  or  other  single 
material  composing  the  chair,  it  pays  a duty  of  60  per  centum — the  silk 
being  considered  of  chief  value.  I have  not  heard  the  furniture  trade 
object  to  the  present  rate  of  duty  of  35  per  cent,  on  furniture.  I think 
they  feel  themselves  well  protected  by  that  rate  of  duty,  and  I would 
make  that  the  uniform  rate. 

I would  also  suggest  that  the  Commission  should  very  clearly  define 
the  meaning  of  the  words  “ chief  value.”  The  trouble  in  the  law  at  pres- 
ent is  that  it  uses  language  not  definable,  or  definable  differently  by 
everybody  who  uses  it.  The  words  “ chief  value”  were  held  at  one  time 
by  the  department  to  mean  that  the  article  of  chief  value  should  exceed 
the  value  of  all  the  other  materials  with  which  it  is  combined,  and  with 
this  construction  I agree.  The  department  now  holds,  I believe,  that 
the  constituent  of  “chief  value”  is  only  required  to  exceed  any  one  of 
the  other  materials  with  which  it  is  combined.  In  a piece  of  furniture 
made  of  silk,  flax,  worsted,  &c.,  silk  might  clearly  be  of  a value  greater 
than  either  of  the  others,  and  yet  be  very  far  from  being  the  chief  value 
where  you  take  all  the  others  together. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  do  you  suggest  as  the  proper  phraseology  ? — A.  That  the 
words  “chief  value”  shall  be  defined;  that  they  shall  be  held  to  mean 
the  value  in  excess  of  all  the  other  materials,  or  the  aggregate  value  of 
all  the  other  materials  with  which  the  given  material  is  combined. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  That  wrould  be  in  opposition  to  the  present  construction  of  the 
courts  t — A.  ]ST>,  sir  ; not  of  the  courts,  but  of  the  department.  I think 
the  courts  would  take  the  view  of  the  matter  which  I have  suggested. 

I find  in  the  law  a provision  for  “composition  tops”  for  tables,  which 
might  lead  to  some  confusion.  I never  have  seen  a “composition  top,” 
and  I think  it  is  an  obsolete  thing. 

Dried  cherries,  pears,  &c.,  pay  10  per  centum,  not  being  otherwise 


T>AVII)  C.  8TUKGES.  | 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


507 


provided  for.  I do  not  see  why  they  should  not  pay  the  duty  charged 
upon  similar  articles  that  are  provided  for.  Why  are  tamarinds  free  ? 
I think  no  reason  exists  for  it  any  longer,  and  they  might  be  put  in  the 
general  list  with  other  like  articles. 

During  the  war  we  were  short  of  lemons,  and  Mr.  Smith  suggested 
to  Dr.  Bellows  that,  as  lemons  were  scarce,  tamarinds  would  make  an 
excellent  substitute,  and  many  tons  were  brought  in  and  used  by  the 
soldiers  in  hospitals.  They  were  put  in  the  free  list  for  that  reason. 

We  have  some  difficulty  in  regard  to  seeds.  I have  already  spoken 
of  peas  and  beans.  The  reason,  1 suppose,  that  the  words  “for  agri- 
cultural purposes”  are  in  the  provision  of  the  law  relating  to  seeds  is 
because,  at  that  time,  there  were  two  other  provisions  of  law  relating 
to  seeds,  making  the  duty  dependent  on  the  use  to  which  the  seeds 
were  put.  For  instance,  seeds  imported  for  manufacturing  purposes 
were  free;  so  were  seeds  imported  for  medicinal  purposes.  But  a seed 
that  might  be  imported  for  medicinal  purposes  might  also  be  used  for 
agricultural  or  garden  purposes,  or  for  manufacturing  purposes ; and, 
to  make  the  law  consistent,  the  word  “ purposes,”  already  associated 
with  seeds  for  manufacturing  and  medicinal  purposes,  was  also  asso- 
ciated with  seeds  for  agricultural  and  horticultural  purposes.  I would 
not  make  the  law  provide  for  seeds  for  medicinal  purposes,  but  simply 
name  the  seeds  that  are  named  in  the  dispensatories  as  medicinal  seeds, 
and  say  these  seeds  shall  be  free. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Dr.  Jewett,  the  other  evening,  advocated 
exactly  the  contrary  of  that : that  we  should  eliminate  from  the  free  list 
all  the  medicinal  seeds,  plants,  roots,  and  herbs  which  are  mentioned 
there  eo  nomine , and  that  we  embrace  them  in  the  general  clause  pro- 
viding for  medicinal  leaves,  plants,  seeds,  and  parts  of  plants.  He 
would  use  the  words  simply  “ medicinal  seeds,”  and  depend  upon  the 
dispensatory  to  define  what  they  are. 

The  Witness.  We  have  the  quince  seeds,  which  are  used  by  the  ladies 
for  fixing  their  bangs ; 99  per  cent,  is  used  for  this  purpose,  and  the 
remainder  is  used  for  making  mucilaginous  applications  for  inflammatory 
affections  of  the  eyes,  and  that  is  the  only  recognized  medicinal  use  of 
the  quince-seed.  Yet  quince-seeds  were  passed  for  a long  time  as 
“medicinal  seeds”  free.  Now  the  question  is  whether  a so-called 
“ medicinal  seed,”  which  is  used  only  once  in  a great  while  as  a medi- 
cine, shall  be  admitted  free,  when  99  per  cent,  of  that  seed  is  used  for 
other  purposes.  I want  the  word  “purposes”  stricken  out  of  the  law 
in  all  directions ; it  would  bring  about  a clearness  where  there  is  now 
nothing  but  confusion. 

I also  propose  a repeal  of  the  similitude  clause,  qs  found  in  section 
No.  2499,  paragraph  908  of  Heyl,  as  follows : 

There  shall  he  levied,  collected,  and  paid  on  each  and  every  non-ennmerated  article 
which  hears  a similitude  either  in  material,  quality,  and  texture,  or  the  use  to  which 
it  may  he  applied,  to  any  article  enumerated  in  this  Title  as  chargeable  with  duty  the 
same  rate  of  duty  which  is  levied  and  charged  on  the  enumerated  article  which  it 
most  resembles  in  any  of  the  particulars  before  mentioned ; and  if  any  non-enumerated 
.article  equally  resembles  two  or  more  enumerated  articles  on  which  different  rates  of 
duty  are  chargeable,  there  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid  on  such  non-enumerated 
article  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  is  chargeable  on  the  article  which  it  resembles  paying 
the  highest  duty,  and  on  all  articles  manufactured  from  two  or  more  materials  the 
duty  shall  be  assessed  at  the  highest  rates  at  which  any  of  its  component  parts  may 
be  chargeable. 

I think  there  is  wisdom  enough  in  Congress  to  specify  the  articles  on 
which  it  is  proposed  to  impose  duties,  and  I think  we  can  make  specific 
provisions  of  law  which  will  cover  pretty  much  every  commodity  im- 


508 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  C.  STL  RGBS. 


ported,  and  that  it  is  sufficient  to  have  a single  residuary  clause  in  the 
statute,  the  same  as  that  contained  in  paragraph  1816,  covering  all  non' 
enumerated  manufactured  articles.  Fanciful  similitudes,  and  similitudes 
to  similitudes,  have  been  resorted  to  to  fix  rates  of  duty.  If  the  com- 
modity is  definitely  specified,  there  can  be  no  need  of  a “ similitude” 
provision.  If  the  present  general  provision  of  20  per  cent,  for  non-enu- 
merated  manufactured  articles  is  not  high  enough,  make  it  higher.  I 
am  incliued  to  think  it  would  be  the  part  of  wisdom  to  increase  that 
rate  to  25  or  even  35  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  1 understand  you  to  say  that  on  all  manufactured  articles  not 
hereinbefore  otherwise  provided  for,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  say,  or  what- 
ever rate  Congress  should  agree  on,  and  on  all  unmanufactured  articles 
not  hereinbefore  otherwise  provided  for,  you  would  admit  them  free? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  the  raw  material  ? — A.  You  still  have  the  privilege  of  enumer- 
ating the  raw  material  that  you  desire  to  have  come  in  free.  If  you 
desire  to  encourage  the  importation  of  raw  material,  that  would  do  it 
exactly,  and  that  provision  might  be  omitted  altogether,  or  it  could  be 
made  free.  But  you  must  clearly  define  what  you  mean  by  the  words 
“raw  material.” 

I believe  that  is  all  I have  to  submit  to  you  in  the  way  of  specific 
suggestions  on  articles  coming  through  my  division.  I have  in  reserve 
a question  which  I would  like  to  submit  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Commission.  I would  suggest  a revision  of  the  present  law  respecting 
the  reappraisements  of  merchandise,  and  this  is  by  far  the  most  im- 
portant topic  introduced  this  afternoon.  Under  existing  laws  we  have 
what  we  call  a “general  appraiser”  with  whom  is  associated  a “mer- 
chant appraiser,”  who,  together,  constitute  a tribunal  quasi  judicial,  to 
whom  appeals  may  be  taken  from  our  determinations  of  market  value. 
This  tribunal  is  invested  with  supreme  and  final  jurisdiction  of  all  ques- 
tions of  “ market  value.”  But  market  valuations  are  not  the  sole  issue 
in  tariff  laws.  Questions  of  classification  are  more  various  and  more 
perplexing.  I should  propose,  if  you  recommend  the  continuance  of  the 
present  form  of  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  questions  of  market  value,  that 
you  invest  that  tribunal  with  the  decision  of  all  questions  of  “ classifica- 
tion,” which  would  do  away  with  all  appeals  to  Washington.  It  would 
be  placing  these  questions  for  adjudication  before  a tribunal  which 
would  have  access  to  all  the  facts,  and  before  whom  all  the  experts 
could  be  brought  instead  of  referring  them,  as  now,  to  the  department 
at  Washington. 

Classifications,  under  the  present  laws,  involve  values  to  the  amount 
of  millions  of  dollars,  and  these  questions  are  decided  upon  appeals 
taken  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  with  ultimate  appeal  to  the 
courts.  Of  course  it  is  impossible  for  that  officer  to  give  his  personal 
attention  to  all  these  appeals  ; and,  if  he  did,  the  facts  are  not  accessi- 
ble to  him  by  which  he  would  be  able  to  form  a sound  judgment  in  all 
cases,  or  even  in  a majority  of  cases.  That  is  my  first  proposition ; to 
give  to  this  tribunal,  if  it  is  to  continue  to  exist,  jurisdiction  of  both 
classes  of  questions — market  values  and  classifications.  But  1 would 
go  further  than  that.  I would  create,  in  place  of  the  present  system,  a 
tribunal  of  commerce,  which  should  be  able  to  make,  in  fact,  a judicial  in- 
quiry. This  matter  involves,  on  the  part  of  the  merchants  and  of  the  gov- 
ernment, millions  of  dollars  in  duties,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  fair,  both  to 
the  government  and  to  the  merchant,  that  that  inquiry  should  be  made 


DAVID  c.  STUBGES.  1 APPRAISER’S  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y. 


509 


under  all  the  safeguards  which  the  laws  provide  in  the  trial  of  issues  be- 
tween citizens.  That  would  devolve  a very  great  additional  responsibility 
upon  what  we  now  call  the  general  appraiser ; it  would  vastly  increase  the 
amount  of  his  business,  and  there  should  be,  of  course,  a proportional  com- 
pensation given  for  that  service.  If  you  make  him  a judicial  officer  he 
should  receive  compensation  commensurate  with  tbe  dignity  and  import- 
ance of  his  services.  It  is  a matter  for  further  consideration  whether  the 
right  of  trial  by  a jury  of  experts  should  be  given  in  such  cases;  or 
whether  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  district  court  of  the  United  States 
should  be  provided  for.  I should  certainly,  with  this  enlargement  and 
change  in  the  character  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  general  appraiser, 
repeal  that  part  of  the  present  law  which  provides  for  a u merchant 
appraiser.” 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Would  you  be  able  to  get  a competent  jury  all  the  time  in  such 
cases? — A.  Why  not  in  these  as  in  other  cases?  I believe  it  is  a gen- 
erally accepted  fact  that,  on  the  average,  we  get  something  like  justice 
from  trial  by  jury.  But  I think  it  all  important  that  these  two  ques- 
tions should  be  adjudicated  by  the  same  tribunal,  and  that  the  right  to 
question  witnesses,  to  sift  the  grounds  of  a man’s  evidence,  to  deter- 
mine his  competency  and  fairness,  should  be  secured  both  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  government  and  the  appellant  merchant.  Under  the  present 
regulation  the  merchant  whose  property  is  put  in  issue  before  the  gen- 
eral apx>raiser  is  not  allowed  even  to  state  his  case  “ argumentatively”: 
he  cannot  argue  his  case  or  examine  a witness  as  in  a court  of  justice. 
There  is  manifestly  no  “ process  of  law”  in  the  present  jiroceedings, 
yet,  under  them,  persons  may  be  u deprived”  of  their  “property.”  The 
usual  form  of  proceeding  is  simply  this : A form  is  made  out  containing 
a list  of  the  merchandise  under  reappraisement.  This  is  handed  to  the 
witness.  He  examines  the  merchandise,  and,  it  is  supposed,  puts  down 
what  his  judgment  is  as  to  its  value  in  the  foreign  market.  That  paper 
is  then  handed  to  the  general  appraiser,  who  must  use  it  as  “ evidence” 
in  forming  his  judgment.  There  is  no  provision  for  cross-examining 
the  witnesses.  The  character  and  capacity  of  a witness  cannot  be 
legally  challenged  or  questioned,  and  the  appraisement  of  one  witness, 
however  incompetent,  enters  into  the  final  judgment  with  just  as  much 
presumptive  authority  as  the  appraisement  of  any  other  witness,  how- 
ever competent.  I think  this  is  a matter  so  grave  in  its  character  and 
consequences  that  it  requires  a great  deal  of  thoughtful  consideration, 
and,  in  that  view,  I have  deemed  it  my  duty  to  bring  it  to  the  attention 
of  the  Commission. 

Q.  I will  ask  you  one  general  question — whether  in  your  suggestions 
you  have  had  reference  to  convenience  in  administering  the  law  rather 
than  to  its  effect  upon  the  revenue  ? — A.  I have  had  both  under  con- 
sideration . It  is  of  very  great  importance  that  there  should  be  uniformity 
in  decisions,  which  there  cannot  be  when  decisions  are  reached  through 
other  than  judicial  methods.  Many  of  my  suggestions  have  reference 
purely  to  convenience  and  uniformity,  and  tend  to  simplify  the  law  in 
its  execution.  But  I think  I have  not  been  unmindful  of  the  interests 
of  the  revenue  in  any  matter. 


510 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  KENT- 


WILLIAM  KENT. 

Lono  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  17,  1882. 

Mr.  William  Kent,  assistant  appraiser  in  the  silk  department  of  the 
New  York  custom  house,  made  the  following  statement  before  the  Com 
mission : 

I will  state  to  the  Commission  that  a few  days  ago  I took  up  the  list 
of  goods  passed  in  my  division,  and  hastily  noted  a few  facts  and  sug- 
gestions as  they  occurred  to  me  at  the  moment.  I will  commence  my 
statement  by  calling  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  articles  in 
my  division  which  are  on  the  free  list.  Silkworm  eggs,  silk  cocoons,  silk 
noils,  silk  waste,  silk  bolting-cloth,  and  raw  silk  as  reeled  from  cocoons, 
not  being  doubled  or  twisted  or  further  advanced  in  manufacture  in  any 
respect,  are  all  on  the  free  list. 

Commissioner  McMahon:  Silk  noils  are  free  under  the  decision  of 
the  department ; they  are  not  specially  provided  for  in  the  law. 

The  Witness:  Not  unless  it  is  silk  waste.  Tbe  next  note  I have  on 
my  memorandum  is:  “Silk  partly  manufactured  by  carding  or  combing* 
from  cocoons,  silk  waste,  or  silk  noils.”  We  assessed  the  duty  on  the 
first  goods  we  received  of  that  sort  at  GO  per  cent,  as  a silk  not  otherwise 
provided  for.  After  a controversy  and  a correspondence  with  the  de- 
partment lasting  over  six  months  they  decided  these  goods  should  be 
free.  This  article  (exhibiting)  is  carded,  combed,  and  put  up  in  pack- 
ages; the  fiber  is  of  the  most  beautiful  quality  of  silk  made  of  waste 
silk.  All  domestic  manufacturers  who  work  it  up  into  spun-silk  yarn 
always  have  claimed  that  it  should  bear  a small  duty.  Subsequently 
we  got  the  same  article,  but  it  was  drawn  down  to  the  size  of  one’s 
finger;  this  was  after  the  department  had  declared  the  goods  to  be 
free.  I declined  to  pass  the  goods  under  60  per  cent,  and  assessed 
them  as  a manufacture  of  silk  not  provided  for,  for  the  reason  that  we 
could  not  tell  how  soon  they  would  draw  it  down  to  just  that  size  fiom 
which  they  could  spin  it  like  wool  or  cotton.  This  matter  was  held 
open  about  six  weeks,  and  they  finally  consented  to  pay  the  GO  per  cent, 
duty.  Since  then,  of  course,  that  article  has  ceased  to  be  imported. 
I would  suggest  for  this  class  of  goods  a duty  of  about  two-fifths  of 
what  would  be  imposed  upon  a spun-silk  yarn. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Which  now  pays  35  per  cent.? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  If  the  rate  was  retained  at  35  per  cent,  on 
spun  silk,  I would  suggest  15  per  cent,  on  these  goods ; if  the  rate  was 
made  25  on  spun  silk,  I would  suggest  10  per  cent,  on  this.  The  French 
name  is  peigne , meaning  a comb. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  If  you  gave  it  that  French  name  in  the  tariff,  would  that 
be  sufficient  to  indicate  it  clearly? — Answer.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  a sufficient 
description  to  call  it  peigne  or  combed  silk.  Then  there  is  the  article  of 
silk  rags.  We  occasionally  get  a small  lot  of  silk  rags,  the  refuse  of 
milliners7  cuttings.  My  predecessor  classified  and  rated  those  as  man- 
ufactures of  silk  not  otherwise  provided  for.  I should  have  disagreed 
with  him.  I should  have  claimed  that  they  were  simply  used  as  covers 


WILLIAM  KENT.] 


SILKS. 


511 


for  buttons.  Not  a piece  was  larger  than  the  palm  of  my  hand,  and 
most  of  them  were  smaller.  They  were  mostly  black  and  colored  silks, 
which  could  be  used  for  no  other  purpose  than  for  button  covers. 

Q.  You  would  put  silk  rags,  then,  under  class  20401 — A.  Yes,  sir.  I 
would  make  the  following  recommendation:  Silk  rags,  button  covers  of 
every  description,  and  all  manufactures  of  cloth  woven  or  made  in  pat- 
terns of  such  size,  shape,  or  form,  or  cut  in  such  manner  as  to  be  fit  for 
buttons  exclusively. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  that  what  you  recommend  as  a substitute  for  the  present 
law! — A.  Yes,  sir.  I recommend  that  in  order  to  maintain  the  same 
rate  of  duty  as  on  button  covers  of  10  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

The  next  clause  of  the  tariff  I call  attention  to  relates  to  silk  and  cot- 
ton hatters’  plush  and  hat  trimmings  composed  of  silk  and  paper,  which 
now  pay  a duty  of  (JO  per  cent.  That  is  a great  wrong.  This  latter 
article  is  intended  for  the  tips  and  sides  of  hats;  there  is  the  merest 
particle  of  silk  in  the  paper  and  we  are  obliged  to  assess  GO  per  cent, 
duty  because  it  is  not  otherwise  provided  for.  It  should  be  included 
in  the  same  category  with  hatters’  plush.  Hatters’  plush  may  be  con- 
sidered as  only  a partly-manufactured  article. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Hatters’  plush  now  pays  about  60  per  cent.,  does  it  not! — A.  There 
are  nowT  about  eighteen  qualities  of  hatters’  plush,  and  they  make,  per- 
haps, about  six  qualities  of  hats  out  of  it,  using  the  lowest  quality  for 
the  top  of  the  brim  the  second  quality  for  the  top  of  the  hat,  and  the 
best  quality  for  the  body  or  sides  of  the  hat,  so  that  every  particle  is 
cut  up  for  that  purpose.  I would  recommend  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  on 
hatters’  plush  and  hat-linings  composed  of  silk  and  paper  only.  I think 
that  would  satisfy  the  hatters. 

Commissioner  Porter:  The  hatters  want  the  rate  fixed  at  10  per 
cent.,  I believe. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Is  hatters’  plush  made  in  this  country  at  all  ? — A.  There  was  an 
attempt  made  to  manufacture  it  here  about  twenty  years  ago,  but  it 
proved  an  entire  failure,  and  the  manufactory  which  was  started  was 
wound  up  without  paying  a cent  to  the  stockholders. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  is  stated  in  the  schedule  which  has  been 
filed  with  the  Commission  that  hatters’  silk  plush  can  be  manufactured 
in  this  country,  and  that  it  is  classed  by  manufacturers  as  essentially  a 
raw  material. 

The  Witness.  The  next  note  I have  on  my  memorandum  is:  “Silk 
trams,  organzine,  sewing  silk  and  yarns,  or  threads  of  silk  of  every 
description.”  They  should  pay  one  rate  of  duty. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  You  change  the  phraseology  of  the  present  law,  do  you  not  2 — A.  I 
change  the  phraseology  in  order  to  embrace  everything  that  is  spun  into 
a yarn  or  thread.  I don’t  care  whether  it  is  a thrown  silk  or  spun  silk 
made  from  waste;  it  should  pay  but  one  rate  of  duty. 

Q.  You  include  silk  threads  of  all  kinds  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  all  silk  threads, 
of  every  name  and  description. 

Q.  Sewing  silk  as  well? — A.  Sewing  silk  does  not  require  any  pro- 
tection. We  have  not  had  500  pounds  come  through  the  appraiser’s 
office  at  New  York  in  eight  years;  it  cannot  be  imported.  A sewing- 


512 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


I WILLIAM  KENT. 


silk  manufacturer  told  me  within  a few  weeks  that  they  did  not  require 
any  duty  on  sewing  silks.  I would  like  to  explain  this  matter  here, 
because  I think  it  is  one  of  some  importance.  The  tariff  provision  you 
will  find  reads,  “On  spun  silk  for  filling  in  skeins  or  cops,  35  per  centum 
ad  valorem.”  In  order  to  come  under  that  law  it  has  to  come  out  in 
skeins  or  in  cops.  There  has  been  imported  recently,  within  a few 
months,  the  same  identical  thread  in  all  respects  except  that  the  ends 
are  tied.  They  are  in  1,000-yard  lengths,  and  are  to  be  used  as  warps 
instead  of  filling,  the  duty  on  which  is  60  per  cent.,  because  it  is  not 
otherwise  provided  for.  The  consequence  is,  we  do  not  import  one 
pound  of  it.  A manufacturer  of  piece  goods  said  to  me,  “I  have  no 
doubt  I am  paying  50  per  cent,  profit  on  every  pound  I buy,  and  I am 
buying  large  quantities.”  I told  a manufacturer  of  spun  silk  what  the 
party  said  to  me;  he  smiled  and  said,  “ I guess  he  is  about  right.  They 
are  paying  50  fter  cent,  profit  on  every  pound.”  Lister  & Co.,  of  England, 
wrote  a letter,  which  was  shown  to  me,  offering  it  at  the  same  price  as 
the  spun  silk  for  filling. 

Then  there  is  the  article  of  cordonnet;  if  it  is  dyed  black  it  pays  60 
per  cent.  duty.  When  not  dyed  it  paid  60  per  cent.,  until  we  had  a cor- 
respondence with  the  department,  which  lasted  about  six  months,  and 
I took  the  ground  that  it  was  strong  enough  to  be  used  as  sewing  silk 
for  ready-made  clothing,  and  the  department  finally  decided  that  it 
should  come  in  as  sewing  silk,  although  it  is  too  poor  in  quality  to  be 
generally  used  for  sewing  silk.  Therefore,  if  we  follow  the  decision  of 
the  department  strictly,  the  poorer  quality  that  is  not  strong  enough  for 
sewing  silk  should  really  go  back  to  the  clause  for  silk  not  otherwise 
provided  for,  at  60  per  cent.  It  is  often  made  of  the  commonest  of  waste 
silk. 

Q.  You  recommend  now  that  it  should  pay  the  lower  rate  of  duty? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  that  it  should  all  pay  one  rate  of  duty.  Dyed  cordonnet 
could  not  be  used  as  sewing  silk  because  it  is  very  brittle  and  rotten, 
and  therefore  comes  under  the  “not  otherwise  provided  for”  clause,  duti- 
able at  60  per  cent.  There  should  be  no  discrimination  whatever  be- 
tween any  yarn,  including  tram  and  organzine,  and  all  other  threads 
or  yarns  should  pay  one  rate  of  duty. 

Silk  veils  and  veilings,  worsted  veils  and  veilings,  and  veilings  com- 
posed of  silk  and  worsted  should  pay  one  rate  of  duty.  At  present  silk 
and  worsted  veilings  pay  a compound  duty.  There  is  no  reason  for  it 
and  no  sense  in  it. 

I am  now  coming  to  a class  of  goods  which  has  given  us  a great  deal 
of  trouble — silk  buttons  and  buttons  composed  of  mixed  materials  hav- 
ing silk,  wool,  worsted,  or  mohair  as  a conqmnent  material.  I do  not 
care  what  the  quality  is,  but  in  order  to  avoid  this  trouble  about  classi- 
fication, resulting  in  suits  in  court  to  recover  excess  of  duties,  I should 
imopose  one  rate  of  duty  for  those  goods.  Worsted  or  mohair  buttons 
now  pay  50-50. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  in  regard  to  section  1168  ? 

Webbings,  beltings,  bindings,  braids,  galloons,  fringes,  gimps,  cords,  cords  and  tas- 
sels, dress  trimmings,  head-nets,  buttons,  or  barrel  buttons,  or  buttons  of  other  forms 
for  tassels  or  ornaments,  wrought  by  hand  or  braided  by  machinery,  made  of  wool, 
worsted,  or  mohair,  or  of  which  wool,  worsted,  or  mohair  is  a component  material: 
50  cents  per  pound,  and,  in  addition  thereto,  50  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

A.  Wherever  silk  or  worsted  appears,  “mohair”  ought  to  be  in- 
cluded. Wherever  wool  or  worsted  is  connected  with  the  name  of  an 
article,  “mohair”  should  be  included. 

Q.  All  silk  and  worsted  bases,  you  think,  should  pay  one  rate  of 


WILLIAM  KENT.] 


SILKS. 


513 


duty  ? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; even  if  they  have  either  of  these  materials  as  a com- 
ponent material,  I do  not  care  what  the  quantity  may  be,  in  order  to 
simplify  matters. 

I now  come  to  another  article — silk  laces.  I would  recommend  the 
following  provision  in  the  law:  “Silk  lace,  and  all  lace  having  silk,  wool, 
worsted,  or  mohair  as  a component  material,  and  beaded  lace,  whether 
on  a silk,  wool,  worsted,  mohair,  flax,  or  cotton  net.” 

The  only  way  we  can  ascertain  whether  the  cotton  or  silk  is  of  chief 
value  in  this  article  (exhibiting)  is  by  taking  a piece,  weighing  it, 
sending  it  to  the  laboratory,  having  the  silk  dissolved  entirely,  then 
weighing  the  cotton  and  estimating  the  value  of  the  silk  and  the  cotton 
to  ascertain  the  proportions  of  value.  I claim  that  in  these  matters,  if 
there  is  a particle  of  wool,  silk,  worsted,  or  mohair,  it  should  pay  one 
rate  of  duty,  and  not  have  any  “chief  value”  about  it.  Lace  composed 
of  cotton  or  flax,  or  both  materials  combined,  should  pay  one  rate  of 
duty.  For  instance,  here  is  a mixed  article  (exhibiting)  having  a linen 
thread  and  a cotton  foundation.  The  face  of  this  is  linen,  and  the  little 
plain  thread  you  see  here  is  cotton.  There  is  no  sense  in  having  two 
rates  of  duty  upon  that  article,  because  it  is  impossible  to  tell  just  the 
chief  value  or  the  relative  values  of  the  two  materials.  The  linen  has 
heretofore  paid  40  and  the  cotton  35  per  cent.  I11  this  same  connection 
I may  state  that  we  recently  had  a decision  on  what  is  called  thread 
lace.  A suit  was  brought  by  Field,  Leiter  & Co.,  of  Chicago,  and  the 
case  was  decided  in  their  favor.  It  was  a case  where  a torchon  lace 
made  of  flax,  paying  a 40  per  cent,  duty,  was  brought  in  as  thread  lace 
paying  a 30  per  cent.  duty.  It  was  never  known  as  thread  lace  any- 
where, and  I undertake  to  say  that  the  suit  would  never  have  gone 
against  the  government  if  it  had  been  tried  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
1 have  yet  to  see  the  first  dealer  in  laces  who  does  not  laugh  at  the  idea. 
There  should  be  no  distinction  between  a lace  made  of  flax  or  cotton, 
or  the  two  combined;  they  should  pay  one  rate  of  duty.  Now  we  have 
30  per  cent.  011  thread  lace  made  by  hand ; 35  per  cent,  on  thread  lace 
made  by  machinery ; 35  per  cent,  on  cotton  lace  made  on  a machine ; 
40  percent.  011  flax  or  linen  lace;  and  mixed  lace  pays,  according  to 
the  value  of  the  prominent  material,  either  35  or  40  per  cent.,  unless 
silk,  wool,  worsted,  or  mohair  is  a component  material.  They  should 
all  be  included  at  one  rate  of  duty. 

I come  next  to  the  subject  of  embroidery,  and  simply  call  your  atten- 
tion to  Schedule  M.  We  get  along  very  well  in  that,  although,  if  I had 
time  to  study  the  matter  up,  I might  make  some  suggestions  which  would 
be  valuable  to  you.  I simply  refer  to  the  matter  now. 

I recommend  another  amendment  in  the  law,  as  follows:  “Women’s 
and  children’s  dress  trimmings  composed  of  silk  or  mixed  materials,  of 
which  silk,  wool,  worsted,  mohair,  or  beads  is  a component  part.” 

To  illustrate:  Here  is  a braid  and  cord  with  beads  in  the  center  (ex- 
hibiting). That  is  a film  of  silk  wound  around  a cotton  cord,  and  is 
dutiable  as  a bead  ornament  at  50  per  cent.  Here  (exhibiting)  is  a silk 
wound  around  a cotton  thread;  a wooden  mold  covered  with  a thin 
film  of  silk,  or  worsted  or  mohair  combined.  We  have  to  classify  these 
goods  by  weight  at  50  cents  a pound  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
There  is  no  reason,  right,  or  justice  in  it.  All  the  ornaments  that  I 
have  enumerated  in  this  clause  should  come  in  at  one  rate  of  duty ; it 
would  save  us  a vast  deal  of  trouble. 

The  next  suggestion  I make  is  this:  “Wearing  apparel  or  clothing, 
reacjy  made  or  partly  made,  composed  of  cotton  or  flax,  or  both  com- 
H.  Mis.  6 33 


514 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  KENT. 


bined.”  These  should  all  come  in  at  one  rate  of  duty.  They  now  pay 
35  per  cent,  for  cotton  and  40  per  cent,  for  flax. 

The  next  suggestion  on  my  memorandum  is:  “Wearing  apparel  or 
clothing  ready  made  or  partly  made  (except  knit  goods),  composed  prin- 
cipally of  silk,  wool,  worsted  or  mohair.”  That  should  pay  another  rate 
of  duty.  At  present  woolen  wearing  apparel  pays  50-40  per  cent,  and 
silk  pays  00  per  cent.  Sometimes  a woolen  dress  is  trimmed  with  silk 
and  we  cannot  tell  which  is  of  chief  value,  the  silk  or  the  wool,  after  the 
dress  is  made  up.  They  should  pay  one  rate  of  duty ; there  should  be 
no  distinction. 

The  next  item  I would  suggest  is  the  following : “ Silk  velvet,  and 
velvet  having  a few  threads  of  cotton  interwoven,  will  be  deemed  and 
taken  to  be  substantially  silk  velvet.”  I call  your  attention  to  this,  be- 
cause it  will  be  necessary  to  protect  goods  mostly  of  silk  in  this  way. 
The  Commissioners  will  probably  remember  the  ribbon  case,  where  the 
government  had  to  refund  say  $2,700,000  simply  because  the  manufact- 
urers put  into  the  selvage  one  or  two  threads  of  cotton,  which  did  not 
affect  the  value  of  the  ribbons  at  all. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Was  the  cotton  put  in  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  goods  in  at 
a lower  rate  of  duty  t — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  was  just  one  little  cotton  cord  ou  the 
edge.  It  really  improved  the  ribbon,  for  it  gave  it  strength  and  firmness. 

The  Witness.  I regret  to  diverge  from  my  favorite  idea  of  an  ad 
valorem  duty  by  suggesting  a pound- weight  duty  on  velvets.  We  judge 
of  the  value  by  the  pound  weight.  We  take  a piece  of  velvet,  put  it  on 
a scale,  and  we  say  that  that  velvet  is  worth  so  many  centimes  per  gram. 
We  ascertain  the  number  of  grams  and  base  our  price  on  that  valuation. 
We  had  occasion  lately  to  advance  some  velvets  from  23  to  30  francs. 
Pound  weight  duty  could  easily  be  applied  to  that  article. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  rate  of  duty  per  pound  would  cover  the  present  ad  valorem 
rate  of  (30  per  centum? — A.  I am  not  prepared  to  say  what  rate  should 
be  put  on  at  present. 

In  regard  to  silk  and  cotton  velvet,  known  as  a cotton-back  velvet, 
I desire  to  state  that  that  should  be  distinguished  from  those  having  a 
few  threads  thrown  in.  This  should  pay  another  rate  of  duty  per  pound. 
And  I might  as  well  state  here,  while  I think  of  it,  that  one  chief  diffi- 
culty with  goods  of  this  description  lies  in  one  direction,  that  is,  to  ascer- 
tain the  values  of  the  great  variety  of  silk  mixed  goods. 

I now  come  to  a slight  change  which  I would  recommend:  “Uphols- 
tery goods,  composed  of  silk,  or  of  mixed  materials,  of  which  silk,  wool, 
worsted,  or  mohair  is  a component  material  thereof.”  That  should  pay 
a duty  without  regard  to  the  quality  or  value  of  each  material.  At 
present  if  the  worsted  in  a piece  of  upholstery  goods  is  over  25  per  cent, 
in  value  it  pays  a duty  of  50-35 ; if  silk  is  its  chief  value  it  will  pay  a 
duty  of  50 ; if  the  silk  exceeds  75  per  cent,  in  value  it  would  pay  a duty 
of  60  per  cent,  under  the  present  law.  All  these  goods  might  with  per- 
fect propriety  come  under  one  rate  of  duty,  and  then  they  would  be  ex- 
amined in  one  division.  Now  worsted  goods  go  to  the  sixth  division, 
and  silk  goods  come  to  the  third  division.  They  are  divided,  and  yet 
they  appear  almost  invariably  in  the  same  invoices,  so  that  they  have  to 
circulate  from  one  division  to  another  for  the  purpose  of  classification. 
Worsted  upholstery  goods  do  not  attach  to  my  division  exclusively,  but 


WILLIAM  KENT.] 


SILKS. 


515 


'I  think  it  proper  to  insert  a provision  as  follows : u Upholstery  goods  com- 
posed of  cotton,  flax,  jute,  grass,  hemp,  and  metal,  or  either  one  or  more 
of  the  materials  named,  but  no  silk,  wool,  or  worsted,  or  mohair.”  These 
should  pay  one  rate  of  duty.  Also,  u Cotton  or  flax  cords,  galloons, 
braids,  trimmings,  tapes,  webbings,  and  banding,  or  composed  of  cot- 
ton and  flax  combined.”  These  should  pay  one  rate  of  duty. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Now  a mixed  material  pays  40  per  cent, 
and  a cotton  35  per  cent.'? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir.  Then  I would  suggest  this  paragraph: 
u Silk  or  worsted  cords,  galloons,  braids,  trimmings,  webbings,  and  band- 
ings, or  mixed  materials,  silk  or  worsted  being  a component  material.” 
These  should  all  pay  another  rate  of  duty  instead  of  having  a portion 
pay  50-50  and  others  at  different  rates. 

That  is  as  far  as  I have  been  able  to  go  over  the  list  in  the  limited 
time  which  I have  had  since  I was  notified  that  the  Commission  de- 
sired to  hear  a statement  from  me.  I could  speak  in  regard  to  black  silk 
dress  goods,  but  I have  not  had  time  to  prepare  myself  on  that  point. 

The  President.  You  can  make  any  suggestions  on  that  point  that 
you  may  think  of  at  present. 

The  Witness.  Black  silks  are  charged  from  40  to  200  per  cent,  in 
the  dyeing;  they  are  “ loaded”  or  weighted.  If  a simple  compound 
weight  duty  was  to  attach  to  that  article,  it  would  exclude  from  impor- 
tation the  lower  grades  of  silks,  those  particularly  which  are  used  for 
trimming  dresses;  it  would  exclude  them  entirely.  But  if  you  put  on 
a more  moderate  rate  of  duty  per  pound,  with  a slight  ad  valorem  duty 
in  addition,  it  would  enlarge  the  range  of  silks  which  could  be  imported. 
I am  not  prepared  to  state  what  rate  I should  suggest,  but  my  present 
idea  would  be  about  $3  per  pound,  with  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I want 
to  avoid  square-yard  duty  if  it  is  possible,  for  that  is  a terrible  annoy- 
ance. The  manufacturers,  of  course,  will  accommodate  themselves  to 
the  new  tariff,  and  will  weight  their  silks  very  much  less  than  they  do 
now;  but  they  cannot  reduce  a poor  silk,  for  the  reason  that  it  would 
not  have  that  body  which  a woman  likes  in  a silk,  but  would  be  soft 
and  flimsy;  so  that  I apprehend  that  they  could  not  carry  the  weight- 
ing of  the  best  black  silks  below  35  or  40  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Supposing  a manufacturer  should  lighten  them  up  and  not  load 
them,  that  would  reduce  their  duty? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  the  dye  would 
naturally  increase  the  weight  somewhat.  The  very  ingredients  of  which, 
the  dye  is  composed  give  more  or  less  weight.  I have  seen  a silk  re- 
duced from  16  ounces  to  12  ounces,  and,  by  dyeing,  it  was  carried  back 
to  60  ounces.  But  it  destroys  the  fabric — that  is,  there  is  no  strength 
to  it,  and  if  yon  burn  it  it  will  flash;  it  burns  more  like  cotton,  and 
seems  to  have  an  ingredient  in  it  like  gunpowder.  The  fiber  breaks 
like  cotton. 

The  next  subject  I come  to  is  silk  and  cotton  serge  linings,  umbrella 
and  parasol  goods,  and  silk  and  cotton  ribbons.  In  regard  to  all  these 
classes  of  goods  I suggest  the  following  provisions:  “On  all  goods  com- 
posed of  silk  and  cotton,  silk  chif  value,  not  otherwise  provided  for,” 
one  rate  of  duty.  u On  goods  composed  of  silk  and  cotton,  cotton  chief 
value,  not  otherwise  provided  for,”  another  and  lower  rate  of  duty.  I 
should  like  to  have  some  of  the  members  of  the  Commission  see  the 
trouble  which  we  have  been  under  in  ascertaining  the  actual  value  of 
two  materials  in  a piece  of  goods.  I have  a list  here  of  the  suits  brought 
against  the  government  to  recover  the  difference  between  60  and  50  per 
cent,  paid  on  ribbons. 


516 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  KENT. 


By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Did  every  one  of  these  cases  have  to  be  decided  by  the  analysis  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir.  This  list  includes  a great  many  cases  in  which  the  importer 
claimed  the  goods  contained  less  than  25  per  cent,  in  value  of  cotton. 
These  were  not  analyzed,  but  the  others  were,  or  the  most  of  them.  We 
are  obliged  to  employ  one  expert  who  does  but  little  else  than  analyze 
these  goods. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  The  changing  of  the  wording  which  you  recommend  would  obviate 
that  difficulty? — A.  Yes,  sir.  On  that  list  there  is  a greater  variety  in 
the  proportions  of  silk  and  cotton  in  hat.  bands  than  in  silk  and  cotton 
ribbons.  There  are  over  one  hundred  in  that  list,  but  not  over  two  or 
three  in  which  cotton  was  the  chief  value.  I have  a silk  and  cotton  ar- 
ticle here,  a very  excellent  article  of  neck-tie  goods,  paying  60  per  cent., 
equivalent  to  $3.53  per  pound.  I also  have  here  [exhibiting]  an  article 
composed  entirely  of  silk.  This  would  pay  equal  to  $6.06  a pound.  I 
do  not  know  that  a pound-weight  duty  could  be  made  to  apply  to  these 
goods  with  any  justice,  they  vary  so  much  in  quality  and  amount  of  silk 
and  cotton. 

When  the  Silk  Association  appear  before  you  they  will  undoubtedly 
claim  that  silks  do  not  pay  a duty  of  over  40  or  45  per  cent,  at  the  out- 
side. I want  to  state  that  that  may  be  so  with  regard  to  a few  things 
they  are  not  particularly  familiar  with;  but  I suppose  the  fact  is,  we 
are  passing  many  silks,  colored  and  black,  at  10  per  cent,  below  their 
value,  because  we  have  no  means  of  arriving  at  the  true  value.  None 
of  the  goods  are  bought ; they  are  all  consigned,  and  every  manufact- 
urer tries  to  see  how  low  he  dares  to  invoice  these  goods  with  the  hope 
of  their  passing  the  custom-house. 

In  regard  to  these  imported  silks,  I desire  to  state  that  I wrote  a letter 
to  an  agent  in  London,  asking  him  to  submit  these  very  samples  to 
some  three  or  four  of  the  very  heaviest  buyers  of  Lyons  silks  there,  and 
get  from  them  as  close  a valuation  as  they  could  make.  I will  show  you 
what  the  result  was.  The  silks  that  we  passed  here  at  3 francs  these 
experts  put  at  3 francs  15  centimes,  within  5 per  cent.  The  next  article 
which  we  passed  at  $4.60  they  put  at  $4.70;  the  next  we  passed  at  $4.60 
they  put  at  $4.85;  the  next  that  we  passed  at  $5.10  the  experts  put  at 
$5.10;  one  that  we  put  at  $6.50  the  experts  put  at  $6.30;  one  that  we 
passed  at  $6.56  they  put  at  $6.60;  another  we  passed  at  $5.50  they  put 
at  $5.50;  another  we  passed  at  $5.75  they  put  at  $5.80;  another  we 
passed  at  $7.50  they  put  at  $7.80.  So  that  it  is  not  fair  for  the  silk  men 
to  claim  that  we  are  passing  silks  at  the  rate  of  40  to  45  percent.  There 
could  not  be  a better  test  than  this  was.  Still,  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  goods  are  not  invoiced  much  lower.  While  on  this  subject,  I will 
state  that  the  advances  made  on  invoice  values  in  the  third  division  in 
1879  amounted  to  $949,000,  on  which  the  average  rate  of  duty  was  over 
50  per  cent.  In  1880  the  amount  was  $1,128,000;  in  1881  it  was 
$926,000;  for  the  first  six  months  in  1882  it  was  $641,829,  and  if  it  con- 
tinues at  that  rate  during  the  season  it  will  be  larger  than  for  the  year 
1880,  and  will  amount  probably  to  $1,200,000. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  would  be  the  result,  as  regards  the  valuation,  if  these  same 
goods  were  imported  into  New  Orleans  or  San  Francisco  or  any  other 


WILLIAM  KENT.] 


SILKS. 


517 


port  in  the  country? — A.  It  is  my  honest  opinion  that  duties  are  not  as 
well  collected  in  any  port  in  this  country  as  at  the  port  of  New  York. 
I do  not  see  how  they  can  be,  for  the  reason  that  the  appraisers  do  not 
get  enough  goods  at  other  places  to  enable  them  to  become  familiar 
with  these  complicated  fabrics,  and  I do  not  see  how  they  can  get  the 
experience  we  have  obtained. 

Q.  It  is  a matter,  then,  of  experience  and  knowledge  of  the  goods? — 
A.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  one  other  thing  I desire  to  state.  In  my  judg- 
ment the  silk  manufacturers  of  this  country  are  on  an  extremely  firm 
foundation.  They  are  all  making  money,  the  majority  of  them  have  be- 
come wealthy,  and  some  of  them  have  become  very  wealthy,  while  silk 
and  cotton  mixed  goods  are  not  being  made  in  this  country  to  hardly 
any  extent ; that  is,  I mean  the  finer  fabrics.  One  factory  is  making 
this  neck-tie  stuff,  and  they  are  beginning  to  make  in  this  country  the 
better  quality  of  mixed  materials.  My  opinion  is  that  these  manufact- 
urers should  be  protected  as  much  as  the  manufacturers  of  the  goods 
composed  entirely  of  silk  in  order  to  foster  the  production  in  this  country 
of  silk  mixed  goods  of  which  the  amount  consumed  is  perfectly  enormous. 
It  will  reach  in  dollars  and  cents  more  than  the  silk  dress  goods  will. 
Enormous  quantities  are  made  in  Germany.  It  is  something  of  a new 
experiment.  The  cotton  yarns  which  have  to  be  imported  bear  a pretty 
high  rate  of  duty,  and  I hope  this  Commission  will  take  this  fact  into 
consideration  in  dealing  with  the  subject. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  When  you  say  “silk  mixed  goods,”  what  class  of  goods  do  you 
refer  to  ? — A.  The  goods  I speak  of  are  usually  of  a silk  chain  and  cot- 
ton weft ; the  figure  is  made  of  the  weft  but  the  chain  is  of  silk.  Then, 
again,  we  get  the  thing  reversed;  we  find  it  with  a cotton  chain  and  a- 
silken  weft,  where  the  cotton  is  of  chief  value. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  That  class  of  goods,  where  cotton  is  the  chief  value,  you  would  put 
at  a less  rate  of  duty  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  would  put  goods  where  silk  is  the  chief  value,  and  silk 
and  cotton  goods,  at  the  same  rate  of  duty  ? — A.  I do  not  say  that  I 
would  put  them  at  the  same  rate  of  duty,  but  I would  i^rotect  them 
equally  well. 

I wish  to  call  attention  to  section  1300  of  Heyl’s  Digest,  under  Sched- 
ule M,  which  reads : 

Hats,  &c.,  materials  for  braids,  plaits,  flats,  laces,  trimmings,  tissues,  willow  sheets 
and  squares  used  for  making  or  ornamenting  hats^  bonnets  and  hoods  composed  of 
straw,  chip,  grass,  palm-leaf,  willow,  or  any  other  vegetable  substance,  or  of  hair 
whalebone,  or  other  material  not  otherwise  "provided  for,  30  per  centum  ad  valorem 

It  so  happens  that  I have  before  me  now  a report  upon,  I suppose, 
fifty  appeals  where  two  or  three  different  lawyers  have  been  engaged, 
embracing  every  known  substance  that  goes  into  the  making  of  a lady’s 
hat,  including  silk  and  cotton  ribbons,  whether  cotton  is  the  chief  value 
or  not,  and  even  of  silk  ribbons.  They  are  making  an  effort  to  bring 
them  in  at  30  per  cent.,  and  I say  I do  not  think  that  clause  should  ever 
have  been  put  into  the  tariff  at  all.  On  one  occasion  when  I made  a 
report  on  goods  appertaining  to  hat  trimmings  the  department  wrote 
back  to  know  whether  cotton  was  the  chief  value,  although  the  article 
was  composed  of  silk  and  cotton,  which  led  me  to  think  that  they  had 
some  doubt  of  the  classification  of  these  goods,  and  whether  they  should 
not  come  in  under  the  30  per  cent,  clause. 


518 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  KENT. 


The  President.  The  Supreme  Court  has  held  (and  this  is  the  point 
on  which  the  famous  knit-goods  case  was  argued)  that  a specific  desig- 
nation in  the  tariff  overrules  and  controls  any  general  designation.  So 
that  a specific  designation  for  hats  would  control  a general  designation ; 
that  is,  this  specific  designation  would  bring  it  down  to  30  per  cent. 

The  Witness.  If  the  court  decides  these  goods  are  dutiable  at  30  per 
cent.,  it  would  embrace  twenty  different  articles ; it  is  a perfect  drag- 
net in  which  to  catch  everything  used  in  making  or  ornamenting  hats,  &c. 


L.  B.  CARHART.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


519 


L.  B.  CARHART. 

Lonq  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  18, 1882. 

Mr.  L.  B.  Carhart,  an  examiner  in  tbe  appraiser’s  department  of  the 
New  York  custom-house,  upon  the  invitation  of  the  Commission,  made 
the  following  statement : 

I have  supervision  of  the  article  of  French  worsted  dress  goods.  I 
have  been  in  the  appraiser’s  department  of  the  custom-house  at  New 
York  three  years,  and,  previously,  in  the  dry-goods  business  for  more 
than  twenty-five  years.  The  paragraph  of  the  tariff  law  which  relates 
to  my  line  of  goods  is  found  on  page  171  of  Heyl’s  Digest,  paragraph 
1166,  schedule  L,  wool  and  woolen  goods.  The  paragraph  provides — 

That  on  women’s  and  children’s  dress  goods,  and  real  or  imitation  Italian  cloth, 
composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool  or  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
like  animals,  and  valued  at  not  exceeding  20  cents  per  square  yard,  the  duty  shall  be 
6 cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  centum  ad  valorem ; valued  at 
above  20  cents  tbe  square  yard,  8 cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  40 
per  centum  ad  valorem.  But  on  all  goods  weighing  four  ounces  and  over  per  square 
yard  the  duty  shall  be  50  cents  per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Now,  I find  in  my  application  of  this  law  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  be 
just  to  all  parties  concerned.  Of  course,  it  is  my  effort  to  do  no  injus- 
tice to  any  man  while  protecting  the  interests  of  the  government,  for  I 
think  it  is  only  in  this  way  that  I can  do  my  whole  duty. 

There  are  two  lines  of  distinction  drawn  by  this  law,  as  you  will  per- 
ceive; the  principal  one,  and  the  most  difficult  one  of  application,  being 
that  based  on  value.  We  have  the  compound  rate  of  duties  here,  aud 
it  is  in  this  compound  rate,  1 think,  that  all  the  defects  of  the  law  are  to 
be  found.  I have  asked  a clerk  to  make  for  me,  from  a rough  diagram 
which  I gave  him,  this  little  sheet,  which  will  show  more  clearly  than 
anything  I can  say  the  injustice  of  the  law.  If  I am  right  in  my 
opinion,  the  intention  of  levying  a tariff  law  is  to  distribute  the  burden 
of  taxation  among  the  tax  payers  in  proportion  to  their  ability  to  pay, 
as  nearly  as  possible;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  rich  man  shall  pay  from 
his  riches  and  the  poor  man  from  his  scanty  means  a proportionate 
share.  This  idea  is  absolutely  and  entirely  reversed  by  this  section  of 
the  law.  I find  that  the  lowest-priced  goods  which  are  imported  cost 
in  Europe  about  8 cents  a square  yard,  and  these  under  this  section  pay 
a duty  of  6 cents  a square  yard  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  which  is 
equivalent  to  just  110  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  As  the  value  of  the  goods 
increases  up  to  20  cents  a square  yard,  which  is  the  maximum  of  cost 
under  that  provision,  the  equivalent  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  diminishes, 
until  at  20  cents  a square  yard  they  pay  equal  to  exactly  65  per  cent, 
duty.  As  soon  as  the  value  of  the  goods  crosses  this  arbitrary  line  of 
20  cents  per  square  yard,  which  is  so  intangible  that  by  no  possibility 
that  I can  conceive  of  can  any  man  become  so  expert  as  that  he  can 
discover  the  difference  bet  ween  goods  that  are  worth  19J  cents  a square 
yard  and  those  that  are  worth  20J  cents  a square  yard,  the  rate  of 
duty  is  changed  and  its  ad  valorem  equivalent  advances  from  65  per 
cent,  to  80  per  cent,  by  one  straight  jump,  and  then  from  this  point,  as 
the  value  of  the  goods  increases  from  20  cents  a square  yard,  the  ad 
valorem  rate  of  duty  diminishes  until  it  reaches  about  50  per  cent.  So 
that  I find  that  the  lowest-priced  goods  pay  110  per  cent,  duty  while 


520 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


Cl.  b.  carhart. 


the  highest-priced  goods  pay  about  50  per  cent.  duty.  I think  this 
shows  that  the  principle  I stated  has  been  absolutely  reversed  by  this 
section  and  that  the  rich  man  pays  the  lowest  rate  of  duty,  while  the 
poor  man  pays  from  his  scanty  means  the  highest  rate  of  duty.  I see 
no  equitable  solution  of  this  difficulty  except  by  the  adoption  of  a plain 
and  simple  ad  valorem  duty.  I make  no  suggestions  as  to  what  the 
rate  of  duty  should  be,  but  I believe  that  an  ad  valorem  instead  of  a 
compound  duty  would  tend,  by  simplifying  the  law,  to  facilitate  its  en- 
forcing, would  tend  very  materially  and  directly  to  lessen  the  number 
of  undervaluations  and  frauds  upon  the  government,  and  would  be  just 
to  everybody  concerned. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  an  ad  valorem  duty  would  lessen 
the  probability  of  undervaluation  ? — Answer.  I believe  so.  That  is  the 
opinion  I hold,  and  I will  try  to  demonstrate  its  soundness  by  calling 
attention  to  some  facts  which  I think  will  support  it.  The  greatest 
trouble  with  the  law,  and  the  question  which  embarrasses  me  most,  is 
as  to  that  dividing  line  in  the  value  of  goods,  whether  they  are  over 
or  under  20  cents  a square  yard  in  value.  The  difference  between  the 
two  rates  of  duty  at  that  line,  as  I have  shown,  is  exactly  15  per  cent., 
which  is  a large  profit  for  the  importer.  If  one  man  can  succeed  in 
keeping  his  goods  invoiced  below  that  line  while  his  neighbors,  who  are 
his  competitors,  are  invoicing  theirs  above  that  liue  and  are  paying  the 
higher  rate  of  duty,  he  has  the  great  advantage  at  once  of  a very  con- 
siderable profit  in  the  duty  alone.  An  illustration  of  this  fact  is  now 
under  my  hands  at  the  stores.  I have  there  a reappraisement  under 
consideration  by  the  general  appraiser  on  an  appeal  from  an  advance 
which  I made  a few  weeks  ago,  and  the  whole  question  at  issue  turns 
on  an  advance  of  from  three-quarters  of  a cent  to  possibly  2 cents  per 
meter  on  the  different  styles  of  goods.  The  importer  has  repeatedly 
said  to  me,  w hen  discussing  this  advance  with  him,  u I may  as  well  be 
frank  with  you  ; we  should  not  raise  this  question  if  it  was  merely  the 
duty  on  the  advance,  but  it  affects  the  rate  of  duty;  that  is  the  great 
question  with  us.”  I made  the  addition  to  the  invoices,  and  the  amount 
of  increased  duties  involved  in  this  one  transaction  on  two  or  three  in- 
voices is  about  $3,000,  and  if  my  decision  shall  be  sustained,  as  I have 
not  much  doubt  that  it  will  be,  it  will  make  a difference  to  that  house 
in  their  importations  for  this  season  of  over  $10,000,  the  question  be- 
ing merely  whether  the  goods  belong  on  one  side  or  the  other  of  this  20 
per  cent.  line.  A practice  has  grown  up  among  buyers  who  go  to  Eu- 
rope which  illustrates  another  phase  of  this  question.  They  go  to  the 
manufacturer  abroad  and  say,  u I want  to  buy  a line  of  cashmeres,  and 
shall  want  4,000  or  5,000  pieces  in  all.  I want,  say,  500  pieces  of  the 
lower  grades  and  so  on  up  into  the  finer  goods.  What  are  your  prices  V’ 
The  negotiation  is  conducted  on  the  basis  of  the  sale  of  the  w hole  line, 
and  if  a sale  is  made  it  is  understood  that  all  goods  below  a certain 
count  must  be  at  such  price  as  that  they  shall  come  into  the  United 
States  at  the  lowr  rate  of  duty,  and  the  price  is  made  in  order  to  meet 
the  rate  of  duty,  and  is  not  based  on  the  value  of  the  goods,  the  manu- 
facturer repaying  himself  on  the  finer  qualities.  But  if  the  purchaser 
went  to  buy  the  low  grades  on  their  merits  he  could  not  import  them  at 
the  low  rate  of  duty.  The  consequence  is  that  the  man  who  goes 
abroad  to  buy  the  lower  lines  of  goods  alone,  and  buys  them  on  their 
intrinsic  value,  is  compelled  to  pay  the  higher  rate  of  duty ; and  he  who 


V 


L.  B.  CARIIART.]  APPRAISER’S  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  521 

resorts  to  this  other  method  of  buying  his  goods  succeeds  in  getting 
them  in  at  the  lower  rate  of  duty. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  the  scale  of  minimurns  in  the  tariff  is 
arranged  for  the  purpose  of  arranging  a specific  duty  to  correspond  in  a 
measure  to  the  ad  valorem;  to  correspond  to  the  lower  character  of  the 
goods;  do  you  understand  that  to  be  the  object  of  the  scale  of  mini- 
mums? — A.  I do  not  fully  comprehend  your  question. 

Q.  You  are  aware  that  there  are  certain  rates  of  duties  placed  on 
these  goods.  Are  not'  those  rates  of  duty  arranged  according  to  the 
value  of  the  goods,  to  a certain  extent? — A.  Perhaps  that  is  true. 

Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  that  is  an  objection  that  applies  to  all 
scales  of  minimum  duties  and  all  specific  duties;  that  there  is  a line 
where  that  difficulty  occurs  and  applies  to  all  minimum  duties  of  that 
character? — A.  I shall  have  to  ask  to  be  excused  from  answering  ques- 
tions as  to  other  lines  of  goods ; I am  confining  myself  strictly  to  my 
own  line  of  goods.  Whatever  knowledge  I have  outside  of  that  is  of 
a general  character,  and  I prefer  to  discuss  the  one  line  of  goods  1 deal 
with.  As  to  these  goods  I ought  to  have  some  specific  and  accurate 
knowledge,  for  I have  handled  them  for  about  thirty  years. 

Q.  Here  is  a schedule  of  minimum  duties  scaled  to  a certain  extent 
to  correspond  to  certain  ad  valorem  rates,  and  the  objection  made  is  an 
objection  which  invariably  applies  to  all  specific  duties  of  that  char- 
acter, does  it  not? — A.  I suppose  so.  It  is  an  objection,  I suppose,  that 
would  lie  against  the  duties  that  are  like  these;  an  objection  which  lies 
against  all  compound  duties. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  I understand  the  witness  to  say  that  under  this  application  of  com- 
pound duties  the  lowest-priced  goods  pay  110  per  cent.,  while  goods  of 
a higher  quality  pay  only  65  per  cent,  up  to  a certain  point,  and  above 
that  point  80  per  cent.,  and  then,  as  they  go  higher  up  in  price,  they 
come  back  to  50  per  cent. 

The  Witness.  That  is  it  precisely. 

The  President.  My  suggestion  was  that  this  was  a general  objection 
and  not  a specific  one,  as  applied  to  this  particular  paragraph. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  1 do  not  know  that  any  other  goods  are 
graded  in  the  same  way  that  woolen  goods  are. 

The  President.  The  scale  of  minimum  duties  applies  to  them. 

The  Witness.  The  case  which  I had  in  hand  to-day,  and  to  which  I 
simply  refer  for  illustration,  is  one  as  clearly  marked  as  I could  possibly 
make  it  If  I had  an  invoice  made  out  to  order  to  show  a case  of  under- 
valuation I could  not  get  a better  instance  of  it,  and  yet  it  remains  an 
open  question  as  to  whether  those  goods  shall  pay  a rate  of  duty  that 
no  other  importer  in  the  city  of  New  York  pays  on  his  goods.  In  other 
words,  whether  one  house  shall  have  the  exclusive  monopoly  of  import- 
ing certain  goods  at  the  low  rate  of  duty.  It  is  my  effort  to  equalize 
this  matter,  and  it  is  an  open  question  whether  I shall  succeed.  If  the 
rate  of  duty  was  a simple  ad  valorem  one,  it  would  only  remain  for  the 
United  States  Government,  having  the  largest  possible  interest  in  the 
question,  an  interest  extending  to  what  would  correspond  in  the  busy 
season  with  a merchant’s  profit  of  $50,000  per  day — that  is  the  amount 
of  duty  the  government  collects  on  my  line  of  goods,  $40,000  to  $50,000 
per  day — it  only  remains,  I say,  for  the  United  States  Government  to  ap- 
ply its  energies  to  get  men  who  are  competent  by  intelligence  and  expe- 
rience to  determine  as  to  the  value  of  goods;  and,  in  order  to  do  this, 


522 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  B.  CARHART. 


they  have  only  to  go  into  the  market  as  merchants  do  and  get  the  best 
service  by  paying  adequately  for  it.  The  government  then  can  be  well 
served,  and  an  equitable  ad  valorem  duty  can  be  applied  Avitliout  fric- 
tion, and  without  serious  questions  of  undervaluation. 

In  regard  to  this  question  of  values,  I have  had  on  a whole  case  of 
goods  a difference  of  less  than  25  cents  on  the  total  cost  of  a case ; turn 
the  scale  and  change  the  rate  of  duty,  and  this  would  all  be  effected  by 
a slight  increase  in  the  rate  of  freight,  or  a trifling  difference  in  the  cost 
of  a case  or  package ; such  little  changes  ha\Te  often  had  that  effect.  I 
think  if  these  things  are  susceptible  of  correction  under  the  system  I 
have  suggested,  or  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  they  deserve  considera- 
tion. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  What  is  your  experience  in  regard  to  the  disposition  to  under- 
value goods  ; what  is  your  idea  of  the  prevalence  of  attempts  at  under- 
valuation ? — A.  I should  say  that  about  one-half  of  the  goods  I handle 
are  consigned  ; in  other  words,  they  are  owned  by  the  manufacturer 
until  they  are  sold  and  the  proceeds  collected  here.  Of  course,  the 
tendency  is  for  the  manufacturer  to  try  to  get  his  goods  from  the  cus- 
tom-house at  as  low  a rate  of  valuation  as  possible.  I think  it  not  un- 
fair to  presume  that  they  would  invoice  their  goods  at  25  per  cent,  less 
than  they  do  if  they  thought  they  could  get  them  through  the  custom- 
house at  such  prices.  In  nearly  all  cases  purchased  goods,  I believe, 
are  invoiced  at  their  actual  purchase  price  ; I but  rarely  meet  with  in- 
stances to  the  contrary  among  the  large  importers. 

Q.  HaA’e  you  any  remedy  which  you  can  suggest  to  prevent  under- 
valuation ? That  would  be  a very  important  thing  if  an  ad  valorem  sys- 
tem was  adopted. — A.  I know  of  no  remedy  except  such  as  I have  sug- 
gested. I think,  in  regard  to  the  goods  that  come  under  my  examination, 
that  an  experienced  man  handling  the  goods  can  form  a reasonably  just 
and  accurate  estimate  of  their  actual  value.  But  to  draw  so  fine  a dis- 
tinction as  that  arbitrary  line  which  I have  referred  to  requires  is  im- 
practicable. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Are  not  all  such  lines  necessarily  arbitrary? — A.  No,  sir;  there 
are  some  that  are  mathematical  and  easily  defined.  Under  this  clause 
which  I have  referred  to,  I am  enabled  to  count  the  number  of  threads 
within  a quarter  of  an  inch  of  goods,  and  it  is  a mathematical  demon- 
stration as  to  whether  there  are  ten  or  ele\ren  of  those  lines  there.  If 
there  are  ten  the  value  is  fixed  at  one  price,  and  if  there  are  eleven,  at 
another,  and  so  on  all  the  way  up. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  practical  difficulty  in  determining  the  compound 
duty  except  in  the  matter  of  labor  and  time  expended? — A.  No,  sir; 
none  whatever,  except  as  to  this  question  of  value,  although  it  takes  more 
time  to  apply  such  a law  than  an  ad  valorem  one. 

Q.  But,  practically,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  determining  the  duty  ab- 
solutely.— A.  No,  sir,  it  is  only  a matter  of  calculation. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  But  is  not  the  basis  of  \ralue  a conflicting  one  ? — A.  Yes,  sir,  it 
undoubtedly  is ; it  varies  from  one  season  to  another. 

Q.  I do  not  mean  that;  I mean  is  not  the  basis  a conflicting  one  on 
the  same  identical  goods.  If  there  are  thirty-nine  pieces  in  one  case  and 


L.  B.  CARHAET.] 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


523 


orty  pieces  in  another  and  the  charges  were  the  same  on  the  cases,  one 
lot  might  pay  a higher  rate  of  duty  than  another,  might  it  not0? — A. 
That  might  ve*y  well  happen,  and  has  happened. 

Q.  It  is  sometimes  difficult  to  fix  a basis0? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  With  all  the  necessary  care  it  seems  very  difficult  to  fix  a basis, 
and,  as  you  suggest,  it  varies.  But  in  answer  to  the  question  of  the 
President,  yon  say  that  having  a basis  once  established  it  is  a very  sim- 
ple matter  of  computation  ? — A.  He  spoke  simply  of  the  question  of 
classification,  as  1 understood  it.  When  we  have  the  invoices  before 
us,  the  goods  not  being  present,  we  have  only  to  take  the  figures  as 
they  stand  on  the  invoice  and  make  the  classification.  Of  course,  this 
is  merely  a question  of  figures,  and  we  are  arbitrarily  bound  by  the  fig- 
ures as  they  stand  on  the  invoice;  we  must  accept  them.  In  regard  to 
a question  of  valuation,  I have  to  examine  the  goods  and  to  determine 
whether  they  are  worth  more  than  the  prices  stated  in  the  invoice.  If 
the  goods  I have  examined  appear  to  be  correctly  valued,  and  I have 
nothing  to  change  in  the  value  of  them,  I assume  that  the  other  goods 
are  correct  if  I know  nothing  to  the  contrary,  and  then  I accept  the  fig- 
ures as  they  stand  and  make  the  calculation  and  determine  the  rate  of 
duty.  I understand  the  question  of  the  President  to  be  whether  there 
was  any  practical  difficulty  in  making  these  calculations.  Of  course 
there  is  not. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you  were  in  favor  of  an  ad  valorem 
duty  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; it  is  my  opinion  that  would  be  the  best  way  of  as- 
sessing the  duty. 

Q.  At  the  same  time  you  said  a moment  ago  that  half  of  the  goods 
coming  through  your  department  came  through  the  hands  of  agents. — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  also  that  the  natural  inclination  of  the  importer  was  to  do  the 
best  he  could  for  himself,  and  that  there  was  more  of  a tendency  towards 
undervaluation  when  goods  were  consigned  to  agents  than  when  they 
were  purchased. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  then,  one  would  take  it  that  the  only  bar,  or  the  surest  bar, 
to  protect  the  government  and  have  uniform  duties  assessed,  would  be 
the  watchfulness  of  the  appraiser. — A.  I think  it  must  come  to  that 
eventually;  it  depends  on  that  to-day. 

Q.  Then  if  we  quit  the  compound  rate  of  duty,  and  rely  wholly  on  the 
ad  valorem,  the  values  will  be  assessed  fairly  and  equally  at  all  times, 
provided  the  appraisers  are  always  faithful  and  watchful? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  and  competent  and  honest. 

Q.  But  suppose  in  time  they  become  lax,  would  not  then  the  govern- 
ment be  a little  better  protected  with  a compound  duty? — A.  I think 
the  question,  as  it  stands  now,  depends  just  as  much  on  the  faithfulness 
and  intelligence  of  the  examiner  or  appraiser  as  it  would  under  that 
system  at  the  point  which  I speak  of,  which  is  the  essential  point  under 
the  present  law. 

Q.  You  are  speaking  about  a particular  point,  and  I am  asking  you 
on  a general  principle.  I ask  you,  as  a general  principle,  whether  the 
valuations  would  not  be  more  equal  throughout  the  country  in  the  different 
ports  under  a specific  than  under  an  ad  valorem  duty  ? — A.  Yes ; under  a 
specific  duty  clearly,  if  we  had  a specific  duty  that  could  be  applied  with 
anything  like  justice.  But  I think  a compound  duty  is  open  to  all  the 
objections  that  are  brought  against  it. 


524 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  b.  carhart. 


Q.  What  is  your  experience  in  your  department  as  to  the  average  cost 
for  addition  of  charges,  leaving  out  commissions,  which,  I understand, 
are  fixed,  the  minimum  rate  beiug,  I believe,  per  cent.? — A.  No,  sir; 

not  always.  It  is  3 per  cent,  in  Paris,  and  outside  of  Paris  2J  per  cent. 

Q.  What  is  the  average  of  commissions  on  your  line  of  goods? — A.  If 
an  importer  fails  to  do  it,  I always  add  3 per  cent,  to  all  Paris  invoices, 
and  on  invoices  outside  of  Paris  2J  per  cent.,  for  commissions. 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  average  percentage  of  charges? — A.  I could  not, 
because  that  is  a matter  which  varies  very  materially.  They  have  three 
different  ways  of  shipping  goods  on  the  Continent,  by  slow  freight,  me- 
dium freight,  or  fast  freight,  and  the  rates  of  charges  are  very  different 
by  those  different  ways. 

Q.  Is  not  this  whole  subject  of  charges  and  commissions  one  produc- 
tive of  great  complaint  and  trouble? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  so.  My 
opinion  is  that  it  would  be  much  better  to  abolish  them. 

Q.  Instead  of  abolishing  them  would  it  not  be  better  to  establish  a 
uniform  rate  for  commissions  and  a uniform  rate  for  charges;  a fixed 
rate  ? — A.  I do  not  think  it  would,  myself,  if  you  desire  my  opinion  on 
that  subject. 

Q.  Why  not? — A.  Because  it  would  produce  great  discontent  on  the 
part  of  the  merchants. 

Q.  The  rate  that  would  be  fixed  would  be  enough  to  cover  the  cost  of 
getting  the  goods  from  the  manufactory  to  the  seaboard.  Suppose  the 
rate  was  the  minimum  of  the  cost? — A.  The  government  receives  ap- 
proximately a second  sum  in  the  shape  of  duties  on  those  charges. 

Q.  But  then  the  theory  of  the  law  is  to  get  at  the  cost  of  the  goods  at 
the  place  of  manufacture  and  the  cost  of  the  transportation  and  ex- 
penses.— A.  An  illustration  has  just  occurred  to  me  which  I think  will 
be  an  answer  to  your  question.  For  instance,  I get  a consigned  invoice, 
and  the  manufacturer  will  write  at  the  bottom  of  it,  “Free  on  board  at 
Havre.”  Now,  his  merely  writing  that  takes  this  question  out  of  my 
control;  that  is  regarded  as  settling  the  whole  question. 

Q.  That  is  entirely  in  the  line  of  my  inquiry;  that  the  manufacturer 
who  is  smart  enough  to  do  that,  or  who  is  quick  enough  to  make  this 
agreement  to  have  his  goods  delivered  “free  on  board,”  has  the  advan- 
tage of  his  brother  importer  who  neglects  that. — A.  He  has  made  no 
agreement  at  all;  he  consigns  the  goods.  The  man  who  owns  the  goods 
simply  writes  on  the  invoice,  “ Free  on  board  at  Havre”;  be  lias  made  no 
agreement  with  anybody.  The  only  difference  between  us  is  that  you 
would  have  a minimum  rate  and  I would  wipe  out  the  charge  altogether. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I understand  the  practical  difficulty  to  be 
this.  With  such  an  invoice  as  Mr.  Carhart  speaks  of,  the  charge  is 
already  there.  If  the  manufacturer  can  write  “ f.  o.  b.,”  he  can  write  in 
the  same  way  1 per  cent,  or  14  per  cent,  for  charges.  Suppose  that 
Congress  announces  that  on  all  invoices  there  should  be  added  5 per 
centum  in  allowing  the  charges  and  commissions,  and  the  manufacturer 
takes  advantage  of  that  by  writing  the  5 per  cent,  in  allowing  the  charges 
and  commissions  in  lieu  of  prices. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  I would  prohibit  him  from  doing  that.  I 
would  take  the  consular  invoice  price  as  made,  or  the  appraiser’s  price 
at  the  port  of  entry,  and  to  all  ad  valorem  duties  make  an  absolute  fixed 
rate  for  charges  and  commissions. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Then  you  will  meet  this  objection.  There 
are  many  kinds  of  goods  which  are  only  bought  and  sold  in  that  man- 
ner; they  are  delivered  “free  on  board”  as  an  actual  tact  in  the  com- 
merce of  nations.  Now  the  manufacturer  can  and  will  take  advantage 


L.  B.  carhabt.  1 APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y.  525 

of  that  by  simply  invoicing  his  goods  and  saying  the  above  price  in- 
cludes 5 per  cent,  in  lieu  of  charges  and  commissions. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  we  should  in  this  way  get  rid  of  this 
troublesome  division  of  charges  and  commissions. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  see  why  you  would  not  get  rid  of  it  in  the 
other  way  just  as  well. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  You  can  put  5 per  cent,  on  the  bill  and  say 
it  is  to  cover  the  charges  and  commissions,  fixing  that  as  an  arbitrary 
amount,  or  you  can  add  an  equivalent  to  the  rate  and  fix  it  in  that  way. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I want  to  bring  out  just  one  point,  and  that 
is  this:  I understand  that  several  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  recom- 
mended ad  valorem  rates  as  opposed  to  fixed  lines  of  division  in  value, 
say  that  in  the  appraisement  of  goods  under  ad  valorem  rates  you  can 
ascertain  the  value  of  the  goods  within  a certain  percentage  anywhere 
from  2 to  10  or  15  per  cent.  They  cannot  undervalue  so  much  as  this 
larger  percentage,  but  in  fixing  an  arbitrary  fine  you  are  bound  to  bring 
the  question  to  so  fine  a point  that  it  will  be  impossible  for  any  expert  to 
get  exactly  at  that  line. 

The  Witness.  Yes,  that  is  so.  When  I entered  the  service  of  the 
government,  some  two  and  a half  years  ago,  I had  a different  view  of 
this  subject,  but  my  experience  has  changed  my  opinion. 

I will  simply  suggest  one  other  point  that  has  arisen  in  my  division. 
There  is  some  feeling  of  discontent  with  that  provision  of  the  law  which 
fixes  the  date  of  shipment  absolutely  as  the  date  when  the  value  shall 
be  determined.  There  is  a feeling  of  discontent  on  the  part  of  a good 
many  of  the  importers  with  that  provision,  because  they  complain  that 
it  is  a punishment  for  their  investment  of  their  capital  in  advance,  which 
in  my  line  of  goods  is  an  almost  absolute  necessity ; that  it  is  a punish- 
ment for  their  enterprise  in  purchasing  their  goods  in  advance  of  the 
time  of  shipment,  and  giving  the  orders  the  season  before,  as  they  are 
obliged  to  do  to  conduct  their  business  successfully.  They  say  that  if 
they  take  advantage  of  the  market,  and  subsequently  the  market  ad- 
vances instead  of  their  getting  the  benefit  of  their  investment,  they  are 
punished  for  it. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  they  do  not  get  as  much  benefit  from  their  invest- 
ment as  they  anticipate.  They  get  the  benefit  of  the  investment  in 
every  way  except  that  they  must  pay  the  rate  of  tariff  on  the  value  of 
goods  at  the  time  of  the  shipment? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I say  to  them,  “You 
get  a portion  of  the  benefit”;  but  they  say, u We  are  entitled  to  the  whole 
benefit.”  In  French  cashmeres,  for  instance,  which  is  a staple  article, 
the  largest  importers  invariably  give  their  orders  from  three  to  six 
months  ahead  of  their  time  of  shipment,  the  price  being  fixed  at  the 
time  of  the  giving  of  the  order. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  But  home  valuation  would  make  the  rates  the  same  at  all  times  and 
in  all  ports,  wouldn’t  it? — A.  I do  not  believe  in  a home  valuation. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  I observe  that  most  of  the  custom-house  officers  are  bitterly  op- 
posed to  a home  valuation  ; why  is  that? — A.  With  regard  to  my  own 
case,  I can  say  that  I am  very  closely  confined  in  the  store  during  the 
busy  season,  and  I do  not  see  how  I can  know  what  is  going  on  all  over 
the  city  of  New  York  while  I am  at  work  in  the  fifth  story  of  a building 
on  Washington  street. 


526 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  B.  CARHART. 


Commissioner  Garland.  How  do  yon  know  what  is  going  on  in  Paris, 
then  ? 

The  Witness.  Admirably  well,  because  I get  nearly  every  invoice 
that  comes  from  Paris  to  this  country  of  goods  in  my  line.  Seventy -five 
per  cent,  of  all  the  goods  in  my  line  that  come  into  the  United  States 
come  to  the  port  of  New  York,  and  all  these  invoices  pass  through  my 
hands. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  If  you  were  appraising  goods  and  fixing  their  value  every  day  you 
would  have  the  means  of  fixing  the  home  valuation'? — A.  I have  a 
knowledge  of  the  prices  in  Paris,  which  I obtain  from  the  invoices ; but 
how  should  I know  what  the  merchants  are  doing  in  New  York? 

Q.  You  would  become  acquainted  with  the  prices  of  goods  from  day 
to  day  and  know  when  changes  accrued ; you  would  certainly  have 
some  means  of  knowing.  If  you  are  going  to  take  the  invoices  as  being 
absolutely  correct,  then,  of  course,  your  objection  is  a,  good  one. — A. 
When  I have  these  invoices  of  purchased  goods  I see  every  transaction 
that  occurs,  and  that,  taken  together  with  other  facts  that  come  to  my 
knowledge  personally,  furnishes  the  basis  upon  which  I estimate  the 
value  for  the  consigned  goods. 

By  the  President  : 

Q,  I understand  that  you  have  a very  large  line  of  invoices  coming  in 
here  all  the  time  from  importers  whose  reputation  is  unimpeachable, 
and  these  invoices  give  you  the  basis  for  your  judgment  of  the  value  of 
goods  of  that  class. — A.  Yes,  sir ; they  furnish  the  very  best  basis. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Suppose  the  importer  in  this  country  was  required  to  file  a state- 
ment under  oath  of  the  value  of  the  goods  he  received ; would  not  that 
be  a safe  basis  to  estimate  the  home  values  upon  ? — A.  He  would  prob- 
ably give  us  his  asking  price.  The  asking  price  is  not  the  value.  The 
true  value  is  the  price  at  which  the  sale  is  made.  Sales  are  frequently 
made  above  and  below  the  market  value,  and  that  whole  question  ot 
market  value  is  an  exceedingly  difficult  one.  My  own  judgment  of  the 
matter  is  that  the  proper  market  value  is  the  price  at  which  a given 
quality  of  goods  can  be  purchased  in  the  open  market  by'  a person  in 
good  credit.  Often  we  find  goods  which  cost  more  than  the  market 
value,  and  I sometimes  find  them  purchased  under  extraordinary  con- 
ditions at  prices  less  than  the  market  value.  I have  advanced  invoices 
where  I thought  they  had  been  so  purchased,  and  have  insisted  oir  the 
advance  because  I believed  them  to  be  charged  at  less  than  their  true 
value.  I have  sometimes  to  claim  in  regard  to  goods  invoiced  as  “jobs” 
that  I cannot  recognize  them  as  “job  lots,”  and  claim  that  they  are 
charged  at  less  than  the  market  value.  1 have  to  deal  not  simply  with 
the  fact  that  they  are  purchased,  but  with  the  actual  market  value  of 
the  goods.  Of  course  my  action  in  such  a case  results  in  discussion  and 
sometimes  in  a little  bitterness  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  importer. 


CYRUS  A.  STEVENS.] 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


527 


CYRUS  A.  STEYENS. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Cyrus  A.  Stevens,  assistant  appraiser  New  York  custom-house, 
in  response  to  the  invitation  of  the  Commission,  made  the  following 
statement : 

My  division  includes  the  appraisement  of  diamonds,  watches,  <&c. 
My  assistant  appraiser  (Mr.  Imanuel  Auerbach)  has  covered  the  ground 
pretty  nearly,  and  I have  not  much  to  say  in  addition  to  what  he  has 
told  you,  except  in  regard  to  a few  points.  In  one  branch  of  our  divis- 
ion we  have  had  some  difficulty ; in  regard  to  bronze  statuary.  Bronze 
is  provided  for  specially  at  35  per  cent.  duty.  The  first  copy  of  a bronze 
statue,  modeled  by  a practical  artist,  if  it  is  accompanied  by  a certificate 
to  that  effect,  is  allowed  to  come  in  at  10  per  cent.  duty.  It  is  first 
modeled  in  the  clay,  then  in  plaster,  and  then  in  the  hard  metal.  Each 
copy  of  the  hard-metal  statue,  even  when  reproduced  twenty  to  fifty 
times,  would  be  exactly  like  the  first  one,  and  yet  we  are  compelled  to 
pass  upon  the  first  one  as  being  the  original,  and  we  have  to  depend  upon 
the  certificate  of  the  artist  which  accompanies  it  to  determine  that  fact. 
No  expert  can  tell  the  difference  between  the  first,  second,  third,  or 
twentieth  copy.  But,  according  to  the  ruling  of  the  department,  that 
particular  one  is  allowed  to  come  in  paying  10  per  cent,  duty,  w hile  all 
the  subsequent  copies  have  to  pay  a duty  of  35  per  cent.  It  seems  to 
me  that  some  change  should  be  made  by  which  all  should  pay  35  per 
cent.  I see  no  reason  for  making  any  distinction.  I would  not  recom- 
mend that  statuary  of  metal,  porcelain,  or  terra  cotta  should  come  in  as 
works  of  art,  as  has  been  suggested.  I think  they  should  pay  accord- 
ing to  the  material. 

We  have  also  had  some  difficulty  in  classification  of  jewelry,  a ques- 
tion that  was  determined  by  a case  in  court  some  three  or  four  months 
ago.  Before  that  time  there  were  some  four  or  five  classifications  of 
jewelry;  since  the  decision  I have  referred  to  it  is  all  classified  at  one 
rate,  viz,  25  per  cent.,  with  the  exception  of  a certain  class  of  goods. 
Within  a wTeek  or  two  we  are  called  upon  to  classify  brooch  buckles,  &c., 
as  hat  ornaments,  according  to  material,  although  they  have  heretofore 
been  decided  by  the  courts  to  be  jewrelry.  Some  samples  were  sent  from 
Boston  to  the  Treasury  Department,  and  it  was  decided  there  that  they 
should  pay  duty  as  hat  ornaments.  The  appraisers  at  Boston  report 
that  they  are  too  light  in  weight  to  be  worn  as  jewelry.  A brooch  is  a 
brooch,  in  my  opinion,  no  matter  how  it  is  used,  whether  for  a pin  or  on 
a hat,  and  therefore  should  be  classified  as  such.  I cannot  see  the  ne- 
cessity of  drawing  a distinction. 

I would  also  suggest,  in  cases  where  appeals  are  made  from  our  class- 
ifications, instead  of  sending  such  appeals  to  the  department  at  Wash- 
ington for  determination,  that  they  be  sent  to  the  board  of  general  ap- 
praisers, or  that  a board  of  judges  should  be  created  with  whom  the 
assistant  appraisers  and  examiners  can  communicate,  and  who  can  sit 
where  the  articles  in  question  can  be  irfspected.  At  present  we  de- 
scribe the  articles  as  fully  as  we  can,  but  the  person  in  the  department 
who  passes  upon  them  does  not  get  a real  knowledge  of  what  the  goods 
are.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  only  two  months  ago  we  had  a 
decisiou  governing  this  matter  of  ornamental  jewelry,  and  now  it  is 


628 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CYRUS  A.  STEVENS. 


again  confused  by  a decision  in  the  department  subjecting  hat  orna- 
ments to  the  rate  of  duty  provided  for  the  materials  of  which  the  article 
is  composed. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  As  I understand,  you  make  the  point  that  certain  brooches 
were*  first  classified  at  New  York  according  to  the  material  of  which  they 
were  composed,  that  a protest  was  filed  and  the  case  went  to  court,  and 
the  court  decided  that  such  brooches  should  pay  the  duty  imposed  upon 
jewelry.  Now,  the  importer  in  Boston  sends  a . brooch  to  the  depart- 
ment in  Washington,  and  it  decides  that  it  shall  pay  according  to  the 
material  of  which  it  is  composed  % — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  they  wrote  from 
Boston  to  know  how  we  classified  the  imitations  of  jet  and  iron  and  the 
baser  metals  made  into  personal  ornaments.  We  answered  that  we  class- 
ified them  under  the  decision  of  the  court  as  jewelry.  The  appraiser 
there  made  the  report  to  Washington  saying  that  the  goods  were  of  a 
light  and  fragile  nature,  and  could  not  be  made  use  of  as  jewelry;  that 
they  were  to  be  used  as  bonnet  ornaments,  although  they  might  be  worn 
by  the  poorer  classes  as  brooches. 

Q.  What  suggestion  do  you  make  to  avoid  such  ambiguities  in  the 
law  ? — A.  I would  suggest  that  all  ornaments  of  this  kind  should  be 
classified  as  jewelry. 

Q.  How  can  Congress  legislate  on  an  article  about  which  experts  dif- 
fer so  widely  as  to  whether  it  is  or  not  an  article  of  jewelry? — A.  I 
would  classify  all  ornaments  of  this  kind  as  jewelry.  Some  of  these 
very  articles  that  were  before  the  court  when  the  decision  was  made 
were  imitations  of  jet  and  steel;  they  were  there  for  them  to  decide 
upon,  and  they  decided  they  were  articles  of  jewelry.  Yet  these  very 
same  articles  were  passed  upon  by  the  Treasury  Department  a short 
time  since,  and  the  decision  given  that  they  should  be  rated  according 
to  the  material  of  which  they  were  composed.  I think  we  should  have 
a board  of  officials  to  whom  all  such  matters  should  be  referred.  The 
board  of  general  appraisers  are  at  the  appraiser’s  department  constantly, 
and  see  the  goods  and  know  what  classifications  should  be  made  of 
them,  as  well  as  the  application  and  use  to  which  they  are  put.  Either 
the  general  appraisers  or  a board  of  judges  should  be  created  to  deter- 
mine these  questions  instead  of  sending  them  on  to  Washington  for  de- 
termination. 

There  is  another  difficulty  we  have  to  encounter,  and  that  is  in  regard 
to  precious  stones  and  imitations  thereof,  which  pay  10  per  cent.  duty. 
Imitations  of  diamonds,  topaz,  garnets,  emeralds,  and  all  precious  stone 
pay  10  per  cent.  duty.  The  best  imitation  we  have  met  with  is  that  of 
black  onyx.  It  is  very  hard  for  any  one  to  distinguish  between  the  real 
stone  and  the  imitation.  The  Treasury  Department  has  decided  that 
imitations  of  onyx  shall  pay  the  same  rate  as  imitations  of  jet,  while  all 
the  other  imitations  of  precious  stones  pay  a different  rate  of  duty.  I 
would  suggest  that  all  imitations  of  precious  stones  should  pay  the  same 
duty.  At  present  we  have  two  classifications  as  a result  of  the  ruling 
of  the  department. 

We  have  considerable  trouble  also  in  regard  to  the  word  “antiquity,” 
as  to  what  shall  be  defined  as  an  antiquity.  According  to  the  decision 
of  the  department,  an  antiquity  is  something  made  previous  to  the  fif- 
teenth century.  It  is  my  opinion  that  we  should  embrace  the  fifteenth 
and  sixteenth  centuries,  and  admit  articles  made  within  or  previous  to 
that  time  free.  These  articles  serve  as  educators  to  the  public  taste, 
and  therefore  I think  there  should  be  no  duty  placed  upon  them.  A 


CYRUS  A.  STEVENS.] 


APPRAISER'S  DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y. 


529 


great  proportion  of  the  goods  entered  as  antiquities,  however,  are  not 
genuine  antiquities.  Our  people  are  deceived  very  often,  so  that  really 
few  antiquities  come  in  here.  I have  a vase  at  the  store  now  which  is 
worth  about  50  francs,  but  the  owner  had  to  pay  £110  for  it.  I classified 
it  for  duty  as  an  imitation.  The  number  of  genuine  antiquities  which 
would  be  admitted  would  be  very  limited.  I suggest  that  we  admit 
all  antiquities  free  of  duty,  whether  imported  for  private  use,  exhibition, 
or  sale,  when  made  in  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  centuries  or  previously. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Would  not  that  encourage  this  very  imposition  of  which  you  have 
spoken? — A.  No,  sir,  I think  not,  for  we  should  assess  all  these  imita- 
tions for  duty.  In  the  case  I referred  to,  the  owner  of  the  vase  believed 
he  had  a genuine  antiquity  and  was  not  satisfied  with  my  classification, 
and  finally  brought  General  Cesnola  in  to  inspect  it,  and  was  not  satis- 
fied with  his  decision,  and  then  called  in  Mr.  Feuardent,  who  pronounced 
it  of  modern  manufacture. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  You  suggest  as  a mode  of  determining  these  questions  of  classifi- 
cation, that  a board  of  appraisers  or  a customs  court  should  be  created. 
Is  there  any  reason  why  the  board  of  appraisers  cannot  discharge  the 
duty  there  as  well  as  a court? — A.  No,  sir;  if  they  were  authorized  to 
decide  these  questions,  I think  they  could  do  it  satisfactorily.  I spoke 
of  the  board  of  general  appraisers  because  they  go  from  port  to  port  and 
are  familiar  with  articles  of  merchandise,  and  are  perhaps  better  versed 
in  these  matters  than  any  one  else.  I think  it  would  be  better  to  refer 
these  matters  to  them  rather  than  to  the  assistant  appraisers  or  experts, 
because  we  have  put  ourselves  on  record  from  the  beginning  by  our 
classifications.  My  idea  is  that  a board  of  general  appraisers  or  a board 
of  judges  who  are  capable  of  deciding  these  matters,  should  be  author- 
ized to  determine  all  these  questions  instead  of  sending  them  to  Wash- 
ington, as  is  done  at  present. 

Q.  That  would  involve  the  necessity  of  having  a board  of  judges  or 
appraisers  at  every  port? — A.  Yes,  sir;  if  it  was  determined  to  create 
a court,  it  would.  But  the  matter  might  be  left  to  the  four  general  ap- 
praisers who  are  in  existence  now. 

Q.  How  frequently  do  these  general  appraisers  visit  the  different 
ports? — A.  They  are  with  us  every  month.  I suppose  General  Mere- 
dith and  his  associates  spend  the  largest  part  ot  their  time  at  New 
York. 

Q.  How  frequently  do  they  visit  the  other  ports? — A.  I do  not  know. 

Q.  Is  it  your  idea  that  ultimate  classification  would  be  better  deter- 
mined by  such  a board  than  by  a court? — A.  Of  course  the  merchant 
would  have  the  right  to  appeal  from  their  decision  to  the  court,  as  he 
does  from  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  the  present 
time. 

Q.  What  is  your  idea  as  to  whether  such  a board  could  be  made  an 
ultimate  tribunal  for  the  decision  of  these  matters? — A.  I do  not  think 
you  could  create  a board  which  would  be  the  ultimate  tribunal.  The 
parties  would  always  have  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  courts. 

Q.  Or  they  would  have  the  right  to  sue  the  collector? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  reason  exists  why  classifications  should  not  be  made  ulti- 
mately by  such  a board  as  that  instead  of  by  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment?— A.  Here  is case  in  point.  I had  a lot  of  goods  entered  as 
antiquities  by  a gentleman  in  New  Yrork,  and  according  to  a decision 

H.  Mis.  6—31: 


530 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CYRUS  A.  STEVENS. 


of  the  department  defining  antiquities,  there  was  only  one  piece  found 
in  the  whole  lot  that  was  a genuine  antiquity,  although  they  were  cor- 
rect copies  of  the  ancients  in  every  way ; I had  to  classify  them  according 
to  the  material  of  which  they  were  composed.  I bracketed  the  whole 
and  wrote  across,  for  the  benefit  of  the  collector:  u These  goods  are  old, 
and  fit  only  for  cabinet  use.”  But  the  gentleman  had  to  pay  the  duties, 
and  he  has  instituted  suit  in  the  courts  for  the  recovery  and  won.  He 
sued  on  the  ground  that  these  articles  were  simply  for  his  own  private 
use,  as  souvenirs  for  his  cabinet.  If  he  had  appealed  from  this  classifi- 
cation of  35  and  45  per  cent,  to  the  board  of  general  appraisers,  they 
would  probably  have  sustained  me  under  the  present  law. 

Q.  And  according  to  the  fact  you  should  have  been  sustained  in  that 
case? — A.  Yes,  sir,  according  to  the  facts;  and  I think  the  government 
should  treat  such  things  very  liberally,  because  the  subject  is  one  within 
very  narrow  limits.  When  you  consider  that  all  the  museums  of  for- 
eign countries  are  supported  by  the  different  governments,  and  have 
agents  picking  up  all  such  articles  of  antiquity,  there  is  a very  small 
chance  for  Americans  to  secure  an  original  antiquity,  and  as  a rule 
they  have  to  be  content  with  copies.  But  as  educators  they  are  valu- 
able, and  if  imported  for  private  cabinets,  or  public  institutions,  and 
not  for  sale  they  should  be  free. 


DANIEL  W.  LEE.] 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


531 


DANIEL  W.  LEE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  Avgust  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Daniel  W.  Lee,  examiner,  New  York  custom  house,  upon  the 
invitation  of  the  Commission,  made  the  following'  statement: 

I think  that  photographs  should  be  specially  provided  for.  In  the  law 
as  it  now  stands  they  are  not  provilded  for  at  all.  Photographs  on  paper 
are  classified  as  assimilating  to  engravings  at  25  per  cent,  duty ; on  porce- 
lain they  pay  50  per  cent,  duty,  and  on  other  materials  they  are  classified 
as  manufactures  of  those  materials,  except  that  on  enameled  copper 
plates  they  are  classified  as  assimilating  to  paintings  at  10  per  cent., 
while  they  really  should  all  be  classified  at  one  rate  of  duty.  If  on 
glass,  the  duty  is  40  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  So  that,  practically,  photographs  pay  a duty  of  10,  25,  40, 
45,  and  50  per  cent,  at  present;  five  rates  of  duty? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
Then  there  is  a paragraph  providing  for  brushes  and  hair  pencils,  brushes 
paying  a duty  of  40  per  cent,  and  hair  pencils  35  per  cent.,  while  really 
there  is  no  distinction  between  the  two  articles.  A hair  pencil  may  be 
called  a small  brush.  I think  they  should  be  classified  under  one  rate 
of  duty. 

In  regard  to  fashion-plates,  I think  the  law  should  read : “ Printed  from 
steel,  Avood,  or  other  material.”  As  the  law  now  reads,  fashion  plates 
printed  from  steel  or  wood  are  admitted  free,  but  printed  in  any  other 
way,  from  any  other  material,  they  are  required  to  pay  a duty  of  25  per 
cent.  If  printed  from  steel  they  are  admitted  free,  but  if  printed  from 
engravings  on  stone  they  pay  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  as  printed  matter, 
and  yet  they  are  really  of  the  same  character  of  printed  matter.  Music 
printed  with  lines  under  the  present  law  pays  a duty  of  20  per  cent.  I 
think  it  should  be  dutiable  as  printed  matter,  it  really  being  printed 
matter.  Cases  occur  where  a book  is  printed  partially  with  words  alone 
and  partially  with  music  printed  with  lines,  and  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine whether  it  should  pay  duty  as  printed  matter  at  25  per  cent.,  or  as 
music  printed  with  lines  at  20  per  cent. 

The  law  in  regard  to  paper  reads:  “Paper  sized,  or  glued,  suitable 
only  for  printing  paper,  25  per  centum  ad  valorem”;  while  in  paragraph 
1371  it  says:  “Paper,  antiquarian,  demy,  drawing,  elephant,  foolscap, 
imperial,  letter,  and  all  other  paper  not  otherwise  provided  for  35  per 
centum  ad  valorem.”  I think  they  all  ought  to  be  at  the  same  rate  of 
duty;  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for  the  different  rates  of  duty. 
The  law  as  it  now  stands  is  virtually  prohibitory.  1 would  suggest  as 
an  amendment,  that  the  paragraph  providing  for  paper  should  include 
printing,  writing,  and  drawing  papers  at  one  rate  of  duty.  Sheathing 
paper  is  provided  for  at  10  per  cent,  and  paper  hangings  at  35  per  cent. 

Electrotype  plates  are  not  provided  for  in  the  law,  and  they  are 
classified  as  assimilating  to  stereotype  plates,  which  pay  25  per  cent. 
I think  they  should  be  included  by  name  with  stereotype  plates.  It  is 
very  difficult  to  arrive  at  the  correct  dutiable  value  of  these  plates  for 


532 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANIEL  W.  LEE. 


many  reasons,  and  as  tlie  quantity  imported  is  very  small,  I think  they 
might  all  be  put  on  the  free  list. 

Photographic  albums  are  not  mentioned  in  the  law  at  all.  I think 
they  should  be  specially  provided  for. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  How  are  they  now  classified? — A.  They  are  classified  generally  as 
manufactures  of  leather  and  paper,  but  if  silk  is  the  chief  value,  then 
they  become  a manufacture  of  silk. 


WILLIAM  S.  HOYT.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


533 


WILLIAM  S.  HOYT. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  18,  1882. 

Mr.  William  S.  Hoyt,  examiner  in  tlie  New  York  custom-house,  in 
response  to  the  invitation  of  the  Commission,  made  the  following  state- 
ment : 

I have  been  connected  with  the  appraiser’s  department  of  the  New 
York  custom  house  for  the  last  thirteen  years,  all  of  which  time,  with 
the  exception  of  about  one  year,  has  been  spent  in  the  division  in  which 
cotton  fabrics  are  examined.  These  fabrics,  as  you  all  know,  constitute 
an  extremely  varied  and  complicated  class  of  merchandise. 

There  are  made  in  the  fourth  division  of  the  appraiser’s  department, 
inclusive  of  those  made  upon  flax  and  hemp,  about  one  hundred  and  . 
twenty  different  classifications. 

I wish  to  recommend  a modification  of  that  portion  of  the  law  under 
der  which  I am  acting,  in  regard  to  cotton  goods,  so  that  there  will  be 
less  difficulty  in  understanding  its  meaning. 

I would  suggest,  simply,  that  manufacturers  of  cotton,  now  classified 
under  a great  many  different  heads,  be  divided  into  two  separate  and 
distinct  classes : First,  bleached  and  unbleached,  and,  second,  colored  ; 
and  that  all  the  vast  variety  of  cotton  fabrics  be  put  under  these  two 
divisions,  instead  of  having  thirty  or  forty  different  ones  as  now. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  You  recommend  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  do  you? — 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  what  difference  in  the  ad  valorem  rates  in  these  two  classes 
of  bleached  and  unbleached  and  colored,  would  cover  the  present  rates 
of  duty  ? How  much  difference  is  there  in  the  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty; 
is  there  5 or  10  per  cent,  between  the  bleached  and  unbleached  and 
colored  ? If  we  put  two  ad  valorem  rates  of  duty,  one  on  the  first  class, 
as  you  recommend,  and  another  on  the  second  class,  as  you  recommend* 
how  much  should  a second  rate  of  duty  be  higher  than  the  first  rate 
A.  About  5 per  cent,  higher. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  That  is  the  difference  between  the  bleached  and  the  colored  ?r-A 
I would  put  the  bleached  and  unbleached  under  one  class,  to  cover  the 
present  gradations.  If  the  unbleached  and  bleached  are  put  in  one 
class,  and  the  colored  are  put  in  another,  5 per  cent,  more  act  valorem 
on  the  colored  would  cover  the  present  rate  of  duty. 

ByT  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  rates  will  cover  about  the  present  average  duty  on  the 
bleached  and  unbleached  goods  f — A.  I should  say  35  per  cent. 

Byr  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  are  your  reasons  for  recommending  the  abolition  of  the  pres- 
ent compound  rates  of  duty  ? — A.  Myr  reason  is  that  a compound  rate 
of  duty  makes  the  matter  very  complicated  in  a great  many  respects. 
There  is  at  present  a difference  in  the  duty  on  goods  counting  under  100 
threads  to  the  square  inch,  on  goods  between  100  and  200  threads,  and 
on  goods  over  200  threads.  Under  these  different  rates  some  classes  of 
goods,  exceeding  200  threads,  are  dutiable  at  7£  cents  per  square  yard 
and  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  until  they  reach  a value  that  causes  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  to  be  the  higher  rate ; which  value  is  about  38  cents 
per  square  yard. 


534 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  8.  HOYT. 


By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Will  you  please  take  up  Schedule  A and  begin  at  section  2504  and 
give  the  Commission  your  idea  of  the  changes  which  should  be  made? — 
A.  Paragraph  No.  921  reads  as  follows: 

On  all  manufactures  of  cotton  (except  jeans,  denims,  drillings,  bed-tickings,  ging- 
liams,  plaids,  cottonades,  pantaloon  stuff,  and  goods  of  like  description)  not  bleached, 
colored,  stained,  painted,  or  printed,  and  not  exceeding  100  threads  to  the  square  inch, 
counting  the  warp  and  tilling,  and  exceeding  in  weight  five  ounces  per  square  yard, 
5 cents  per  square  yard;  if  bleached, 5£  cents  per  square  yard;  if  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed,  5^  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  10  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

There  is  a great  deal  of  difficulty  in  deciding  what  assimilates  to  a 
jean.  There  are  very  tine  table  cloths  manufactured  in  Germany,  that 
in  manner  of  weaving  resemble  jeans;  there  are  also  bed  quilts  woven 
in  a similar  manner,  and  it  is  a hard  matter  to  determine  at  what  rate 
* they  are  dutiable. 

Q.  Would  you  suggest  that  the  words  “goods  of  like  description’7 
should  be  stricken  out? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I would. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  change  which  you  recommend  in  that  paragraph ? — 
A.  1 would  also  recommend  that  all  manufactured  cotton  fabrics,  bleached 
and  unbleached,  should  pay  a duty  of  35  per  centum  ad  valorem,  or  what- 
ever uniform  rate  is  decided  upon,  and  all  manufactured  colored  cotton 
fabrics,  a duty  of  40  per  centum;  thus  making  a difference  of  5 per  cent, 
between  the  rates,  whatever  they  may  be.  I think  a difference  of  5 per 
cent,  is  sufficient,  and  would  bring  as  much  duty  to  the  government  as 
under  the  present  classitications 

Q.  Under  these  circumstances,  you  would  drop  paragraphs  922,  923, 
924,  aifd  925;  there  would  be  no  need  of  these? — A.  I don’t  think  the 
law  should  be  so  framed  as  to  make  the  rate  of  duty  depend  upon  the 
number  of  threads  to  the  square  inch.  That  has  always  struck  me  as  a 
very  unjust  way  of  assessing  the  duty.  The  next  paragraph,  regarding 
jeans,  drillings,  &c.,  I should  be  in  favor  of  striking  out. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  if  all  the  paragraphs  from  922  to  927,  in- 
clusive, were  stricken  out? — A.  As  regards  cotton  threads,  I am  not  an 
expert.  Mr.  Clark,  wTho  will  probably  come  before  you,  can  better  ex- 
plain that  matter  to  you. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  You  propose  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  upon  all  these  goods? — 
A.  Y"es,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  the  cotton  manufacturers  of  the  country 
have  always  maintained  that  the  square  yard  duty  w7as  a very  essential 
thing  for  their  security  ? — A.  The  principal  difference  it  makes  to  them 
is  in  regard  to  goods  costing  under  10  cents  per  square  yard,  and  the 
larger  portion  of  the  goods  imported  at  the  present  time  is  composed 
of  fabrics  costing  from  10  to  25  cents  per  square  yard.  The  whole  bus- 
iness has  altered  very  much  since  the  time  when  the  tariff  laws  were 
framed. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Suppose  the  rate  of  35  per  centum  on  bleached  and  unbleached 
goods,  and  40  per  centum  on  colored  fabrics  of  cotton,  and  35  per  centum 
on  all  manufactures  of  cotton  in  addition,  not  otherw  ise  provided  for,  were 
adopted,  w ould  the  American  manufacturer  be  as  well  protected  as  he 
is  at  present  under  the  present  complicated  rates,  in  your  judgment? — 
A.  I think  he  wTould. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  And  as  well  protected  as  under  the  present  square  yard  duty  ? — 


WILLIAM  8.  HOYT.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


535 


A.  Yes,  I think  be  would ; and  not  only  that,  but  I tbink  tbe  govern- 
ment would  receive  quite  as  much,  if  not  an  additional  amount  of  reve- 
nue. I cannot  see  any  injury  that  it  could  possibly  do  to  either  party, 
and  I know  tliat  it  would  give  very  great  satisfaction  to  tbe  importers 
to  know  exactly  wliat  percentage  of  duty  they  would  have  to  pay. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Wbat  I gather  from  your  remarks  is  that  you  would  recommend 
two  ad  valorem  rates  of  duty  exclusively? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  that 
important. 

Commissioner  Porter.  I have  here  a petition  signed  by  all  the  prin- 
cipal cotton  men  of  the  country,  in  which  they  say  that  specific  duties 
should  be  re  ained  in  preference  to  ad  valorem  duties,  wherever  practi- 
cable. In  this  respect  the  witness’s  statement  conflicts  with  the  state- 
ments of  the  manufacturers  of  cotton. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Is  there  as  much,  or  nearly  as  much,  difficulty  in  determining  the 
foreign  market  value  or  wholesale  price  of  cotton  fabrics  as  of  many 
other  kinds  of  goods? — A.  I do  not  think,  as  a general  thing,  there  is 
as  much  difficulty.  In  most  cases  it  is  easily  determined;  but  in  some 
classes  of  goods  there  is  difficulty.  Cotton  velvets  are  difficult  to  ap- 
praise, owing  to  the  manner  in  which  they  are  manufactured  aud  the 
substance  contained  in  them,  and  I don’t  think  the  value  can  be  deter- 
mined by  weight,  by  reason  of  the  difference  in  superiority  of  the  finish. 
With  that  article  we  constantly  have  difficulty,  and  it  is  a very  impor- 
tant article  of  importation.  I pass  at  least  100,000  pieces  of  cotton 
velvet  annually.  Within  the  last  five  years  the  importations  have  in- 
creased wonderfully,  and  this  year  they  |)roinise  to  be  heavier  than  ever 
before.  They  are  manufactured  now  so  that  they  resemble  silk  velvet 
so  nearly  that  they  enter  conspicuously  into  the  dress  of  some  of  the 
best  people  of  the  United  States. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  Are  they  made  in  this  country? — A.  Yo,  sir;  I believe  not.  I don’t 
know  that  any  have  ever  been  made  here.  In  other  cotton  goods  there 
are  constantly  new  things  coming  up,  manufactured  in  a different  way, 
so  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  their  exact  value.  But  we  have  been 
able,  generally,  to  ascertain  the  value  by  making  inquiries  of  those  com- 
petent to  inform  us,  though  of  course  this  method  involves  a great  deal 
of  trouble.  There  is  more  difficulty  in  determining  the  values  of  some 
of  these  fabrics,  especially  those  manufactured  by  new  processes,  than 
one  would  suppose,  as  in  many  cases  the  actual  value  of  the  material 
used  constitutes  but  a small  portion  of  the  commercial  value.  Of  course 
there  are  certain  staple  articles,  especially  of  British  manufacture,  the 
value  of  which  we  are  able  to  determine  with  great  certainty.  In  re- 
gard to  velvets,  of  course  there  is  a difference  of  opinion.  1 have  ad- 
vanced large  quantities  of  German  velvets.  The  German  manufact- 
urers claim  that  they  can  make  them  cheaper  than  the  English,  and  the 
English  manufacturers,  on  the  other  hand,  claim  that  the  Germans  buy 
their  cloths  and  merely  finish  them  up,  which,  however,  is  not  the  case 
to  any  great  extent.  However,  there  is  considerable  difference  in  cost 
between  German  aud  English  velvets.  The  German  manufacture  of 
velvets  is  very  extensive,  and  I find  great  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
values,  even  among  experts,  and  regarding  the  products  of  both  coun- 
tries. I notice  by  the  papers  that  Assistant  Appraiser  Kent  mentions 
the  weight  of  silk  goods  as  a test  of  value.  I do  not  think  that  the  value 
of  cotton  goods  can  be  determined  by  such  test. 


536 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f WILLIAMS.  HOYT. 


By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  I notice  that  in  section  2504 it  says:  uIf  colored,  stained,  painted, 
or  printed,  5J  cents  per  square  yard ; and  in  addition  thereto  10  per 
centum  ad  valorem.”  That  includes  what  are  commonly  called  “ prints.* 
Are  there  many  of  those  goods  imported  into  this  country  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  a great  many  are  imported  under  the  name  of  cretonnes. 

Q.  What  do  the  invoices  accompanying  these  prints  that  are  brought 
from  England  show  the  general  cost  of  them  to  be? — A.  At  present  we 
have  none  of  the  article  commercially  known  as  prints”  imported. 
When  I first  entered  the  appraiser’s  department  the  importation  of 
prints  amounted  to  at  least  100,000  pieces  a year ; but  at  present  we  do 
not  have  300  pieces  a year;  in  fact,  we  have  none  at  all.  The  price  is 
very  low  indeed  in  comparison  with  what  it  used  to  be.  English  prints 
ranged  from  17  cents  to  32  cents  at  New  York  when  I first  went  into 
the  business.  These  same  prints  at  the  present  time  can  be  imported 
at  less  than  one-third  that  price.  American  prints  of  the  same  quality 
were  17  cents  when  I first  went  into  the  business,  when  the  tariff  was 
first  made,  and  they  have  been  frequently  sold,  recently,  at  4J  cents — 
equally  fine  goods.  The  American  prints  have  driven  and  in  my 
opinion  will  continue  to  drive  all  English  manufactures  of  the  same 
nature  out  of  the  market. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Are  we  importing  any  English  cretonnes  now  ? — A.  Yes ; we  are 
importing  large  quantities  of  them. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  we  manufacture  them  largely  in  this  country, 
also  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  1 know  that  we  manufacture  them  here,  too. 

Q.  And  as  cheaply  as  they  do  in  England? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  we 
undersell  them  in  some  respects.  1 do  not  think  we  have  the  finish 
and  color  equal  to  the  foreign  article ; but  in  price  we  can  undersell 
them. 

Q.  How  about  the  patterns  ? Are  we  not  ahead  of  the  English  in 
our  designs  ? — A.  I think  our  patterns  are  quite  as  good  as  theirs.  I 
think  our  dyeing  of  the  goods  is  more  permanent  than  theirs  as  a gen- 
eral thing.  There  are  a great  many  German  goods,  counting  under  100 
threads  to  the  square  inch,  that  they  have  imitated  here  very  well. 
Within  a week  I have  seen  some  and  could  not  have  told  the  difference. 
The  German  article  will  cost  about  0 cents  to  lay  it  down  in  this  coun- 
try, and  I have  seen  the  same  goods  in  American  patterns  offered  at  7^ 
cents.  A German,  who  has  been  importing  these  goods,  told  me  that 
he  would  not  import  any  more  of  them,  for  he  could  buy  the  American 
manufactures  and  make  a better  profit  on  them.  In  fact,  many  New 
York  importers  of  the  lower  grades  of  cotton  goods  are  providing  them- 
selves with  stocks  from  the  American  manufacturers,  instead  of  from 
the  European  markets. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  the  custom-house  in  New 
York  ? — A.  About  thirteen  years. 

Q.  Had  you  experience  before  that  in  the  dry-goods  line  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  I was  brought  up  as  a boy  in  a country  store;  then  went  into  a 
jobber’s  store  in  New  York,  and  then  into  an  importer’s  store.  I have 
been  since  182'J  in  New  York  Oity,  engaged  actively  in  the  importing 
and  jobbing  of  dry  goods,  and  in  passing  them  through  the  custom- 
house. 


ELLIS  CARR.] 


ENGLISH  BISCUITS. 


537 


ELLIS  CARR. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Ellis  Carr,  representing  Messrs.  Peek,  Erean  & Co.,  of  Lon- 
don, England,  manufacturers  of  biscuits,  made  the  following  statement: 

I desire  to  say  a few  words  in  regard  to  the  trade  in  English  biscuits 
as  distinguished  entirely  from  what  is  known  in  this  country  as  crackers. 
The  trade  in  this  article  in  England  is  now  very  extensive.  The  busi- 
ness was  established  about  thirty  yearsagoand  has  grown  until  English 
biscuits  have  become  practically  an  article  of  general  household  use.  I 
think  I may  safely  say  that  there  is  hardly  a householder  in  England 
who  would  be  ignorant  of  what  a fancy  biscuit  is,  but  in  this  country 
the  use  of  biscuit  has  not  been  so  extensive.  It  is  a comparatively  new 
industry,  though  it  has  developed  considerably  within  the  last  few  years, 
not  only  in  Great  Britain,  but  in  those  European  countries  where  pro- 
hibitive duties  have  not  prevented  their  introduction. 

In  some  of  these  countries  the  consumption  has  so  increased  and  is 
increasing  that  factories  have  been  built  there  on  the  English  system, 
thus  by  competition  tending  to  augment  the  demand  for  these  goods. 

Hitherto,  as  any  one  may  observe,  this  has  not  been  the  case  in  this 
country,  though  there  is  no  reason  in  our  opinion  why  it  should  not  become 
so.  Referring  to  the  United  States  schedule  of  tariffs,  based,  we  believe, 
on  that  of  March,  1861,  we  do  not  find  that  fancy  biscuits  are  anywhere 
mentioned,  though  they  pay  a duty  of  20  per.  cent  ad  valorem,  as  Uunen- 
umerated  manufactured  articles.”  This,  as  at  present  levied,  is  practi- 
cally prohibitive,  as  besides  the  20  per  cent,  on  the  full  value  of  the 
invoice,  incidental  expenses,  consul’s  fees,  &c.,  make  it  equal  to  about 
25  per  cent.  Were  the  20  per  cent,  duty  entirely  removed,  the  advan- 
tage would  still  remain  with  home  manufacturers  on  account  of  the 
distance  and  the  impossibility  of  speedy  delivery,  but  the  taste  and 
therefore  the  demand  for  these  articles  of  luxury  has  still  to  be  created 
in  the  United  States,  which  we  believe  is  to  be  best  done  by  those  who 
have  already  an  established  business  in  England.  We  submit  that  this 
industry  is  worthy  to  be  considered  as  a distinct  trade,  and  the  duty, 
if  any,  fixed  upon  consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  case.  Europe 
charges  on  net  value  or  weight.  Charging  duty  upon  packages  is  a 
peculiarity  of  American  trade. 

Our  firm  employs  nearly  2,000  working  people.  There  is  another 
factory  of  biscuit  at  Reading,  a few  miles  out  of  London,  employing  as 
many  or  more  people  than  we  do.  Some  of  these  factories,  I am  in  a 
position  to  state,  have  invested  large  sums  of  money  in  the  business, 
and  I hope  you  will  agree  with  me  that  it  is  an  industry  worthy  of  en- 
couragement, We  only  desire  to  be  put  on  a fair  footing  with  other 
industries  in  this  country,  so  as  to  give  our  business  here  a chance  for 
development.  That,  in  a word,  is  my  case. 

Since  English  biscuits  were  introduced  in  Europe,  I know  of  at  least 
six  new  factories  that  have  been  started  to  manufacture  on  this  princi- 
ple which  we  have  had  to  compete  with,  and  which,  in  spite  of  a certain 
amount  of  duty  against  us,  have  increased  their  trade.  At  one  time 
these  biscuits  were  as  little  known  on  the  continent  of  Europe  as  they 
are  at  present  in  America. 


538 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f ELLIS  CARR. 


By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  I understood  you  to  say  that,  in  your  opinion,  the  taste 
and  demand  for  these  biscuit  in  this  country  could  be  best  encouraged 
by  the  manufacture  of  the  biscuit  in  England. — Answer.  No,  sir;  not 
entirely;  either  here  or  in  England.  I believe  we  are  in  a position  to 
start  the  trade  here,  and  in  that  way  create  a demand  for  them  in  this 
country. 

Q.  Why  do  you  not  manufacture  the  biscuit  here  to  start  with? — A. 
That  is  easily  answered.  We  have  a personally  conducted  business  in 
England.  We  have  not  men  who  have  the  technical  knowledge  whom 
we  could  send  over  here.  The  great  difficulty  in  this  country  is  the  cost 
of  wages.  The  wages  are  much  lower  in  England  than  they  are  in  this 
country. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  wages? — A.  In  some  instances  the  wages 
here  are  fully  fifty  per  cent,  more  than  is  paid  in  Europe.  We  would 
have  to  pay  just  about  double  for  labor  in  this  country. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  reason  except  the  difference  in  wages  paid  why 
these  biscuit  might  not  be  manufactured  here? — A.  None  that  I know 
of.  I believe  they  are  made  here  to  a certain  extent.  In  1870  and  1871 
we  sent  £20,000  worth  of  goods  out,  but  the  duties  being  so  high  the 
importation  has  been  greatly  reduced. 

Q.  All  the  material  necessary  for  their  manufacture  is  produced  in 
this  country,  is  it  not? — A.  No,  sir;  not  all  that  we  use.  We  buy  our 
flour  wherever  it  is  the  cheapest.  We  do  not  bind  ourselves  to  use  Ameri- 
can flour.  We  also  find  difficulty  in  getting  butter  here.  The  mode  of 
packing  butter  in  this  country  is  not  so  perfect  as  it  is  in  France,  where 
we  get  the  most  of  the  butter  we  use. 

Q.  But  if  you  should  start  a factory  in  this  country  all  these  ingre- 
dients— butter,  flour,  and  everything  else — could  be  obtained  here  to 
enable  you  to  make  these  biscuit. — A.  Yes,  sir;  there  would  be  no 
trouble  about  that. 


JAMES  F.  HALL.  J 


539 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


JAMES  F.  HALL. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  18,  1882. 

Mr.  James  F.  Hall,  assistant  appraiser,  New  York  custom-house, 
upon  the  invitation  of  the  Commission  made  the  following  statement: 

I have  been  connected  with  the  New  York  custom-house  about  fifteen 
years,  and  an  assistant  appraiser  twelve. 

The  principal  thing  I desire  to  urge  upon  the  Commission  is  the 
necessity  for  getting  rid  of  some  of  the  present  inconsistencies  and  in- 
congruities in  the  tariff.  I have  noted  down  in  a general  way  some 
suggestions  I would  make  in  that  direction,  which  I will  proceed  to 
state.  There  are  so  many  relations  and  interests  to  be  considered  in 
connection  with  the  subject  of  duties  that  I should  hardly  feel  justified 
in  making  auy  recommendations  except  in  cases  where  the  inconsist- 
encies referred  to  exist.  I would  suggest  that  in  the  revision  of  the 
tariff  the  classification  of  goods  should  be  made  more  general.  Articles 
of  like  character  and  of  the  same  material  should  be,  as  nearly  as 
possible,  subject  to  the  same  classification.  There  are  many  articles 
of  similar  character  where  the  rates  of  duty  imposed  upon  them  are 
widely  different,  and  the  assembling  of  these  articles  together  and 
putting  them  under  one  rate  of  duty  would,  I think,  tend  to  simplify 
the  arrangement  of  the  tariff.  The  tariff  law  is  an  arbitrary  one,  and  is 
not  to  be  argued  on  any  principle  of  right.  But  it  seems  to  me  there 
might  be  a consistency  in  it  which  the  present  tariff'  does  not  possess, 
as  I will  exemplify  as  regards  my  own  division.  A large  number  of 
the  decisions  of  the  department,  as  well  as  the  decisions  of  the  courts, 
are  founded  on  commercial  designations.  A number  of  the  tariff  laws 
refer  to  commercial  designations  known  at  the  time  of  the  enact- 
ment of  the  laws.  But  commercial  designations  change  frequently, 
and  that  which  was  a well-known  commercial  designation  at  the  time 
the  law  was  framed  may  not  be  so  to-day.  The  courts  have  held  that 
the  commercial  designation  is  that  known  at  the  time  the  law  was 
enacted,  but  this  becomes  a question  of  proof,  and  leads  to  a great  deal 
of  confusion  and  misunderstanding.  I do  not  know  that  this  matter 
could  be  entirely  remedied,  but  I think  if  the  terms  of  the  tariff  were 
made  more  with  reference  to  the  material  referred  to  of  which  the 
articles  are  made,  it  would  perhaps  do  away  with  a great  deal  of  that 
difficulty. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  What  do  you  suggest  as  a remedy  ? — Answer.  That  the  gen- 
eral terms  of  the  tariff  law  should  relate  to  the  materials  of  which  the 
articles  are  manufactured,  and  that  there  should  be  a less  number  of  these 
commercial  designations.  General  terms,  such,  for  instance,  as  manu- 
factures of  iron,  should  include  a large  number  of  articles  known  under 
commercial  name,  such  as  trace  chains,  halter  chains,  fence  chains, 
anchors,  hammers,  sledges,  nuts,  smashers,  bed  screws,  hinges,  railroad 
chairs,  cast-iron  butts  and  hinges,  &c.,  all  of  which  are  now  specially 
provided  for  at  varying  rates  of  duty. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  W ill  you  iff  ease  give  us  a further  instance  of  that  ? — A.  I will  try  to 


540 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  F.  HALL. 


before  I am  through  with  my  statement ; I do  not  recall  other  instances  just 
now.  In  regard  to  articles  composed  of  two  or  three  different  materials  I 
would  suggest  that  the  statute  should  be  so  framed  that  the  article  should 
be  assessed  at  the  rate  of  duty  assessable  on  the  component  material 
which  pays  the  highest  rate  of  duty.  A provision  to  that  effect  is 
already  in  the  law,  but  if  the  several  parts  should  be  separated  in  the 
invoices  so  as  to  be  readily  separable  in  the  assessment  of  the  duty,  then 
the  duty  should  be  assessable  at  the  rate  chargeable  on  the  several  com- 
ponent materials  in  the  proportion  that  they  enter  into  the  value  of  the 
whole.  That  is  the  case  in  machinery  now.  Under  the  decision  of  the 
department,  where  steel  and  iron  are  separable  in  this  way  they  pay 
separate  rates  of  duty.  But  I suggest  that  such  a provision  should  be 
applied  to  all  classes  of  goods,  and  be  made  the  ruling  princip'e  ; that 
where  an  article  is  made  of  two  or  more  materials  that  can  be  readily 
separated,  each  material  should  pay  the  rate  of  duty  assessable  upon 
it.  Thus,  an  article  composed  of  brass  and  glass,  valued  at  $20,  each 
material  as  it  enters  into  the  whole  manufacture  being  of  equal  value 
under  the  present  rates  of  duty,  would  be  assessed  on  manufacture  of 
glass  40  per  cent.,  $10,  on  the  brass  35  per  cent.,  $10,  the  separate 
value  being  stated  on  the  invoice.  That  would  prevent,  in  a measure, 
this  question  of  commercial  designations  governing  the  classification. 
When  an  article  is  composed  of  two  or  more  fine  materials,  the  separate 
values  of  which  are  not  expressed  upon  the  invoice,  then  any  such  ma- 
terial that  is  less  in  value  than  5 per  cent,  of  the  whole  value  of  the  article 
shall  not  control  the  classification.  That  is  to  say,  when  the  value  of 
any  one  material  which  might  pay  a very  high  rate  of  duty  should  be 
insignificant  (and  the  word  u insignificant v had  better  be  defined  by  a 
certain  percentage,  say  50),  it  ought  not  to  control  the  rate  of  duty 
assessable  on  an  article  composed  of  materials  that  are  many  times  its 
value  and  pay  a less  rate  of  duty.  Under  the  present  law  the  depart- 
ment has  decided  that  when  a component  material  paying  t he  highest  rate 
of  duty  is  insignificant , it  shall  not  control  the  classification.  The  term 
“ insignificant  w lias  never  been  defined ; it  has  varied  from  2 or  3 per 
cent,  up  to  10  per  cent.  I think  that  one  or  two  matters  that  amounted 
to  10  per  cent,  were  decided  to  be  insignificant.  I should  say,  if  an 
article  contained  less  than  5 per  cent,  of  a certain  material  it  should  not 
control  the  classification. 

It  is  my  opinion  that  the  most  just  rate  of  duty  is  an  ad  valorem  duty; 
that  is,  a basis  for  a just  assessment  of  duty.  The  value  of  an  article 
should  govern  the  amount  of  duty  that  should  be  paid  to  the  govern- 
ment. The  simplest  form  of  assessing  a duty  is,  undoubtedly,  the  specific 
rate;  and  the  least  desirable  and  most  complicated  of  all  is  the  com- 
pound duty.  There  are  instances  when  a compound  duty  may  be  neces- 
sary, but  otherwise  it  is  undesirable.  In  cases  where  the  duty  is  specific 
it  should  be  calculated  in  reference  to  the  ad  valolem  rate.  I mean  by 
that  that  where  values  of  articles  materially  change,  as  is  the  case  with 
certain  steel  and  iron,  and  where  the  duty  is  specific,  the  proportion  of 
payment  to  the  government  varies  very  materially.  I will  note  an 
instance.  The  duty  on  steel  not  otherwise  provided  for  is  30  per  cent.  ; 
on  manufactures  of  steel  it  is  45  per  cent.  I take  it  for  granted  that  all 
steel  was  intended  to  come  under  one  or  the  other  of  the  provisions 
made  for  steel  not  otherwise  provided  for,  and  manufactured  steel.  Of 
course  I do  not  refer  to  bar  steel,  for  that  is  not  manufactured;  it  is 
only  in  a condition  to  be  manufactured,  though  it  is  not,  of  course,  in  a 
crude  state.  But  I mean  everything  that  is  far  enough  manufactured 
to  designate  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended.  It  would  seem 


JAMES  F.  HALL.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


541 


natural  that  steel  of  all  kinds  between  these  two  different  classes  should 
pay  a rate  of  duty  between  30  and  45  per  cent.,  whereas  the  change  of 
values  in  this  article  briugs  many  of  the  materials  up  as  high  as  180  per 
cent.  duty.  Steel  in  ingots  to-day  pays  a duty  of  about  180  per  cent. 
Steel  in  blooms,  provided  it  is  what  the  department  has  chosen  to  name 
as  the  commercial  term  “railway  blooms,”  which  is  one  degree  farther 
advanced  than  the  ingots,  pays  45  per  cent,  as  manufactures  of  steel  not 
otherwise  provided  for,  for  certain  sizes,  and  other  sizes  pay  a duty 
equal  to  180  per  cent.  This  certainly  is  not  just. 

Q.  When  the  duty  was  put  on  ingots  and  the  law  was  made,  the  in- 
gots were  hue,  cast,  crucible  steel,  but  since  that  time  the  Bessemer 
discovery  has  been  made,  which  has  revolutionized  the  business  of  the 
world,  and  the  other  steel  that  you  speak  of,  the  railway  bloom  steel,  at 
45  per  cent.,  is  an  eutirely  different  article,  and  is  imported  largely. 
There  are  no  ingots  imported  for  the  reason  that  the  duty,  equal  to  180 
per  cent.  (2J  cents  per  pound)  is  prohibitory. — A.  I was  simply  referring 
to  ingots  as  an  illustration.  Ingots,  blooms,  coils,  sheets,  steel  wire, 
and  so  on — all  these  articles  have  changed  in  their  use.  It  is  the  changed 
character  of  the  article  and  its  value  in  the  market  that  I want  to  get 
at  to  show  the  injustice  of  a specific  duty  without  this  duty  having  any 
relation  to  the  ad  valorem.  That  is  the  point  I am  coming  to  by  de- 
grees. In  regard  to  iron,  the  law  says  that  it  shall  pay  certain  specific 
rates  of  duty,  and  it  is  provided  that  it  shall  not  pay  a doty  of  less 
than  35  per  cent.  Frequently  the  changes  in  the  market  require  us  to 
classify  this  iron  at  35  per  cent,  so  that  the  government  shall  not  re- 
ceive less  ad  valorem.  Why  not  make  a provision  that  it  should  not 
pay  more  than  45  per  ceut.u?  If  this  principle  applied  to  steel,  then 
blooms  and  coils  and  other  articles  of  steel  would  not  show  such  varied 
rates  of  duty,  but  would  vibrate  only  between  the  maximum  and  mini- 
mum points.  I would  suggest  a provision  in  the  tariff,  not  only  relating 
specifically  to  steel,  but  wherever  a rate  of  duty  is  specific  it  should 
bear  its  relation  to  an  ad  valorem  rate. 

I would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  this  matter. 
There  is,  as  the  Commission  are  doubtless  aware,  an  open-furnace  pro- 
cess, and  much  more  metal  is  made  by  that  process  than  by  the  Bessemer 
process.  It  really  has  a larger  market  than  the  Bessemer,  but  no  one 
can  distinguish  the  difference  in  the  product,  whether  made  by  the 
Bessemer  or  the  open-furnace  process,  although  the  processes  are  alto- 
gether different.  Although  the  process  converts  the  iron  into  an  article 
not  strictly  steel,  yet  it  is  a steel-making  process.  In  the  open-furnace 
a great  deal  of  old  waste  iron  is  used.  Bessemer  metal  is,  under  the 
statute,  classed  as  steel.  The  open -process  product  is  not  always  so 
classed. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  well  to  have  an  exact  definition  in 
the  law  of  the  different  kinds  of  steel  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  A case  has  lately 
been  tried  in  Boston  which  was  decided  against  the  government,  wherein 
certain  iron,  or  steel,  made  by  open-furnace  process,  and  which  I claim 
to  be  dutiable  as  steel,  under  the  provision  relating  to  Bessemer  steel, 
was  claimed  under  the  carbon  test  to  be  iron.  It  was  a very  low  grade  so 
that  you  could  take  horseshoe  nails  made  from  it  and  bend  them  the  same 
as  malleable  iron.  Still  it  had  passed  through  a steel-making  process, 
and  while  it  was  in  fact  neither  iron  nor  steel,  it  could  not  be  said  to  be 
iron.  The  matter  does  not  seem  to  have  been  properly  brought  before 
the  court,  for  the  court  decided  that  it  was  iron,  and  that  the  duty 
on  iron  should  be  paid  on  it.  Had  the  same  product  been  from  a Bes- 
semer furnace  the  law  would  have  made  it  pay  the  same  duty  as  steel. 


542 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  F.  HALL. 


I think  that  is  a difficulty  that  should  he  overcome;  the  test  of  carbon 
ought  not  to  be  the  test  whether  it  is  assessable  under  the  provision  for 
iron  or  steel.  I think  all  these  processes  ought  to  be  included  alike  in 
some  general  provision  so  as  to  make  the  provisions  of  the  law  more 
definite.  Any  product  of  a furnace  making  a metal  further  advanced 
than  iron,  whether  by  Bessemer  or  other  process,  should  be  subject  to 
the  same  classification.  That  is  about  all  I have  to  say  in  regard  to 
the  subject  of  iron  and  steel. 

Q.  You  recommend  an  ad  valorem  instead  of  a specific  duty  as  being 
more  just,  as  I understand  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  as  a general  principle  I 
think  it  is.  There  are  cases  when  a specific  duty  would  be  much  more 
convenient,  but  if  that  specific  duty  could  be  based  so  as  not  to  go 
above  or  below  a certain  ad  valorem  value,  then  these  violent  changes 
in  metal  and  other  things  could  be  provided  for  and  the  unequal  rates 
in  proportion  to  values  that  now  come  from  a specific  duty  would  be 
avoided. 

Q.  Take,  for  instance,  pig  iron;  do  you  think  that  it  would  be  more 
just  to  put  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  upon  that?  It  is  imported  from 
England,  Germany,  and  France,  and  may  come  into  a dozen  different 
ports  in  this  country  and  be  assessed  at  a great  many  different  values. 
It  may  be  appraised  at  a less  rate  of  duty  in  San  Francisco  than  in 
New  York.  I cannot  see  why  you  think  that  would  be  a more  just  rate 
of  duty. — A.  The  exact  values  cannot  be  more  easily  ascertained  under 
that  form  of  duty,  but  they  can  be  just  as  easily  ascertained  and  equal- 
ized at  the  different  ports  as  other  merchandise.  If  a certain  kind  of 
iron  should  to-day  bring  a certain  value  per  ton,  and  in  three  months’ 
time  there  came  a scarcity  which  doubled  its  value,  as  frequently  hap- 
pens, then  it  would  only  be  paying  the  same  rate  of  duty  when  it  came 
into  the  country  at  this  enhanced  value  as  it  would  when  it  was  coming 
in  at  its  initial  value.  Now,  the  duty  being  specific  at  so  much  a ton, 
but  not  less  or  more  than  so  much  percentage  on  value,  then  the  gov- 
ernment would  always  get  a rate  of  duty  somewhere  in  proportion  to 
value. 

Q.  That  is  true,  but  still  the  government  is  not  always  seeking  that 
particular  thing.  In  your  department  have  not  the  specific  duties  worked 
well  and  without  complaint  from  the  importer? — A.  Yes,  sir;  except 
where  they  have  beeu  excessive,  as  in  steel  in  ingots  and  certain  sizes 
of  steel  blooms.  It  is  an  easy  way  to  assess  duties. 

Q.  You  have  had  very  large  importations  of  steel  rails,  and  for  a while 
they  could  not  be  produced  fast  enough  in  this  country.  Suppose  steel 
rails  had  nearly  doubled  in  price,  would  not  an  ad  valorem  duty  have 
been  prohibitory? — A.  Not  to  so  great  an  extent  as  certain  blooms  and 
other  kinds  of  steel  at  the  present  time,  and  the  foreign  and  domestic 
markets  would  soon  equalize  that  question.  I do  not  advise  an  ad  va- 
lorem duty ; I only  advise  that  when  the  article  pays  a specific  duty  that 
the  rate  in  relation  to  ad  valorem  shall  be  between  two  certain  figures. 

Q.  Generally  I understand  you  to  recommend  ad  valorem  rather  than 
specific  duties. — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not  in  all  cases  recommend  the  ad 
valorem  duty,  although  1 think  the  most  just  way  of  assessing  duty  is 
on  the  ad  valorem  principle.  Still  I do  not  recommend  it  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  other  modes.  I know  there  are  instances  where  it  is  not  con- 
venient to  assess  it  even  where  it  is  the  most  just  form  of  assessing  duty. 
But  I do  not  think  there  is  any  justice  in  the  tariff  law  as  a rule;  it  is 
an  arbitrary  thing  altogether.  The  simplest  form  of  duty,  which  is  also 
a very  important  consideration  in  our  department,  is  the  specific  duty, 
and  the  least  desirable  is  the  compound,  yet  they  are  all  necessary.. 


JAMES  F.  HALL.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


543 


By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Following  out  your  suggestion  as  to  a minimum  and  maximum 
limit,  do  you  carry  with  that  suggestion  the  idea  that  the  maximum  limit 
shall  be  that  rate  of  duty  ad  valorem  which  attaches  to  the  highest  fin- 
ished articles  manufactured  of  the  materials  of  which  this  article  comes, 
and  the  minimum  shall  be  that  rate  of  duty  which  attaches  to  the  lowest 
and  most  unfinished  forms  of  the  material! — A.  I mean  it  should  apply 
to  the  specific  article  which  is  being  appraised. 

Q.  You  do  not  understand  my  question.  A steel  in  crude  form,  say 
scrap  steel,  pays  30  per  cent.,  and  a finished  article  of  steel  pays  45  per 
cent.  But  here  is  a steel  bar  which  is  not  a manufactured  article;  nei- 
ther is  it  a crude  article,  strictly  speaking.  Do  you  advise  that  the  min- 
imum limit  of  a steel  bar  shall  not  be  less  than  30  nor  more  than  45  per 
cent,  on  that  particular  article  ! — A.  Yes,  sir,  I do  on  that  article,  but 
not  on  any  other  article;  not  on  the  scrap  steel  or  on  the  highly-finished 
steel. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  you  have  much  trouble  in  regard  to  the  rates  of  duty  on  ma- 
chinery!— A.  Not  very  much,  except  in  this  regard:  where  there  is  a 
royalty  on  the  machine  it  is  not  always  possible  for  us  to  know  it,  but 
we  generally  find  it  out  before  a long  time.  Or  if  it  is  a new  article  that 
we  are  not  acquainted  with  we  are  apt  to  inquire  in  relation  to  it  from 
the  consul  and  other  sources.  But  this  question  does  not  often  arise. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  You  can  speak  in  regard  to  any  other  branch  of  the  subject  that 
you  desire! — A.  I have  a memorandum  here  which  I have  made  in  re- 
gard to  the  charges  and  commissions.  We  find  a great  many  complaints 
from  Importers  in  regard  to  these  charges  and  commissions.  I think  if 
the  matter  could  be  so  arranged  that  the  commission  should  be  always 
a certain  amount,  say  not  less  than  2J  per  cent.,  that  it  would  obviate 
a great  deal  of  difficulty.  The  provision  of  the  statute  is  now  that  the 
usual  rate  of  commission  shall  be  allowed  at  the  place  where  the  article 
is  purchased,  not  to  be  less  than  per  cent.  The  law  says  not  less  than 

2J  per  cent.  Sometimes  it  is  charged  at  5 per  cent.  If  a firm  orders 
from  Sheffield  cutlery,  guns,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  and  orders  direct 
from  the  manufacturer  and  has  dealings  with  him,  they  pay  usually  2j- 
per  cent,  commission,  but  if  the  order  goes  through  a commission  agent 
the  commission  is  usually  charged  at  5 per  cent.,  and  in  some  instances 
at  7J  per  cent.  Of  course  those  who  have  to  pay  the  charges  and  com- 
missions are  dissatisfied  and  we  cannot  always  tell  what  rate  should  be 
allowed.  In  cases  where  the  rate  is  5 to  7^  per  cent.,  according  to  cer- 
tain conditions,  we  cannot  always  ascertain  those  conditions  and  we 
may  do  injustice  to  the  importer.  I think  the  whole  ground  could  be 
covered  without  loss  to  the  revenue  by  providing  for  a definite  rate  to 
be  paid  for  commissions. 

Q.  Could  not  a conditional  duty  be  paid  on  the  article  to  include  both 
commissions  and  charges! — A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  it  could. 

Q.  What  rate  would  you  name  for  charges  in  addition  to  the  present 
duty! — A.  I should  think  from  2 to  per  cent,  in  addition  would  be 
sufficient,  say  2£  per  cent,  for  commissions  and  2 to  2£  per  cent,  for 
charges. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Would  not  1 per  cent,  cover  the  whole  matter! — A.  Yes,  sir;  in 


544 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  F.  HALL. 


many  cases  it  would.  Where  goods  come  from  the  interior  country  the 
charges  are  only  to  the  border.  Perhaps  1 per  cent,  would  be  large 
enough.  If  goods  are  sent  from  Switzerland  and  shipped  through  any 
of  the  ports  of  Trance  the  dutiable  charges  on  it  cease  at  the  border. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Most  of  our  heavy  goods  which  come  from  Germany  are  sold  “free 
on  board,”  are  they  not  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  nearly  all  heavy  goods  are. 
The  decision  of  the  department  has  chauged  these  matters  frequently. 
For  instance,  there  is  no  provision  in  the  law  for  machinery  as  machinery. 
If  the  different  portions  of  the  machinery  are  separately  packed  and 
the  value  stated  in  the  invoice  so  that  they  can  be  easily  specified,  then 
they  pay  separate  rates  of  duty;  if  not,  then  they  pay  the  highest  rate 
of  duty  imposed  on  any  one  of  the  materials  of  which  it  is  made. 

Q.  What  would  you  think  of  a suggestion  to  put  machinery  in  at  an 
ad  valorem  rate  and  charge  according  to  the  full  value  stated  in  the 
invoice  ? — A.  There  is  this  objection  to  that  proposition.  Machinery 
made  of  different  materials,  such  as  iron,  steel,  &c.,  pays  different  rates 
of  duty,  but  if  a general  provision  was  inserted  in  the  law  covering 
machinery,  then  articles  would  be  imported  under  that  clause  and  called 
machinery,  even  though  they  were  only  intended  for  the  paring  of  ap- 
ples. The  terms  would  be  so  changed  and  distorted  that  many  articles 
would  be  brought  in  contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  law.  I think  all 
these  things  should  pay  according  to  the  materials  they  are  made  of. 
If  steel  and  iron  were  to  pay  the  same  duty  under  all  circumstances 
there  would  be  no  trouble  about  machinery.  The  trouble  comes  now 
where  they  are  consolidated  together.  Take,  for  instance,  a steel  ax 
where  the  steel  is  rolled  in  and  is  an  absolutely  component  part  of  the 
article.  In  that  case  the  law  is  positive  as  regards  its  paying  a duty 
on  steel,  because  the  steel  in  it  cannot  be  separated  from  the  iron. 

Q.  Would  you  classify  an  ax  as  machinery? — A.  No,  sir;  I would 
classify  it  as  a manufacture  of  steel,  dutiable  as  steel  under  the  law. 

Q.  But  it  is  composed  of  steel  and  iron? — A.  Yes,  sir;  steel  being  a 
component  part. 

Q.  You  do  not  think  you  could  suggest  a clause  that  would  cover 
machines  and  machinery  and  place  an  ad  valorem  duty  on  them  ? — A. 
No,  sir;  I think  it  would  complicate  rather  than  simplify  the  matter  to 
do  so. 

I was  for  some  time  at  the  head  of  the  second  division  of  the  appraisers* 
department,  and  will  state  my  experience  in  regard  to  the  matter  com- 
ing under  my  observation  at  that  time.  That  division  passes  jewelry, 
watches,  &c.  Jewelry,  as  hitherto  defined  under  the  decision  of  the 
department,  related  to  precious  metal  and  jewels,  but  under  the  later 
decisions  of  the  courts  it  covers  all  the  manufactures  of  brass,  iron, 
glass,  and  all  those  materials  that  were  formerly  referred  to  as  mock 
jewelry  wheu  used  in  the  form  of  jewelry.  The  term  “jewelry”  and 
other  like  terms  which  are  indefinite,  on  which  scarcely  two  persons 
agree  in  their  definition,  ought  not  to  be  used  in  the  text  of  the  tariff. 
The  present  law  reads,  “precious  stones  and  jewelry,”  and  of  these 
imitations  of  jewelry  are  now,  under  the  decision  of  the  courts,  classed 
as  jewelry.  Diamonds,  when  separately  entered,  pay  10  per  cent.,  and 
manufactures  of  gold  pay  40  percent. ; if  the  diamonds  are  gold  mounted 
as  jewelry  then  the  whole  pays  25  per  cent.  Manufactures  of  brass,  or 
iron,  or  composition  metal,  of  which  a large  proportion  of  these  goods 
are  composed,  pay  a duty  of  35  per  cent.;  compositions  of  glass,  not 
set,  pay  10  per  cent.,  and  if  set  30  per  cent. ; and  manufactures  of  glass 


JAMES  F.  HALL.  | 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


545 


40  per  cent.  The  question  is  whether  or  not  the  term  u jewelry”  should 
be  used  when  so  many  interpretations  can  be  placed  upon  it,  or  whether 
these  things  should  be  left  to  pay  the  duty  which  is  imposed  on  the  mate- 
rials under  the  different  clauses  providing  for  them.  A certain  kind  of 
buckle,  when  worn  on  the  person,  is  st\ led  jewelry ; if  on  the  hat,  then 
a manufacture  of  brass  and  glass,  at  one  time  paying  25  per  cent,  at 
another  35  and  40. 

If  I had  time  I would  speak  also  in  regard  to  printed  matter.  Books 
or  printed  matter  pay  at  present  a duty  of  25  per  cent  But  the  paper 
on  which  they  are  printed  pays  35  per  ceut.  The  full  manufactured 
article  therefore  pays  a less  duty  than  one  of  the  materials  of  which  it 
is  composed.  The  injustice  of  that  you  perceive  at  once. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  kind  of  paper  is  it  that  you  refer  to? — A.  It  is  paper  more 
or  less  sized.  Unsized  paper  pays  20  per  cent.  There  are  very  few 
books,  except  common  ones,  that  are  printed  on  unsized  paper. 

I also  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  duties  assessed  upon  gold  and 
silver  ores  in  combination  with  other  metals,  and  the  products  of  such 
ores,  unrefined,  known  as  base  bullion. 

Gold  and  silver  ores,  as  such,  are  free,  as  are  also  the  refined  products 
of  the  same.  When,  however,  these  ores  are  mixed  with  base  metals, 
such  as  argentiferous  galena,  &c.,  or  are  reduced  into  what  is  known  as 
base  bullion,  a duty  is  assessed  upon  them  that  is  prohibitory ; and  they 
are  sent  to  Wales  (England),  France,  and  Germany  for  treatment,  and 
a valuable  industry  is  thus  lost  to  this  country. 

Heretofore  these  products  have  not  been  large,  but  since  the  Mexican 
Government  has  removed  the  prohibition  on  the  export  of  bullion  and 
ores  containing  more  than  a certain  low  percentage  of  precious  metals, 
and  since  the  increased  development  of  Central  and  South  American 
mines,  the  production  has  greatly  increased,  and  will  continue  to  in- 
crease in  the  near  future,  so  as  to  make  the  subject  one  of  importance, 
and  therefore  entitling  it  to  your  consideration. 

Many  of  these  mining  interests  are  near  to  our  borders,  with  present 
and  growing  facilities  of  communication,  and  the  capital  and  enter- 
prise by  which  they  are  being  developed  are  from  American  (U.  S.)  re- 
sources. 

Base  bullion,  under  department  decision  of  November  16,  1875  (S. 
S.  2507),  is  required  to  pay  duty  in  accordance  with  the  preponderance 
of  weight  and  quantity  of  metal  contained  in  it,  and  not  according  to 
the  value  of  the  metals  therein  contained.  This  decision  was  also  made 
to  apply  to  ores  by  decision  of  the  department  of  May  2,  1879 ; thus,  an 
argentiferous  galena  ore,  containing  5 per  cent,  of  lead,  would  be  re 
quired  to  pay  the  duty  assessable  on  lead  ore,  i.  e.,  1J  cents  per-pound, 
$33.00  per  ton.  although  the  silver  might  be  many  times  the  most  valu 
able  part  of  the  component  materials  of  the  ore,  but  not  greater  in 
weight  and  quantity.  The  same  condition  of  facts  applies  to  base  bull- 
ion, in  which  lead  being  the  preponderating  substance  in  weight,  a 
duty  of  2 cents  per  pound  would  be  assessable  on  the  whole  weight  of 
material. 

I recommend  that  gold  and  silver  ores  be  continued  on  the  free  list; 
that  when  these  ores  are  composed  of  mixed  substances,  then  an  assay 
of  the  same  shall  be  furnished  on  entry,  or  that  the  percentage'  of  vari- 
ous substances  be  stated  upon  the  invoice;  provided  the  percentage 
shall  exceed  five  per  centum  of  the  weight,  bulk,  or  value  of  the  ore; 

H.  Mis.  6 35 


546 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  F.  HALE. 


that  when  5 per  cent,  or  more  of  any  base  metal  shall  be  contained  in 
ores  of  gold  and  silver,  then  the  same  shall  be  separately  classified  for 
duty  at  the  respective  rate  i)rovided  therefor,  and  if  less  than  5 per  cent, 
in  value  it  shall  then  be  considered  as  not  affecting  the  rate  of  duty.  I 
fix  the  limit  at  5 per  cent,  for  the  reason  that  at  least  this  amount  in 
galena  ores  is  required  as  a flux,  and  in  cupriferous  gold  ores  it  is  near 
the  limit  at  which  the  ores  can  be  treated  for  the  copper  at  a profit. 


JOHN  DYMOND.] 


SUGAR  CULTURE. 


547 


JOHN  DYMOND. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  38,  1882. 

Mr.  John  Dymond,  of  New  Orleans,  La.,  appeared  before  the  Com- 
mission and  made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : I beg  leave  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  sugar  industry  of  Louisiana,  its  past  history,  its  great 
depression,  the  special  causes  inducing  the  same,  its  present  condition 
and  slow  revival,  its  possibilities  in  the  near  future,  and  the  resulting 
advantages  to  the  country  at  large. 

It  is  a question  of  vital  importance  to  our  State,  the  sugar  industry 
being  its  chief  support  and  the  one  to  which  its  fertile  lands  are  well 
adapted.  It  is  the  almost  exclusive  support  of  from  350,000  to  400,000 
people,  and  employs  $90,000,000  of  capital. 

The  production  of  sugar  in  Louisiana  began  in  the  early  part  of  the 
century,  and  steadily  increased  until  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  it  equaled 
one-half  the  consumption  of  the  entire  country.  With  the  war  and  the 
disorganization  of  the  labor  system,  the  production  of  sugar  in  Louis- 
iana virtually  ceased.  But  5,000  tons  were  produced  in  1864,  and  sugars 
previously  selling  at  6 cents,  and  now  selling  at  6 cents,  then  sold  at 
16  cents,  the  loss  of  the  Louisiana  crop  thus  enhancing  the  cost  of  sugar 
throughout  the  world. 

The  high  prices  stimulated  the  production,  which  increased  to  9,000 
tons  in  1865,  and  20,000  tons  in  1866,  and  75,000  tons  in  1870.  During 
this  time  the  industry  was  struggling  with  powerfully  opposing  influ- 
ences. The  reorganization  of  the  labor  system  on  the  basis  of  free  labor, 
and  the  peculiar  complexity  of  the  sugar  industry,  made  the  contest  at 
times  seem  a doubtful  one.  However,  the  general  range  of  prices  was 
good,  and  the  minimum  duty  on  foreigh  sugars* was  3 cents  per  pound, 
and  soon  followed  every  evidence  of  rapid  recuperation.  Plantations 
rose  in  value ; old  fields  were  replanted  and  new  ones  laid  out.  Now 
sugar-houses  were  being  erected  and  large  purchases  of  machinery  were 
being  made,  and  the  rapid  rehabilitation  of  the  industry  seemed  to  be  at 
hand.  Tbe  West  was  looking  again  to  the  South  for  sugar  and  molas- 
ses, and  hundreds  of  steamers  went  laden  from  Pittsburgh,  Cincinnati, 
Louisville,  and  Saint  Louis,  with  plantation  supplies,  including  every 
article  known  in  domestic  and  mechanical  economy,  and  returned  laden 
with  sugar  and  molasses. 

Then  there  fell  upon  us  a blow  that  was  even  worse  than  the  war;  for 
it  came  upon  the  new  industry  just  rising  from  the  ruin  caused  by  the 
war.  Congress  in  1870  reduced  the  minimum  duty  on  sugar  from  3 cents 
to  If  cents,  and  then  came  a new  series  of  disasters.  The  crop  of  75,000 
tons  in  1870  was  followed  by  but  64,000  in  1871,  54,000  in  1872,  and 
45,000  in  1873.  During  the  years  1871,  1872,  and  1873  two-thirds  of  the 
sugar  commission  houses  in  New  Orleans  became  bankrupt,  and  the 
valuation  of  plantation  property  fell  one-half.  The  ownership  of  plan- 
tation property,  and  commercial  relations  therewith,  injured  commercial 
credit,  and  general  ruin  seemed  imminent. 

Louisiana  sugars  were  produced  with  free  labor  at  good  wages,  and 
could  not  compete  successfully  with  the  slave-grown  sugars  of  Cuba,  and 


’548 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  DYMOXD. 


with  the  slave,  cooly,  Chinese,  and  peon  labor  of  the  tropics,  without 
fair  protection  against  the  same.  The  results  of  the  war  were  accepted 
without  a murmur.  The  old  laborers  were  employed  as  freedmen  at  the 
highest  wages  paid  anywhere  for  agricultural  work.  The  relations  be- 
tween employer  and  employe  were  cordial,  and  not  a complaint  was 
heard;  when  suddenly  this  political  blow  was  struck  at  the  land,  and 
the  lieedman  of  Louisiana  found  himself  in  competition  with  the  slave 
across  the  Gulf,  and  the  freedman  and  his  industry  were  being  driven 
to  the  wall. 

In  1875  Congress  advanced  the  duties  on  sugar  25  per  cent.,  making 
the  minimum  2-fy.  Thus  was  restored  only  about  one-third  ot  the  reduc- 
tion of  1870.  No  other  leading  industry  of  the  land  had  its  protection 
diminished  so  nearly  one-half  as  had  our  sugar  industry  in  1870,  and,  as 
an  industrial  problem,  none  other  so  deserved  protection,  as  it  employed 
freed  labor  as  against  slave  and  cooly  labor  elsewhere.  The  minimum 
duty  of  3 cents  was  71  percent,  greater  than  the  new  minimum  of  1.75 
cents,  and  the  addition  of  but  25  per  cent,  of  this  71  per  cent,  did  not 
give  adequate  relief,  as  the  duty  did  not  then  equal  the  cost  of  our  free 
labor  over  that  of  the  slave  labor  in  Cuba,  but  it  afforded  considerable 
relief,  and  the  crop  that  fell  to  45,000  tons  in  1873  rose  to  110,000  tons 
in  1880. 

This  moderate  increase  was,  however,  disappointing.  The  domestic 
sugar  industry  was  one  in  which  Americans  formerly  took  a great  pride. 
The  value  of  foreign  sugars  consumed  in  the  United  States  reaching 
about  one  hundred  millions  ot  dollars,  Louisiana  was  expected  by  its 
production  to  retain  that  treasure  within  our  borders,  and  by  the  sale 
of  its  produce  to  the  other  States,  and  by  the  purchases  from  them  of 
equivalent  supplies,  to  thus  develop  an  iuter-State  trade  of  two  hun- 
dred millions  of  dollars. 

All  this  can  yet  be  accomplished,  and  wise  legislation  will  hasten 
that  result.  We  are  not  now  protected  by  the  existing  minimum  duties 
to  the  extent  of  the  cost  of  our  free  American  labor  over  that  of  the  low 
forms  of  labor  used  in  the  tropics.  By  American  energy,  American  in- 
vention, and  American  machinery  we  hope  to  overcome  this  disadvan- 
tage, if  the  minimum  duties  remain  unchanged.  The  frequent  agitation 
of  the  sugar  tariff,  and  the  resulting  insecurity  of  the  capital  invested  in 
sugar  production,  have  prevented  that  development  of  our  industry 
that  we  might  fairly  have  expected.  We  have  millions  of  acres  of  land 
the  most  fertile  in  the  world,  and  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  production 
of  sugar.  This  delta  of  the  Mississippi,  built  of  the  alluvium  of  its 
great  valley,  is  the  Holland  of  the  New  World,  and  should  and  will 
rival  Plolland  in  its  enormous  wealth  and  prosperity.  The  culture  of 
sugar  in  Louisiana  is  as  legitimate  as  that  of  any  other  crop  in  the 
Union.  An  average  yield  of  sugar  cane  per  acre,  equal  to  the  average 
of  subtropical  countries  can  readily  be  obtained.  Our  canes  may  be 
slightly  less  sweet,  but  we  harvest  a crop  every  year,  whereas  in  the 
tropics  it  requires  from  twelve  to  eighteen  months  for  their  plant  canes 
to  grow  and  ripen.  We  have  occasional  frosts  and  Hoods.  The  latter 
shall  hereafter  be  better  guarded  against  by  our  own  efforts,  and  by 
by  those  of  the  general  government,  as  is  now  contemplated,  and  the 
danger  from  the  former  will  be  reduced  to  a minimum  by  the  increase 
of  capital  and  the  resulting  increase  of  facilities  in  the  industry.  I 
would  make  the  positive  statement  that  there  is  not  a leading  crop  pro- 
duced in  the  United  States  that  averages  greater  certainty  of  a fair 
crop,  so  far  as  quantity  is  concerned,  than  the  sugar  crop.  The  short 
grain  croj^s  in  the  West  last  year  sustain  this  statement. 


JOHN  DYMOND. 


SUGAR  CULTURE. 


549 


In  considering  the  sugar  industry  of  Louisiana,  the  most  important 
factor  therein  will  be  found  to  be  human  labor.  There  is  no  other  crop, 
and  scarcely  any  other  leading  article  in  the  country,  of  which  the  value 
of  the  finished  produce  includes  so  great  a proportion  of  human  labor. 
The  crop  of  1880-81  sold  for  about  $22,000,000,  and  of  this  about  70 
per  cent.,  or  $15,500,000,  was  paid  out  for  human  labor  and  was  the  chief 
support  of  400,000  people.  The  supplies  that  these  $15,500,000  paid 
for  were  produced  in  the  other  States,  and  there  contributed  largely  to 
the  support  of  200,000  or  300,000  more  people.  Thus  the  gravity  of  the 
case  is  readily  seen.  Destroy  us  by  ceasing  to  protect  us  against  slave 
and  other  low-grade  labor  and  you  peril  the  subsistence,  stop  the  pro- 
gress, and  endanger  the  support  of  some  700,00a  people. 

I will  show  wherein  we  are  not  now  protected  to  the  extent  of  the  dif- 
ference in  cost  of  American  labor  as  compared  with  the  slave,  cooly, 
Chinese,  peon,  and  other  degraded  labor  of  Cuba  and  the  tropics. 

The  Cuban  planter  pays  for  his  Chinese  labor  $4  per  month,  or  $48 
per  year,  and  the  estimated  cost  of  feeding  him  on  rice  and  jerked  beef 
is  10  cents  per  day,  or  $30  per  year.  Other  incidental  expenses  will 
make  a total  of  not  exceeding  $100  per  year.  How  hard  their  lot  is,  is 
shown  by  the  frequent  suicides  of  Chinese  laborers  in  Cuba.  1 heir 
slave  labor,  of  course,  gosts  them  less.  The  standard  wages  in  Louisi- 
ana for  first-class  field  laborers  is  from  85  cents  to  $1  per  day  ; for  second- 
class,  75  cents  to  85  cents;  for  special  work,  such  as  ditching,  building 
levees,  &c.,  $1.25  to  $1.50;  for  sugar-house  work,  $1.25  to  $2.50,  and 
extra  for  night  work,  and  there  are  furnished  the  laborer  a comfortable 
house,  garden,  and  firewood.  During  the  harvest  season,  which  con- 
tinues about  ten  weeks,  or  seventy  days,  the  laborer  may,  at  his  option, 
earn  05  cents  for  working  half  the  night.  Ihere  is  always  plenty  of 
work  to  do,  and  his  employment  is  constant.  Forty-two  weeks  of  ordi- 
nary labor  equal  two  hundred  and  fifty-two  days,  or  $252  ; ten  weeks’ 
harvest  season,  or  seventy  days,  is  $70,  and  seventy  half  nights,  at  his 
option,  at  05  cents,  is  $45,  or  a total  of  $;,07  that  the  unskilled  laborer 
may  earn,  and  thousands  of  them  do  it,  and  this  is  over  three  and  a 
half  times  the  cost  of  the  same  labor  in  Cuba.  Mechanics  and  other 
skilled  laborers  are  paid  much  higher  rates.  A careful  analysis  of  our 
expenses  in  i>roducing  sugar  in  Louisiana  develops  the  fact  that  the  cost 
of  production  is  composed  of  70  per  cent,  human  labor  and  30  percent, 
supplies,  such  as  feed,  oil,  coal,  tools,  implements,  and  machinery,  prin- 
cipally made  of  iron.  The  crop  of  Louisiana  sugar  of  1880-’8l  averaged 
about  fully  fair,  and  sold  at  about  cents  per  pound.  As  in  very  few 
instances  was  any  money  made  that  year,  we  may  set  down  the  crop  as 
costing  what  it  sold  for,  and  70  per  cent,  of  this  GJ  cents  would  give  4.55 
cents  per  pound  expended  for  human  labor.  As  labor,  as  shown  before, 
costs  in  Louisiana  three  and  a half  times  as  much  as  in  Cuba,  the  Cuban 
would  pay  but  two-sevenths  of  this  4.55  cents  expended  for  human  labor 
in  Louisiana,  and  five-sevenths  of  it,  or  3J  cents  per  pound,  is  the  excess 
we  pay  for  labor  as  against  their  slave  and  semi-slave  labor.  Tbe  min- 
imum duty  on  sugar  is  2.19.  There  have  been  collected  during  the  past 
five  years  on  all  sugars  imported  2.39  cents  per  pound,  or  .80  cent  per 
pound  less  than  the  additional  cost  of  our  labor,  per  pound  of  sugar,  as 
compared  with  the  cost  of  the  Cuban’s  slave  or  semi-slave  labor.  The 
slaves  of  Louisiana  are  gone,  and  there  is  not  a murmur  of  discontent 
thereat.  The  result  is  cheerfully  accepted,  and  no  one  wishes  it  other- 
wise; but  the  lands  are  there,  the  freed  men  are  there,  the  people  are  all 
there,  and  only  ask  you  to  protect  them  against  the  slave  labor  across 


550 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fjOHN  DYMOND, 


tlie  Gulf,  and  then  with  American  energy,  invention,  aud  machinery  we 
shall  defy  the  world  to  surpass  us. 

The  general  good  of  the  whole  country  demands  that  careful  consid- 
eration should  be  given  to  the  bearing  that  the  sugar  industry  of  Lou- 
isiana has  upon  the  other  States  of  the  Union.  Those  engaged  in  the 
production  of  sugar-cane  are  engaged  therein  to  the  almost  entire  ex- 
clusion of  all  other  crops,  experience  having  shown  this  to  be  the  most 
successful  course  to  follow,  the  lands  being  ill  adapted  to  other  culture. 
Therefore  all  the  supplies  of  every  kind  used  in  the  industry  come  from 
the  other  States.  All  of  the  flour,  meal,  meats,  furniture,  dry  goods,  cloth- 
ing, boots  and  shoes,  horses,  mules,  machinery,  implements,  tools,  oils, 
belting,  hardware,  wooden  ware,  and  coal,  come  from  the  other  States, 
and  the  entire  country  seeks  Louisiana  as  a market.  In  the  year  1880-’81 
this  trade  with  the  other  States,  based  upon  our  sugar  crop,  amounted  to 
$44,000,000,  the  sale  of  our  crop  of  sugar  and  molasses  to  them  $22,000,000, 
and  the  purchase  from  them  of  that  quantity  of  supplies,  and  had  not 
the  duty  on  sugar  been  unfairly  reduced  in  1870  that  mter-State  trade 
would  now  amount  to  $88,000,000  instead  of  $44,000,000.  To  develop 
such  trade  Great  Britain  has  ever  used  subsidies  aud  protection.  She 
has  preserved  her  home  market  for  herself  until  production  was  so 
cheapened  that  protection  became  useless.  Certainly  this  government 
should  care  for  and  protect  this  existing  $44,000,000  and  prospective 
$200,000,000  of  trade  arising  from  the  sugar  lands  of  Louisiana. 

All  this  will  apply  equally  to  the  sugar  lands  of  Texas,  of  Florida, 
and  of  Southern  Georgia.  In  all  those  States  a beginning  has  been 
made.  Texas  has  made  considerable  progress,  and  offers  an  enormous 
area  of  excellent  sugar  land  not  nearly  so  well  adapted  to  any  other 
culture.  Florida  was  engaging/considerably  in  the  sugar  culture  before 
the  war,  and  is  now  again  resuming  it.  A little  has  been  done  in  Geor- 
gia for  many  years,  and  in  time  the  sugar  industry  can  be  made  a lead- 
ing one  in  all  these  States,  and  with  a hundred  millions  of  people  the 
United  States  can  make  all  her  sugar  at  home.  The  sorghum  interest 
of  the  West  is  developing  aud  producing  an  enormous  quantity  of  mo- 
lasses, and  some  sugar,  and  bidding  fairly  to  become  a leading  source  of 
sugar  supply.  Adverse  legislation  would  cripple  it,  as  it  would  us. 

As  we  are  such  enormous  consumers  of  manufactured  articles  we 
have  additional  claims  upon  the  government  for  fair  protection.  We 
have  $10,000,000  invested  in  machinery  alone,  and  it  is  demanding  con- 
stant renewal  and  increase,  particularly  as  new  methods  supersede  the 
old.  We  are  enormous  consumers  of  Pittsburgh  coal.  We  do  not 
complain  of  the  tariff  that  excludes  us  from  buying  the  cheaper  foreign 
machinery,  coal,  dry  goods,  &c.  We  say  let  us  encourage  the  produc- 
tion of  these  goods  in  the  other  States  of  the  Union,  they  taking  our 
produce,  which  they  can’t  produce  themselves,  and  we  taking  theirs. 
But  we  do  ask  that  should  you  conclude  to  diminish  the  present  insuf- 
ficient protection  on  sugars,  that  you  will  open  to  us  the  foreign  markets 
for  those  articles  we  consume,  by  reducing  also  the  duties  thereon. 

In  the  matter  of  the  adjustment  of  the  duties  on  sugar,  we  would 
state  that  the  sugar-refining  interest  of  the  country,  with  its  enormous 
capita],  rare  skill  aud  continuous  work,  so  cheapens  the  cost  of  pro- 
ducing the  better  grades  of  sugar,  that  we  get  no  protection  except 
what  we  get  on  the  low  grades,  and,  therefore,  we  ask  that  the  mini- 
mum duties  be  not  reduced. 

In  the  matter  of  classing  sugars  for  the  levying  of  duties  thereon,  it 
is  an  undisputed  fact  admitted  by  all  of  those  who  import,  refine,  or  sell 
sugars,  that  all  sugars  imported  for  refining , are,  without  exception, 


JOHN  DYMOND.l 


SUGAR  CULTURE. 


55  i 

bought  and  sold  on  their  polariscope  test  as  the  chief  means  of  deter 
mining  their  value.  The  matter  of  color  in  low  grades  under  the  pres- 
ent system  of  sugar  manufacture  is  of  but  little  importance  as  a test  of 
the  value  of  sugar.  Again,  all  sugars  sold  for  consumption,  whether 
refined  or  plantation  sugars,  are  invariably  sold  on  their  color.  Thus 
two  general  methods  of  determining  values  are  now  resorted  to,  the 
one  for  sugars  to  be  refined,  the  other  for  sugars  going  into  consump- 
tion. As  at  present  practically  no  sugars  below  No.  13,  Dutch  standard 
in  color,  go  into  direct  consumption,  we  would  respectfully  suggest  that 
in  classing  sugars,  for  the  levying  of  duties  thereon,  you  class  all  sugars 
not  above  No.  13,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  by  the  polariscope,  with  re- 
gard to  the  percentage  of  cane  sugar  they  contain,  and  that  you  class 
all  sugars  above  No.  13,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  by  the  Dutch  standard 
of  color. 

Aside  from  the  universal  commercial  use  of  the  polariscope  in  this 
country,  it  is  the  means  adopted  by  the  French  Government  for  deter- 
mining the  duties  or  taxes  on  sugar  there.  It  is  used  throughout 
Europe  in  determining  the  condition  and  value  of  beet  juice  while  tbe 
beets  are  growing  and  at  every  process  in  their  subsequent  manufac- 
ture. It  is  now  largely  used  in  Louisiana  for  the  same  purposes,  i.  e ., 
to  determine  the  condition  of  sugar  cane,  and  the  condition  and  value 
of  cane  juice  at  each  stage  of  its  manufacture  into  sugar  and  to  deter- 
mine the  condition  of  sugar  cane  in  respect  to  its  value  for  preserva- 
tion for  seed.  The  use  of  the  polariscope  in  the  sugar  industry  is  now 
universal  in  all  civilized  countries,  and  is  universally  recognized  as  the 
best  commercial  test  of  the  intrinsic  value  of  sugars. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  Are  you  a practical  sugar  planter  “l — Answer.  Yes,  sir; 

I am. 

Q.  How  many  years  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  business'? — A. 
Fourteen  years. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  are  your  reasons  for  recommending  the  adoption  of  two 
methods  of  classifying  sugars,  dividing  at  No.  13  ? — A.  For  the  reason 
that  all  sugars  that  are  imported  for  refining  are  imported  based  on 
their  intrinsic  merit,  which  is  determinable  only  by  the  polariscope; 
whereas,  all  sugars  imported  to  go  directly  into  consumption,  or  that 
are  produced  here  to  go  directly  into  consumption,  are  sold  to  consum 
ers  based  upon  their  color.  Therefore,  commercially,  there  are  two 
methods  of  determining  the  value  of  sugars.  When  they  are  above 
No.  13  the  usual  method  is  to  judge  of  them  by  color;  and,  when  below 
No.  13,  the  almost  exclusive  method,  in  fact  you  may  say  the  only 
method,  is  to  determine  their  value  by  the  polariscope. 

Q.  Then  you  suggest  that  the  raw,  cheap,  dark-colored  sugars 
should  be  tested  by  the  polariscope,  and  the  sugars  of  commerce — the 
lighter-colored  sugars — should  be  tested  by  the  eye;  by  comparison? — 
A.  Some  of  these  sugars  imported  for  refinement  are  not  necessarily  raw 
or  cheap.  They  are  too  dark  to  enter  into  direct  consumption,  and  yet 
have  a high  degree  of  purity. 

Q.  What  I mean  by  raw  sugar  is,  the  cheap  grades  of  sugars. — A.  As 
near  as  the  taste  of  consumers  can  be  determined,  sugars  under  No.  13, 
Dutch  standard,  are  not  taken  by  them  as  a rule;  therefore  those  would 
be  the  sugars  proper  to  determine  as  they  are  determined  in  the  trade. 
When  sugars  are  above  that  in  color,  then  they  are  taken  by  consumers; 


552 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  DYMOXD. 


such  of  those  goods  as  are  imported  go  into  consumption  direct.  Their 
actual  value  then  rests  upon  their  color. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  would  you  answer  the  objection  which  has  been  made  (I  ask 
this  for  information,  although  you  have  partially  referred  to  it ) to  sugar 
culture,  that  the  climate  of  Louisiana  being  only  a semi-tropical  climate, 
it  is  an  unnatural  product  or  culture,  the  natural  culture  of  sugar  being 
in  a purely  tropical  country  ? — A.  I would  state  that  all  the  facts  are 
just  the  reverse;  the  assertion  is  inaccurate.  The  culture  of  sugar-cane 
in  Louisiana  has  demonstrated  the  capacity  of  our  soil  and  climate  lor 
it.  The  sugar  crops  are  large  and  almost  universally  certain,  so  far  as 
quantity  is  concerned.  It  is  one  of  the  most  certain  crops  in  the  Union. 
But  the  land  there  being  so  peculiarly  adapted  to  sugar  culture,  other 
crops  are  not  largely  cultivated,  and,  therefore,  when  disaster  comes, 
it  is  widespread  in  its  character.  In  the  West,  if  the  corn  crop  fails 
there  may  be  other  crops  which  will  counterbalance  the  loss  of  the  corn 
crop.  There  is  a diversity  of  agriculture  in  the  West;  whereas,  in  Lou- 
isiana, we  have  an  exclusive  agriculture.  But  we  hold  that  our  sugar 
crop  is  as  certain  as  any  one  of  these  Western  crops. 

Q.  In  other  words,  you  say  there  is  a natural  adaptation  of  the  soil  to 
sugar  culture  in  your  State  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  has  been  asserted  by  American  political  economists  that  the 
most  profitable  commerce  is  not  on  isothermal  lines  where  there  is  a com- 
petition of  industries,  but  across  the  latitudes  where  there  is  a difference 
in  the  character  of  natural  products  ; how  does  your  industry  illustrate 
that  theory  ? — A.  I think  it  illustrates  it  specifically.  We  produce  in 
our  Southern  States  those  articles  which  are  not  produced  in  the  lati- 
tudes north  of  us,  and  we  take  from  those  latitudes  what  they  produce, 
their  wheat,  corn,  potatoes,  and  every  merchantable  variety  of  agricul- 
tural produce,  and  every  kind  of  manufacture,  and  we  return  them 
sugar  and  molasses,  which  they  cannot  produce  and  do  not  produce, 
though  they  may  in  the  future  from  sorghum. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q,  Sugar-cane  being  a tropical  plant,  and  having  become  acclimated 
in  Louisiana,  has  it  not  become  hardier  there  than  in  its  native  coun- 
try ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  We  find  that  tropical  canes  that  are  brought  in  do 
not  endure  the  climate  as  our  old  canes  do,  because  the  old  canes  have 
become  acclimated.  A large  quantity  of  sugar  is  produced  in  Europe, 
and  the  difficulties  of  the  culture  there,  on  account  of  the  vicissitu  les 
of  the  climate,  are  incomparably  greater  than  ours  in  Louisiana.  Yet 
they  are  making  a financial  success  in  its  culture. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  I would  like  to  ask  you  a question  in  regard  to  the  rate  of  duty. 
What  average  rate  of  duty  upon  sugar  would  bring  the  sugar  planter 
in  Louisiana  upon  an  equal  plane  with  the  sugar  planter  in  Cuba  and 
other  tropical  regions? — A.  I have  investigated  the  matter  with  a good 
deal  of  care,  and  it  is  my  opinion  that  it  would  take  about  3|  cents  a 
pound,  so  far  as  labor  is  concerned,  to  put  us  on  a plane  with  foreign 
labor.  We  are  now  getting  2J  to  2j|  cents  a pound  protection,  and 
that  is  one  reason  why  our  industry  has  not  been  developed  more 
rapidly  than  it  has.  The  point  which  we  desire  to  urge  particularly 
is,  that  our  present  protection  is  insufficient,  and  we  remonstrate  ear- 
nestly against  any  reduction  of  the  duty. 

Q.  So  I understand ; but  it  will  be  our  province  to  recommend  a rate 


JOHN  PYMON'P.J 


SUGAR  CULTURE. 


553 


of  duty,  and  I want  to  know  precisely  what  specific  duty,  in  your  judg- 
ment, would  bring  the  sugar  planter  of  Louisiana  up  to  the  same  plane 
with  the  sugar  planter  of  Cuba  and  other  tropical  regions  ? — A.  1 think 
about  3^  cents  a pound. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  that  3^  cents  a pound  on  every  pound  of  crys- 
tallizable  sugar  up  to  and  including  No.  13? — A.  I mean  3|  cents  a pound, 
taking  the  average. 

Q.  You  advocate,  as  I understand,  a polariscope  test  up  to  and  in- 
cluding No.  13,  but  not  above  No.  13.  Above  No.  13  you  suggest  the 
Dutch  standard  of  color  test  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  several  rates  on  that  basis  of  3J  cents  a pound  ? 
— A.  That  is  a matter  I have  not  yet  investigated,  from  the  fact  that  we 
have  not  considered  in  Louisiana  that  we  were  very  seriously  interested 
in  it.  We  are  chiefly  interested  in  the  average  duty  collected,  the  sugar 
refiners,  of  course,  demanding,  on  their  part,  as  against  the  bounty-paid 
sugars  of  Europe,  a protection  to  their  own  industry.  We  are  protected 
by  whatever  the  average  rate  of  duty  is. 

Q.  You  suggest  two  bases  of  placing  duty;  that  involves,  of  course, 
two  rates  of  duty. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  I would  like  to  ask  a question  or  two  to  amplify  the  questions 
asked  by  the  president  of  the  Commission,  as  to  the  effect  of  the  ac- 
climation of  cane.  I ask  you  if  we  are  not  introducing  every  day  (and 
whether  you  yourself  are  not  introducing)  different  canes  from  dif- 
ferent climates  in  order  to  get  a cane  which  is  hardier,  and  which  will 
stand  our  climate  better? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I am  at  present  experimenting 
with  twenty-five  varieties  of  cane.  I have  one  variety  that  was  brought 
from  Japan,  which  came  through  the  Department  of  Agriculture  a few 
years  ago,  and  which  is  said  to  have  the  rare  merit  of  being  able  to  re- 
sist the  frost.  As  to  its  capacity  as  a sugar-yielding  cane,  compared 
with  other  canes,  1 am  not  yet  advised,  not  having  experimented  with 
it  sufficiently.  But  in  regard  to  the  canes  that  I planted  in  the  begin- 
ning of  my  experiments,  and  which  have  acquired  a certain  growth,  I 
find  that  during  the  last  three  years,  under  the  most  adverse  conditions, 
they  have  stood  the  climate  remarkably  well.  I am  now  cultivating 
some  of  them.  The  ribbon  caue  we  have  is  much  better  than  that  in- 
troduced through  the  Agricultural  Department;  it  has  become  accli- 
mated and  is  the  favorite  cane  in  the  South.  We  have  also  this  ordi- 
nary red  cane,  or  red  bourbon  cane,  which  stands  all  sorts  of  weather 
very  well. 

Q.  In  speaking  of  the  ribbon  cane  you  say  it  has  become  acclimated; 
do  you  mean  by  that,  its  ability  to  resist  frost  has  been  increased? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  if  the  sugar  culture  continues  long  enough,  with  the  experiments 
being  made  with  newly  imported  cane,  do  you  or  not  think  we  shall 
eventually  get,  either  by  acclimation  or  importation,  a cane  that  will 
resist  effectually  all  our  frosts,  or  the  ordinary  frosts  which  we  get  in 
Louisiana? — A.  I believe  that  we  shall  eventually  have  such  canes;  in 
fact  1 think  we  have  them  now.  But  there  are  other  canes  that  we  hear 
of,  which  ripen  within  a comparatively  short  time, — say  eight  or  nine 
months.  If  we  could  get  a good  cane  of  that  kind,  it  would  be  still  bet- 
ter. But  independent  of  that,  with  just  such  canes  as  we  have  now, 
our  crop  is  more  certain  than  any  one  agricultural  crop  in  America  in 
any  State  where  they  have  the  same  climatic  vicissitudes. 


554 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  DYMONP. 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge,  or  can  you  give  any  informa- 
tion, in  regard  to  this  corn  sugar  or  grape  sugar — glucose,  as  it  is 
called? — A.  I have  some  familiarity  with  it;  I have  seen  it  frequently. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  competition  of  that  corn  sugar,  or  grape 
sugar,  is  felt  yet  by  the  Louisiana  sugar  growers,  or  whether  its  growth 
is  extending  ? — A.  The  production  of  corn  sugar  is  quite  extensive,  and 
seems  to  be  increasing.  It  appears  to  me  to  be  a legitimate  product 
from  corn,  and  has  much  legitimate  use  in  the  manufacture  of  candy, 
and  in  the  manufacture  of  fruit  aud  all  other  sirups.  We  regard  it  as 
an  allied  industry  and  a meritorious  one,  in  so  far  as  its  produce  reaches 
a legitimate  use,  and  the  reverse  of  that  to  whatever  extent  its  pro- 
duce is  used  illegitimately.  But  its  legitimate  use  has  largely  increased. 

Q.  What  would  you  consider  the  illegitimate  use  of  it  ? — A.  Its  Isale 
as  cane  sugar,  when  it  is  not  cane  sugar. 


FBANK  HAY.] 


APPRAISER  S DEPARTMENT,  N.  Y. 


555 


FRANK  HAY. 

Lonh  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Frank  Hay,  an  examiner  in  the  appraiser’s  department  of  the 
New  York  custom-house,  in  response  to  the  invitation  of  the  Commis- 
sion, made  the  following  statement: 

I beg  to  submit  for  your  consideration  a memorandum  showing  groups 
representing  the  different  grades  of  raw  sugars  imported  into  this  coun- 
try, arranged  with  the  view  of  enabling  you  to  determine  what  rate  of 
duty  paid  upon  each  grade  would  be  equitable  to  the  government,  the 
importer,  and  the  refiner,  whose  large  interests  have  been  built  up  under 
the  present  tariff. 

The  figures  in  brackets,  indicating  the  rates  of  duty,  have  no  signifi- 
cance, except  to  show  the  relative  proportional  differences  which,  in  my 
judgment,  should  be  observed  in  framing  a new  tariff'. 

Whether  the  government  require  twenty,  thirty,  or  forty  millions  of 
dollars  per  year  to  be  collected  from  raw  sugars  imported,  the  percent- 
age of  differences,  as  shown  in  the  memoranda  attached,  commencing 
with  the  lowest  grade  of  raw  sugar,  at  1 cent  per  pound,  and  ending 
with  sugar  above  No.  20  Dutch  standard,  at  3J  cents  per  pound,  should 
be  observed. 

On  all  melada,  concentrated  melada,  syrup  of  sugar-cane  juice,  con- 
centrated molasses,  tank  bottoms,  and  all  sugar  not  above  No.  13  Dutch 
standard  in  color,  and  which  contains  not  over  80  per  cent,  of  crystal- 
lizable  sugar  [1  cent]  per  pound. 

On  all  sugar  not  above  No.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  which 


contains  over  80  and  not  over  84  per  cent,  of  crystallizable  sugar 


1* 

1* 


cents]  per  pound  ; [1-^  cents]  per  pound  over  84°  and  not  over  88°  • 
cents]  per  pound  over  88°  and  not  over  92°;  [l-^ cents]  per  pound  over 
92°  and  not  over  96° ; [2  cents]  per  pound  over  9(3°  and  nor  over  100°. 

Sugar  above  No.  13  and  not  above  No.  16  Dutch  standard  [2  cents] 
per  pound. 

Sugar  above  No.  16  and  not  above  No.  20  Dutch  standard,  per  pound 
[3  cents.] 

Sugar  above  No.  20,  per  pound  [3J  cents.] 

All  sugar  candy  and  confectionery,  [50]  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Test  80°  to  84°:  Embraces  the  low  grades  East  India  and  South  Amer- 
ican sugars. 

Test  84°  to  88° : Low  grades  of  muscovado  sugar  and  corresponding 
grades  of  East  India  and  South  American,  &c. 

Test  88°  to  92°:  The  best  grades  of  muscovado  and  corresponding 
grades  of  sugar. 

Test  92°  to  96° : Centrifugals. 

Test  96°  to  99° : Higher  grades  of  centrifugals. 


SAMPLES. 

A.  — East  India  and  low-grade  South  American  sugars. 

B.  — Good  grade  of  South  American  sugars. 

C.  — Low  and  high  grade  molasses  sugars. 

D.  — High-grade  molasses  sugars. 


556 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FRANK  HAY. 


E.— Muscovado  sugars,  low  grade. 

E. — Muscovado  sugars,  high  grade. 

G.  — Centrifugals,  low  grade. 

H.  — Centrifugals,  high  grade. 

These  grades  cover  nine-tenths  of  the  sugar  imported  in  its  raw  state. 
A low  grade  of  East  India  sugar,  for  instance,  or  South  American  sugar, 
rating  at  perhaps  7 or  8 Dutch  standard,  would  come  probably  within 
that  test  of  80°  to  84°.  The  higher  grades  would  come  within  the  84° 
to  88°  test.  Then  we  come  to  the  best  grades,  the  muscovado  sugars, 
which  will  range  from  88°  to  92°;  and  the  lower  colors  of  centrifugal 
sugar,  the  very  best  sugar  that  is  made,  unrefined,  will  come  within  the 
92°  to  99°  test.  The  better  class  of  centrifugal,  testing  from  90°  to  98°, 
will  run  from  No.  9 to  12.  We  scarcely  ever  get  much  sugar  above  No. 
13  ; the  amount  imported  is  small. 

This  is  a condensed  statement  of  the  facts  which  I propose  to  submit, 
as  representing  our  views  as  to  what  we  regard  as  equitable,  if  any 
change  is  made  in  the  tarifi*.  I might  state  that  under  the  present  tariff 
all  grades  of  centrifugal  sugars  pay  a less  rate  of  duty  than  muscovado 
sugars  on  the  same  color.  They  are  made  of  a high  test  and  low  color. 
They  have  been  manipulating  these  sugars  for  years,  more  particularly 
since  1875,  when  the  25  per  cent,  was  put  on,  and  it  makes  the  duty 
from  15  to  39  per  cent.  less.  That  is  the  very  point  that  Secretary  Sher- 
man tried  to  correct  when  he  applied  a test  which  was  not  regarded  by 
the  courts  as  a legal  test. 

By  Commissioner  Bqteler  : 

Question.  I would  like  to  know  whether  the  Dutch  have  or  have  not 
abandoned  the  test  called  the  Dutch  standard  of  color  ! — Answer.  I 
think  they  have,  to  a great  extent. 

Q.  Not  entirely! — A.  No,  sir.  They  prepare  this  Dutch  standard 
for  use  by  other  countries,  and  I judge  they  use  the  same  standard  to 
some  extent  themselves.  I know  that  nearly  every  merchant  in  New 
York  is  provided  with  a set  of  the  Dutch  standards,  and  it  is  an  ele- 
ment of  value  with  them.  Take  a centrifugal  sugar,  we  will  say,  that 
in  color  is  No.  7.  If  it  is  above  No.  7 and  not  above  No.  10,  it  pays  2 
cents  duty ; but  if  nearer  No.  10  than  No.  7,  the  merchant  or  refiner  will 
give  more  for  it.  He  would  take  the  test  and  the  color  both  into  ac- 
count when  lie  bought  or  sold  it,  and  I think  that  is  the  practice  all  over 
the  world  now.  But  neither  test  would  be  conclusive. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  make  the  dividing  line  between  the  use  of  the  polari- 
scope  and  the  adopting  of  the  color  standard  ! — A.  At  No,  13.  Above 
No.  13  we  would  regard  sugar  as  partly  refined,  and  very  little  of  it  is 
impoited.  Under  the  present  tariff,  if  the  sugar  is  above  No.  10  and 
not  above  No.  13,  it  pays  a duty  of  2^  cents  a pound.  Above  No.  13 
and  not  above  No.  16,  it  is  raised  a quarter  of  a cent. 

Q.  In  making  your  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  rates  of  duty,  you 
recommend  the  classifications  of  which  you  have  spoken  ! — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  i i ow  do  you  arrive  at  that  recommendation  in  regard  to  the  figures 
you  have  stated  here! — A.  I base  them  on  the  present  tarifi'  as  being 
equitable  in  that  respect. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  I understand  that  you  use  these  figures  of  value  merely  as  an 
illustration  t — A.  Acs;  I do  not  base  the  figures  on  the  actual  value  of 
the  sugars  at  all. 


FRANK  HAY.] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


557 


By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  I understood  that  you  were  only  giving  an  example  of  the  percent- 
age you  recommend? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I am  not  assuming  to  advise  any 
special  rate  of  duty. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  suggest  this  as  a form  of  classification  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; and 
the  difference  that  is  to  be  observed  between  different  grades,  so  that 
the  higher  grades  shall  pay  proportionately  more  duty  than  the  lower 
grades ; that  is,  when  you  get  above  No.  13. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  appraiser’s  department  of  the 
custom-house? — A.  Since  1871. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  have  said  in  your  statement  that  the  memoranda  which  you 
have  submitted,  showing  the  groups  representing  the  different  grades 
of  raw  sugars  imported,  are  arranged  with  a view  of  enabling  us  to  de- 
termine what  rate  of  duty  paid  upon  each  grade  would  be  equitable  to 
the  government,  the  importer,  and  the  refiner? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  enumeration  you  do  not  include  the  producer  at  all? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  that  out  purposely  or  accidentally  ? — A.  That  was 
left  out  purposely,  for  the  reason  that  I did  not  want  to  indicate  in  any 
way  what  protection  the  Louisiana  planter  should  have,  or  what  rates 
of  duties  should  be  imposed  upon  imported  sugars. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  recommend  the  use  of  the  polariscope  in  sugars  rating  at  No. 
13  and  under? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I do.  After  the  point  of  No.  13  is  passed 
the  tests  do  not  vary  much.  They  would  come  up  pretty  nearly  to  100 
in  any  event,  no  matter  what  the  sugar  was,  particularly  if  it  wras  cen- 
trifugal sugar,  and  those  sugars  should  be  relatively  at  a higher  rate 
than  the  lower  grades.  Therefore  they  are  left  out  of  the  estimate  of 
tests. 

Q.  The  difficulties  you  have  had  heretofore  have  been  in  regard  to  the 
lower  grades  of  sugar  altogether  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; the  great  bulk  of  the 
sugar  imported  into  this  country  is  below  No.  10  in  color. 

Mr.  A.  G.  Remsen,  an  examiner  in  the  New  York  custom-house,  who 
was  present,  said : Mr.  Hay  and  myself  together  have  prepared  the 
memoranda  of  rates  upon  sugar  which  he  has  submitted  to  you.  I con- 
cur in  the  views  expressed  by  him. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  an  examiner  of  sugar  in  the  cus- 
tom-house?— Answer.  About  nine  years. 

Q.  Have  you  anything  to  add  to  what  Mr.  Hay  has  stated  in  regard 
to  this  subject? — A.  No,  sir;  I have  not.  We  consulted  with  each 
other  before  coming  here,  and  he  has  stated  everything  that  is  neces- 
sary, in  my  opinion,  for  the  Commission  to  know  which  will  enable  it  to 
come  to  a proper  determination  upon  the  subject. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  join  with  Mr.  Hay  in  the  recommendations  he  has  made  to 
us  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


558 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[IMANUEL  AUERBACH. 


IMANUEL  AUERBACH. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Imanuel  Auerbach,  assistant  appraiser  in  the  New  York  cus- 
tom house,  upon  the  invitation  of  the  Commission  made  the  following 
statement : 

I have  charge  of  the  division  relating  to  paintings,  books  and  all  kinds 
of  printed  matter,  jewelry,  diamonds,  fancy  goods,  musical  instruments, 
scientific  instruments,  and  toys.  As  a matter  concerning  all  divisions 
of  the  appraiser’s  department,  I would  call  your  attention  to  the  ques- 
tion of  charges,  which,  if  a certain  nature,  form  a part  of  the  dutiable 
value  of  merchandise.  The  law  provides  that  such  charges  must  be 
added  to  the  market  price  of  any  merchandise  in  determining  the  dutiable 
value  thereof.  (Section  2907  of  the  Revised  Statutes.)  This  section  of 
the  law  causes  many  annoyances,  and  is,  at  the  same  time,  not  produc- 
tive of  large  revenue,  while  it  works  injustice,  inasmuch  as  additions 
for  certain  charges  (for  freight,  coverings,  &c.),  must  be  omitted  in  case 
the  invoice  reads,  free  on  board  and  free  of  charges  for  packages. 

We  experience  a great  difficulty  in  the  matter  of  determining  the 
charges  to  be  added  in  making  up  the  dutiable  value  of  goods.  I re- 
member one  case  where  an  invoice  of  Japanese  goods  could  not  be  liqui- 
dated for  some  months  because  it  was  impossible  to  determine  a ques- 
tion in  regard  to  an  insurance  item  on  the  invoice — whether  it  meant 
marine  insurance  or  fire  insurance.  I take  the  ground  that  land  insurance 
or  fire  insurance,  can,  under  no  circumstance,  be  counted  as  an  element 
in  the  determination  of  the  dutiable  value  of  merchandise,  as  insurance 
does  not  enhance  the  value  of  the  goods,  it  being  only  a step  taken  by  the 
holder  of  the  goods  to  secure  himself  against  loss  in  case  of  destruction 
by  fire  or  water.  Such  questions  come  up  from  the  naval  office  and  the 
collector’s  office  frequently,  and  cause  trouble  and  delay,  and  I-think 
all  these  matters  should  be  prevented  by  excluding  the  charges  as  a 
part  of  the  dutiable  elements  of  the  goods.  If  this  was  done  it  would 
greatly  facilitate  the  work  of  clearing  invoices. 

There  is  another  point  I would  like  to  call  attention  to,  and  that  is  in 
regard  to  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1875  regarding  silks.  I would 
suggest  that  the  rate  of  60  per  cent,  duty  should  be  made  apply  to  silk 
fabrics  by  themselves,  and  textile  fabrics  by  themselves.  I make  this 
suggestion  because  of  the  embarrassments  we  have  at  all  times  in  regard 
to  miscellaneous  goods  in  our  liue  otherwise  provided  for.  For  instance, 
fancy  goods,  dolls,  toys,  and  fans  are  composed  of  various  materials,  and 
we  have  difficulty  in  finding  out  the  proportionate  value  of  silks  and 
other  materials  which  enter  into  their  composition.  I believe  that  if  an 
article  is  sufficiently  provided  for  in  the  law  it  should  pay  the  duty  pro- 
vided for  that  article  without  regard  to  the  materials  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed. A silk  duty,  for  instance,  on  a fan  is  an  absurdity.  I suppose 
the  act  of  1875  was  at  first  con tem  [dated  to  cover  textile  fabrics,  not 
fancy  goods,  or  dolls,  or  toys,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  and  the  appli- 
cation of  that  act  to  such  goods  seems  to  me  highly  improper. 

Regardingprinted  matter — books,  pamphlets, periodicals,  &c. — I would 
like  to  suggest  an  equalization  of  the  treatment  of  certain  articles  with- 
out regard  to  the  mode  of  their  carriage.  The  universal  postal  treaty 
has  prescribed,  and  it  is  a law  in  force  at  the  present  time,  that  books 


IMANUEL  AUERBACH.] 


559 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 

without  stiff  covers,  periodicals,  magazines,  newspapers,  and  pamphlets 
shall  be  admitted  freeof  duty.  Now,  the  identical  same  goods,  if  brought 
in  as  a shipment  of  merchandise  on  board  of  a vessel  as  freight,  go  to 
the  public  stores  and  are  charged  at  the  rate  of  25  per  cent.  There  is 
no  consistency  in  treating  the  very  same  article  as  dutiable  in  the  one 
case  and  in  the  other  case  as  not  dutiable.  Therefore,  I would  recom- 
mend with  great  earnestness  the  abolishing  of  all  duties  on  newspapers, 
no  matter  in  what  way  they  come  into  port,  and  on  all  periodicals  and 
such  books  as  are  provided  for  in  the  universal  postal  treaty. 

In  order  to  simplify  the  tariff  and  bring  a variety  of  articles  under  a 
few  heads,  I would  recommend,  as  a single  instance,  that  dolls  and 
toys  should  be  placed  under  one  head.  Dolls  at  present  pay  35  per  cent, 
duty  while  toys  pay  fifty  per  cent.,  although  dolls  are  toys  and  are  used 
as  playthings  for  children.  I do  not  see  any  necessity  for  a separate 
provision  for  dolls,  and  think  it  only  tends  to  complicate  the  tariff  laws. 
Either  bring  the  duty  on  toys  down  to  35  per  cent,  or  raise  the  duty  on 
dolls  to  50  per  cent.  There  is  really  no  difference  in  the  two  articles. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Are  there  many  manufacturers  of  toys  in  this  country  ? — 
Answer.  There  are  very  few,  and  dolls  are  mostly  imported.  Fifteen- 
sixteenths  of  all  the  dolls  and  toys  in  use  in  this  country  are  imported. 

I would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Revised  Statutes  in  regard  to  statuary  under  Schedule  M.  The  law 
says  that  paintings  and  statuary,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  shall  pay 
10  per  centum  ad  valorem,  but  the  term  statuary  shall  be  understood 
to  include  professional  productions  of  a sculptor  only.  In  the  ap- 
plication of  this  provision  of  the  law  there  was  such  a discrepancy  for  a 
number  of  years  that  the  officers  of  the  government,  at  the  present 
time,  are  almost  in  the  dark  in  regard  to  what  they  shall  do  in  certain 
cases.  The  department  has  seen  fit  to  define  the  word  u statuary”  as 
the  original  works  of  a professional  sculptor,  and  under  that  ruling  we 
have  to  decline  to  admit  any  statuary,  no  matter  if  made  by  the  most  re- 
nowned sculptor,  if  it  is  not  his  original  work,  and  copies  are  classified 
as  marble  at  a rate  of  duty  of  50  per  cent.,  or,  if  alabaster,  of  30  per 
cent.,  &c.  Now,  there  seems  to  be  no  good  ground  for  such  a decision. 
If  a sculptor  who  is  certified  by  a United  States  consul,  or  by  some  other 
good  authority,  as  a professional  artist,  makes  a copy  of  any  of  his  works, 
I think  it  is  just  as  much  a work  of  art  as  the  first  was,  and  I do  not 
think  there  is  any  fairness  in  the  exclusion  of  the  copies. 

There  is  one  provision  in  the  tariff,  paragraph  No.  1286,  providing  for 
glass  plates  or  disks,  uu wrought,  for  optical  instruments,  at  the  rate  of 
10  per  centum  ad  valorem,  while  the  majority  of  all  articles  of  glass 
pay  a duty  of  40  per  cent.  There  is  a case  now  pending  before  the  de- 
partment in  which  the  question  as  to  whether  glass  intended  for  spec- 
tacles, which  are  in  one  sense  optical  instruments,  if  it  comes  in  the 
shape  of  unwrought  glass,  shall  pay  duty  at  the  rate  of  10  per  cent. 
This  matter  will  soon  be  decided  by  the  department.  But  in  the  mean- 
time, of  course,  the  importers  are  annoyed  by  not  knowing  where  they 
stand,  and  the  officers  of  the  customs  are  also  annoyed.  I would  sug- 
gest a change  in  that  provision  so  as  to  make  it  read,  “ Glass  plates  or 
disks,  unwrought,  for  all  optical  purposes,”  which  would  cover  the  case 
in  point.  That  would  bring  in  unwrought  spectacle  glasses  under  that 
provision. 

1 would  like  to  say  a word  in  regard  to  antiquities,  although  that  is 
a matter  which  the  expert  in  our  division,  Mr.  Stevens,  will  explain 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[1MANUEL  AUERBACH. 


5G0 

more  fully  to  you.  The  law  provides  that  collections  of  antiquities  shall 
he  admitted  free  of  duty.  The  Treasury  Department  has  found  no 
boundary  line  in  the  law  to  define  what  antiquities  are,  so  that  a more 
or  less  arbitrary  decision  as  to  what  should  be  treated  as  antiquities 
must  he  made.  The  department  has  decided,  although  the  trade  is 
prejudiced  against  it,  that  antiquities  are  works  which  originated  before 
the  fifteenth  century,  so  that  any  articles  of  antiquity,  and  artistic  arti- 
cles of  a later  period,  are  excluded,  if  not  originated  prior  to  that  date. 
It  is  claimed  by  experts  in  the  business  that  an  article  originated  one  or 
two  hundred  years  ago  is  just  as  much  antiquity  as  one  which  origi- 
nated before  the  fifteenth  century.  The  contrary  ruling  of  the  depart- 
ment being  somewhat  arbitrary,  the  law  should  be  made  so  clear  that 
there  will  be  no  necessity  for  an  arbitrary  decision  in  the  future.  The 
law  should  state  what  age  the  article  should  attain  in  order  to  entitle 
it  to  classification  as  an  antiquity. 

Q.  Supposing  the  line  should  be  placed  so  as  to  include  all  articles 
made  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  present  century? — A.  I think 
it  would  be  well  for  articles  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Articles  pro- 
duced before  the  eighteenth  century  are  seldom  articles  of  ordinary 
trade  or  commerce.  They  are  usually  bought  by  lovers  of  antiquities 
for  their  historical  value,  and  not  so  much  as  merchandise.  In  some 
respects  they  are  educators  of  the  public  taste,  and  therefore  1 do  not 
think  that  they  should  be  taxed.  I do  not  think  the  Treasury  would 
suffer  much  if  goods  of  this  class  were  admitted  free  of  duty. 


BENJAMIN  J.  LEVY.  ] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


561 


BENJAMIN  J.  LEVY. 

Longi  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  19,  1882. 

Mr.  Benjamin  J.  Levy,  examiner,  eighth  division  appraiser’s  depart- 
ment, New  York,  in  response  to  the  invitation  of  the  Commission,  made 
the  following  statement: 

I think  the  most  important  suggestions  I can  make  to  the  Commission 
in  regard  to  the  tariff  will  be  those  tending  to  do  away  with  its  incon- 
gruities and  inconsistencies.  I have  tried  to  simplify  the  work  in  my 
department  as  much  as  possible,  and  to  avoid  the  unnecessary  delays 
and  consequent  dissatisfaction  now  existing  among  importers.  I think 
it  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  endeavor  to  simplify  the  arrangement 
of  the  tariff*  so  that  duties  may  be  assessed  which  will  be  satisfactory  to 
the  importer  and  just  to  the  government.  My  particular  branch  is  that 
of  leather  and  glass. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  How  long  a time  have  you  been  in  the  custom-house  % — A.  I have 
been  there  over  twelve  years.  I have  prepared  a few  suggestions  in 
regard  to  the  duties  on  leather  and  glass  which  I will  submit  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Commission,  as  follows: 

LEATHER. 

If  the  duty  on  leather  could  be  assessed  by  weight  it  would  simplify 
the  tariff*  very  materially,  but  if  not  by  weight,  I would  suggest  arrang- 
ing the  same  in  four  classes,  viz  : 

1st.  All  raw  material,  whether  dried,  wet,  salted,  or  pickled  hides  or 
skins,  “free.” 

2d.  Skins  tanned  but  unfinished,  also  bend,  belting,  sole  leather,  wal- 
rus or  other  tanned  hides,  and  all  skins  partially  finished,  so  much  per 
cent,  (all  one  rate). 

3d.  Dressed  and  finished  skins  of  all  kinds  so  much  per  cent,  (all  one 
rate). 

4th.  Manufactures  of  leather,  so  much  per  cent,  (all  one  rate). 

All  pieces  or  scraps  of  leather  and  skins,  whether  new  or  old,  should 
be  free. 

Boots  and  shoes,  whether  any  part  is  composed  of  wool  or  worsted, 
if  the  leather  is  the  chief  value,  should  be  rated  as  a manufacture  of 
leather. 

In  section  2504,  Schedule  M (1319),  the  word  “ morocco”  should  be 
omitted. 

The  last  clause,  viz  (1321),  should  be  omitted  entirely. 

GLASS. 

Schedule  B,  earth  and  earthenware  (950).  All  cast  glass  not  polished 
nor  silvered,  whether  fluted,  rolled,  rough  or  ribbed,  should  pay  an  ad 
valorem  duty,  being  the  cheapest  and  commonest  kind  of  glass  made, 
almost  a uniform  price,  by  all  manufacturers,  the  value  easily  ascer- 
tained, the  duties  easily  assessed,  and  all  would  pay  the  same  rate  duty 
here  and  elsewhere.  No  weighing,  no  measurement  required.  This 
character  of  glass  is  imported  in  large  sheets,  and  should  an  ad  valorem 
H.  Mis.  6 3G 


562 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[BENJAMIN  J.  LEVY. 


duty  be  not  considered,  then  one  rate  of  duty  per  pound  for  all  thick- 
nesses. 

This  character  of  glass  as  at  present  assessed  requires  weighing, 
measuring,  and  unnecessary  detail  which  the  above  suggestions  would 
avoid  without  any  detriment  to  the  revenue. 

1st.  (948).  All  unpolished  cylinder, . crown,  and  common  window- 
glass,  whether  white,  colored,  enameled,  ground,  fluted  or  corrugated, 
and  whether  flat  or  bent,  the  duties  to  be  assessed,  viz,  three  brackets. 

A.  Single  thick . — On  all  sizes  not  exceeding  40  united  inches  (16  by 
24)  a stated  price  per  box  on  what  is  commercially  known  as  a 50-foot 
box,  and  twice  as  much  on  what  is  commercially  known  as  a 100-foot 
box. 

2d.  On  all  sizes  exceeding  40  united  inches  and  not  over  80  united 
inches  (50  by  30),  a stated  price  per  box  on  what  is  commercially  known 
as  a 50-foot  box,  and  twice  as  much  on  what  is  commercially  known  as 
a 100-foot  box. 

3d.  On  all  sizes  above  80  united  inches  a stated  price  per  box  on 
what  is  commercially  known  as  a 50-foot  box,  and  twice  as  much  on 
what  is  commercially  known  as  a 100-foot  box. 

B.  1J  single. — Thick,  commonly  called  one-half  double,  same  division 
of  brackets  as  above,  the  duty  to  be  one-half  more  than  single  thick. 
These  brackets  would  make  a more  equal  division  the  way  the  sizes  are 
now  made.  The  duty  should  be  per  box  and  not  per  pound,  as  that  is  the 
way  glass  is  bought  and  sold.  Over  2,000  different  sizes  are  made,  few 
of  which  make  exactly  50  or  100  square  feet,  but  a number  of  lights  are  put 
in  the  boxes  according  to  the  size,  which  approximate  as  near  as  possible 
to  that  number  of  square  feet,  some  more,  some  are  less  than  50  or  100 
square  feet ; the  purchase  and  sale  are  the  same,  however,  whether  un- 
der or  over  the  exact  number  of  square  feet. 

As  an  example,  to  show  how  unequal  the  present  assessment  of  duties 
works,  take  a box  of  50  square  feet,  say  36  by  50,  and  a box  36  by  54  ; 
each  contains  four  lights  (both  bought  and  sold  at  the  same  price, 
whether  on  foreign  or  domestic  price  list) ; the  one  is  assessed  on  exactly 
on  50  square  feet,  the  other  on  54  square  feet. 

The  glass  as  now  assessed  is  weighed,  and  as  it  differs  in  weight  from 

49  to  55  pounds  for  50  square  feet  for  single  thick  and  half  as  much  more 
for  half  double,  a second  or  extra  duty  is  assessed  on  all  weighing  over 

50  pounds  for  50  square  feet,  and  a third  or  extra  duty  is  assessed  on 
all  glass  containing  more  than  50  square  feet,  which  varies  from  40  to 
60  square  feet  per  box  according  to  size  of  lights. 

The  amount  of  labor  required  in  measuring,  counting,  and  weighing, 
the  risk  in  handling,  the  breakage  incurred,  the  destruction  of  the  orig- 
inal package,  which  affects  the  sale  of  the  package  opened,  the  extra 
excess  of  duties  now  imposed,  viz,  from  7 to  10  per  cent,  in  addition  to 
the  original  duty  assessed,  because  the  box  has  over  50  square  feet,  or 
because  the  box  weighs  more  than  50  pounds,  although  the  importer 
pays  nor  receives  no  more  for  his  box,  the  trouble  in  liquidating,  the 
work  imposed  on  those  capable  of  liquidating  these  invoices,  the  time 
it  takes,  the  delay,  which  is  months  and  months  before  the  same  is 
liquidated  and  the  importer  called  upon  to  pay  the  excess  ascertained, 
requires  but  little  foresight  to  see  that  the  duties  can  be  properly  as- 
sessed by  adopting  the  suggestions  I have  made.  The  government  would 
be  protected  and  justice  done  the  importer.  The  duties  would  be  as- 
sessed the  same  at  all  the  ports,  and  all  assessed  alike,  which  is  not 
done  at  present.  Each  box  of  single  thick  should  be  branded  single 
thick,  and  each  box  of  one-half  double  glass  be  branded  double  thick. 


BENJAMIN  J.  LEVY.  ] 


appraiser’s  department,  n.  y. 


563 


449.  Polished  cylinder  and  crown  glass. 

1st.  On  all  plates  not  exceeding  3 square  feet,  the  duty  to  be  so  much 
per  square  foot. 

2d.  On  all  plates  exceeding  3 square  feet,  and  not  exceeding  5 square 
feet,  the  duty  to  be per  square  foot. 

3d.  On  all  plates  exceeding  5 square  feet,  the  duty  to  be per 

square  foot. 

This  glass  is  limited  in  size  on  account  of  being  thin,  and  the  above 
suggestions  would  be  more  simple  and  correspond  more  to  the  cost. 

951.  Cast  polished  plate  glass  unsilvered,  whether  flat  or  bent  or 
beveled. 

1st.  On  all  plates  not  exceeding  2 square  feet,  the  duty  to  be — 

per  square  foot. 

2d.  On  all  plates  over  2 square  feet,  and  not  over  5 square  feet,  the 
duty  to  be per  square  foot. 

3d.  On  all  plates  over  5 square  feet,  and  not  over  10  square  feet,  the 
duty  to  be per  square  foot. 

4th.  On  all  plates  over  10  square  feet,  the  duty  to  be per  square 

foot. 

952.  Silvered  looking-glass  plates,  or  cast  polished  plate  glass  silvered, 
whether  plain  or  beveled. 

1st.  On  all  plates  not  exceeding  2 square  feet,  the  duty  to  be 

per  square  foot. 

2d.  On  all  plates  over  2 square  feet,  and  not  over  5 square  feet,  the 
duty  to  be per  square  foot. 

3d.  On  all  plates  over  5 square  feet,  and  not  over  10  square  feet,  the 
duty  to  be per  square  foot. 

4th.  On  all  glass  over  10  square  feet,  the  duty  to  be per  square 

foot. 

In  lieu  of  the  present  mode  of  assessing  damage  on  breakage  of  glass, 
a percentage  should  be  allowed  on  each  invoice,  say  from  2 to  3J  per  cent. 

Optical  glass  plates  and  disks  unwrought,  and  glass  for  spectacles  in 
the  rough,  should  be  20  per  cent. 


564 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


J.  L.  MANY.] 


J.  L.  MANY. 

Long  Branch,  N".  J.,  August  21,  1882. 

Mr.  J.  L.  Many,  of  New  York,  a rice  broker,  appeared,  and  made  the 
following  statement : 

The  proportion  of  producers  to  consumers  of  rice  in  this  country  is 
amazingly  small;  a few  thousand  of  the  one,  to  the  many  millions  of  the 
other.  Now,  I advocate  no  reduction  or  alteration  in  the  duty  on  cleaned 
foreign  rices,  but  I most  emphatically  do  advocate  absolute  freedom 
from  all  duty  on  all  foreign  rices  in  the  rough  or  paddy  state,  for  the 
following  reasons : 

First.  Because  it  would  be  the  greatest  amount  of  good  to  the  great- 
est number  of  people. 

Second.  Because  I do  not  believe  it  would  injure  the  rice  interest  at 
the  South,  but  would  rather  stimulate  a larger  production  at  a smaller 
price. 

A planter  told  me  last  summer  that  an  average  price  of  3J  cents  per 
pound  would  be  profitable.  We  have  been  paying  an  average  price  this 
year  of  to  7 cents  per  pound. 

Third.  It  would  create  a new  industry,  or  rather  largely  increase  an 
old  one,  which  in  England  is  one  of  the  largest,  the  milling  interest. 
A few  figures  will  show  its  importance  : Great  Britain  imported,  in  1881, 
407,877  tons  of  rice ; she  exported  to  North  America  (Canada,  United 
States,  and  Mexico),  12,898  tons;  to  the  West  Indies,  59,199  tons;  and  to 
South  American  ports,  14,375  tons.  There  is  raised  in  the  United  States 
a total  product  of  about  40,000  tons.  By  having  no  duty  on  rough  rice 
we  would  be  able  to  supply  the  West  Indies,  Mexico,  Canada,  and  South 
America,  because  our  process  of  milling  is  superior  to  the  German  and 
English.  We  get  a larger  percentage  of  whole  rice  from  the  rough,  with 
a better  color  and  style ; that  is,  from  the  same  quality  of  rough  rice  we 
make  a style  of  cleaned  that  would  be  bought  in  preference.  It  would 
give  us  direct  cargoes  from  the  Asiatic  rice  countries,  thereby  insuring 
for  shippers  of  home  manufactures  cargoes  back,  the  lack  of  which  I be- 
lieve has  been  detrimental  to  the  development  of  our  export  trade.  A 
trade  with  South  America  and  the  West  Indies  of  70,000  tons  per  year 
would  certainly  support  American  lines  of  transportation  to  those  coun- 
tries without  the  aid  of  subsidies. 

Fourth.  It  would  most  assuredly  increase  the  production  at  the  South. 
The  facts  prove  it.  Before  the  war  the  duty  was  from  nothing  to  1 cent 
per  pound;  and  while  I cannot  speak  from  positive  knowledge,  still  my 
impression  is,  the  lower  the  duty  the  larger  the  production.  At  that 
time  we  exported  thousands  of  tons  of  domestic  rice,  instead  of  import- 
ing the  foreign.  The  average  price  was  then  about  4 cents  per  pound  ; 
in  exceptional  years  as  low  as  2 cents,  and  as  high  as  7 cents ; but  grow- 
ers were  fully  satisfied  with  the  average  prices.  We  certainly  can  raise 
rice  as  cheap  now  as  before  1860 ; we  do  cotton. 

Fifth.  It  would  make  cheap  rice,  which  is  equally  desirable  with  cheap 
wheat  and  cheap  corn. 


V.  G.  BLOEDE.] 


ANILINE  DYES. 


565 


V.  G.  BLOEDE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  21,  1882. 

The  following  communication,  regarding  duties  on  aniline  dyes  and 
coal-tar  products,  was  received  from  Mr.  V.  G.  Bloede,  representing 
the  American  Aniline  Works  of  Parkersburg,  W.  Va. : 

Gentlemen:  Having  found  it  impossible,  during  my  recent  hurried 
visit  to  New  York,  to  accept  your  invitation  to  appear  in  person  before 
your  committee,  I adopt  this  method  of  communicating  my  views  upon 
some  of  the  matters  you  now  have  under  consideration. 

The  firm  of  Bloede  & Rathbone,  of  which  I am  a member,  is  engaged 
at  this  point  in  the  manufacture  of  various  chemicals,  chiefly  such  as 
are  used  in  the  dyeing  and  printing  of  yarns  and  textile  fabrics.  Our 
firm  is  also  largely  interested  in  the  business  known  as  the  American 
Aniline  Works,  and  it  is  particularly  in  this  line  of  manufacture  that  I 
feel  competent  to  communicate  important  information  to  your  committee. 
The  production  of  aniline  colors  from  our  native  crude  materials  is  a 
business  the  benefits  of  which  seem  to  me  to  belong  most  legitimately 
to  this  country,  and  forms  a fitter  subject  for  heavy,  even  prohibitory, 
duty  than  many  other  branches  of  trade  dej)ending  exclusively  upon 
imported  crude  material.  Strange  to  say,  although  we  have  all  of  the 
chief  crude  materials  in  this  country,  it  is  only  within  the  last  two  or 
three  years  that  the  production  of  colors  exclusively  from  our  native 
products  has  been  attempted.  Prior  to  this  time  a few  small  works  had 
been  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  a few  simple  coal-tar  dyes,  but  they 
worked  exclusively  with  a crude  material,  combined  and  manipulated 
by  European  skill  and  imported  into  this  country,  duty  free,  in  a half 
finished  condition,  i.  c.,  in  the  form  of  arseniate  o<£  aniline.  To  pro- 
duce this  material,  American  benzoles  and  other  coal-tar  products 
are  shipped  abroad  in  a crude  state  at  a heavy  expense,  manipulated 
by  foreign  skill  and  labor  at  another  heavy  expense,  and  returned 
to  us  still  as  a crude  product,  but  largely  enhanced  in  value.  The 
entire  profits  of  manipulating  our  own  crude  material  have  thus 
for  years  been  lost  to  our  country.  I believe  I am  correct  in 
stating  that  the  American  Aniline  Works,  which  I have 'the  pleasure  of 
representing,  was  the  first  concern  in  the  United  States  which  suc- 
ceeded in  producing  on  a large  scale  the  base  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  these  colors,  i.  e .,  aniline  oil,  from  the  crude  coal-tar  products  of  our 
own  country,  and  exclusively  by  home  labor.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me 
to  dwell  upon  the  almost  insurmountable  difficulties  encountered  in  a 
new  manufacture  of  this  kind  in  a country  totally  devoid  of  skilled 
labor  and  experience.  It  generally  means  one  of  three  things : first  and 
generally,  a total  failure;  second,  the  importation  of  skilled  labor  from 
the  other  side  (a  class  of  labor  which  seldom  flourishes  under  the  busi- 
ness conditions  here  existing),  or,  as  the  American  Aniline  Works  have 
done,  the  redevelopment , as  it  were,  of  the  entire  process  of  manufacture 
by  a long  series  of  difficult  and  costly  experiments.  One  thing  that  is 
retarding  the  utilization  of  our  home  products  more  than  anything  else 
is  the  fact  that,  by  the  grossly  unjust  and  arbitrary  provisions  of  some 
sections  of  our  tariff,  aniline  oil,  and  the  half  finished  product  known  as 
arseniate  of  aniline,  have  been  hitherto  admitted  free  of  duty;  a pro- 


566 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[V.  G.  BLOEDE. 


vision  wholly  and  exclusively  to  the  benefit  of  the  foreign  producers. 
The  natural  result  has  been  that  no  American  manufacturer  could  be 
found  willing  to  devote  his  time  and  capital  to  the  development  of  a 
branch  of  industry  in  which  Europe  has  the  advantage  of  twenty-five 
years’  experience.  To  insure  the  utilization  of  our  own  coal-tar  pro- 
ducts under  the  best  possible  conditions  for  success,  I would  most  ur- 
gently request  that  your  Commission  recommend  a duty  to  be  placed 
upon  the  two  crude  materials  named,  as  well  as  any  others  that  can  be 
produced  here,  so  as  to  insure  to  our  country  the  benefits  derived  from 
the  consumption  of  our  own  coal-tar  products.  In  my  opinion,  had  our 
tariff  not  been  defective  in  this  vital  particular,  and  aniline  oil  and  its 
compounds  had  early  paid  duty,  the  manufacture  of  the  articles  from 
our  own  crude  coal-tar  products  would  have  been  an  assured  fact  years 
ago.  I believe  that  our  people  are  fully  competent,  not  only  to  hold 
their  own  against  the  competition  of  other  nations  in  any  manufacture, 
but  that  they  are  their  superiors  in  many  essential  particulars.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  a new  enterprise  of  this  kind, 
in  order  to  compete  successfully  against  the  products  of  a quarter  of  a 
century  of  European  research  and  experience,  be  liberally  protected 
until  our  own  manufacturers  have  acquired  sufficient  knowledge  and 
experience  to  enable  them  to  hold  their  own  against  these  odds.  I 
would  therefore  urge  that  aniline  oil,  arseniate  of  aniline,  and  other 
salts  of  the  base  be  protected  with  a specific  duty  of  from  five  to  ten 
cents  per  pound.  I would  also  urge  that  the  duty  on  the  intermediate 
products,  such  as  nitro-benzole,  and  binitro-benzole,  and  its  homo- 
logues,  be  maintained.  The  duty  on  nitro-benzole  is  now  two  cents  per 
pound,  while  binitro-benzole,  which  is  merely  nitro-benzole  combined 
with  more  acid,  pays  a duty  of  20  per  cent.  I would  recommend  that 
the  duty  upon  all  nitro  compounds  of  benzole  and  its  homologues  be 
made  a uniform  one  of  10  cents  per  pound,  as  in  the  case  of  nitro-ben- 
zole. 

I have  carefully  examined  some  of  the  statements  made  before  your 
Commission,  and  must  say  that  some  of  those  presented  on  behalf  of  the 
foreign  manufacturers  are  certainly  extraordinary  misstatements  of  facts. 
Mr.  John  Campbell,  for  instance,  appeared  before  your  Commission,  and, 
unless  the  press  misrepresented  him,  made  the  remarkable  and  wholly 
erroneous  statement  that  a color  costing  $1  per  pound  in  England 
w7ould,  under  the  present  duties,  cost  $4  j)er  pound  laid  down  on  this  side 
This  is  such  a very  gross  misstatement  of  the  facts  that  I hesitate  to 
believe  it  was  seriously  offered  to  your  Commission.  Such  a color  as 
Mr.  Campbell  speaks  of,  after  payment  of  all  duties,  freights,  and  the 
like,  would  cost  less  than  one-half  that  sum ; say  $1.90  per  pound.  The 
result  of  home  competition  is  already  so  strongly  felt  in  some  lines,  for 
instance  fuchsine  and  other  reds,  as  almost  to  have  stopped  all  impor- 
tation, and  it  is  my  opinion  that  within  a short  space  of  time  these  colors 
can  be  made  as  cheaply  in  the  United  States  as  in  any  country  of  Europe. 
This  is  the  direct  result  of  protection  and  the  stimulation  of  home  enter- 
prise, and  there  is  no  reason  whatever  why,  within  ten  years,  or  even  a 
much  shorter  period,  if  we  are  only  able  to  avail  ourselves,  by  means  of 
a liberal  protection  of  our  domestic  wealth  in  crude  material,  all  other 
coal-tar  colors  should  not  be  in  the  same  position. 

Whatever  course  your  committee  may  take  as  regards  the  older  chemi- 
cal industries  of  this  country,  I would  urge  that  the  aniline  branch  be 
liberally  protected  at  least  for  a few  years.  As  before  stated,  it  is  an 
industry  so  new  that  up  to  two  years  ago  not  one  pound  of  the  base 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  these  colors  was  made  in  the  United  States. 


V.  G.  BLOEDF..] 


ANILINE  DYES. 


567 


A great  deal  lias  been  said,  and  with  much  force,  upon  the  nature  of 
the  duties  imposed  on  aniline  dyes,  and  the  injustice  resulting  therefrom. 
A duty  like  the  present  one,  of  50  cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  I believe  to  be  wholly  wrong.  It  annually  deprives  our  gov- 
ernment of  thousands  of  dollars  of  legitimate  revenue,  and  entails  an 
enormous  and  unnecessary  expense  in  collection.  Many  of  the  manu- 
facturers on  the  other  side  have  resident  partners  here,  and  it  is  the 
general  impression  that  an  enormous  amount  of  color  finds  its  way  into 
this  country  under  the  ad  valorem  system  at  a very  great  undervaluation. 
That  this  system  of  collecting  duties  at  least  opens  the  way  toagreat  deal  of 
fraud  will  be  seen  at  a glance  by  your  Commission,  when  I state  that  the 
various  aniline  blues,  for  instance,  range  in  price  from  $2  to  $15  and  $20 
per  pound.  The  difference  is  not  one  of  strength,  but  only  of  purity  and 
quality  of  shade,  some  high-priced  colors  being  actually  weaker  in  point 
of  strength  than  others  of  a low  price.  These  colors  are  sold  under  ar- 
bitrary names  and  marks,  such  as  B,  BB,  &c.,  up  to  5 B or  G B.  Kow, 
suppose  an  unprincipled  person  wishes  to  undersell  his  competitor,  all 
that  he  has  to  do  is  to  mark  his  5 B,  or  f>  B,  or  other  mark,  worth,  say, 
$12 per  pound,  down  to  B or  BB,  worth,  say,  $3;  the  result  is  the  evasion 
on  his  part  of  35  per  cent,  duty  on  $9  of  each  pound  of  this  color,  or  the 
enormous  sum  of  $3.15  on  every  pound.  It  is  utterly  impossible  for  the 
largest  corps  of  experts  the  government  can  command  to  so  test  the 
samples  as  to  make  such  frauds  impossible.  The  interests  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  consumer,  and  the  honest  dealer,  require  a change  of  this 
system  to  one  of  specific  duty,  or  so  much  per  pound  of  color.  The  aver- 
age value  of  the  aniline  dyes  imported  into  this  country  we  will  say  is 
$6  per  pound.  Under  the  present  system,  such  a color  would  pay  a 
duty  of  $2.60  per  pound,  and  I would  recommend  that  a uniform  duty  of 
from  $1.50  to  $2  per  pound  be  imposed  upon  all  aniline  dyes  of  what- 
soever name  or  quality.  While  it  is  true  that  such  duty  would  be  pro- 
hibitory as  regards  the  cheaper  grades,  the  answer  to  this  is,  that  such 
dyes  can  and  are  already  produced  in  this  country  at  a price  to  exclude, 
or  almost  exclude  importation,  even  under  the  present  system  of  duty. 
By  adopting  a specific  duty  a large  expense  would  be  saved  the  govern- 
ment in  the  collection  of  the  duties,  a larger  revenue  would  result,  the 
consumer  would  be  largely  benefited  by  the  higher  grade  of  the  colors, 
and  honesty  on  the  part  of  the  importer  would  be  insured,  as  it  would 
necessarily  break  up  the  system  of  undervaluation,  or  cost  invoicing, 
adopted  by  many  of  the  European  manufacturers  having  resident  part- 
ners on  this  side.  Should  an  ad  valorem  duty  be  continued,  I would 
urge  your  committee  to  move  a Congressional  investigation  having  for 
its  object  the  breaking  up  of  the  systems  now  in  vogue  for  the  evasion 
of  duty. 

Some  efforts  have  been  made  to  show  that  the  present  rate  of  duty 
on  these  dyes  is  very  onerous  to  the  consumer  and  the  public ; such  is 
not  the  case,  however,  for  two  reasons : first,  because  the  branches  of 
business  consuming  them  are  themselves  protected  by  almost  prohibi- 
tory duties,  and,  lastly  and  chiefly,  because  the  quantity  of  dye  used 
per  pound  of  cloth  or  yarn  is  almost  infinitesimal.  Taking  the  ca^e  of 
fuchsine,  for  instance,  a color  costing  only  $2  per  pound,  but  four  or 
five  ounces  are  required  for  every  100  pounds  of  carpet-chain ; this  means 
a tax  through  present  duties  of  only  3 or  4 cents  on  an  average  size 
rag  carpet.  The  fact  is  that  while  a removal  of  the  duties  would  de- 
prive the  government  of  a large  revenue,  and  kill  the  home  industry 
outright,  no  one  class,  except  the  foreign  manufacturer,  would  be  bene- 
fited. This  was  shown  a few  years  ago  in  the  case  of  artificial  alizarine. 


568 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[V.  G.  BLOEDE. 


By  the  assistance  of  the  consumers  the  duty  was  removed  from  this 
article,  ever  since  which  time  the  said  consumers  have  to  pay  about 
again  as  much  for  the  article  as  their  foreign  competitors,  and  the  large 
revenue  that  would  have  resulted  to  our  people  by  a duty  was  absorbed 
by  the  foreign  manufacturers  and  their  agents.  It  is  therefore  desir- 
able that  neither  the  government  nor  the  consumer  be  again  inveigled 
into  such  action  on  behalf  of  a wholly  foreign  industry. 

Before  closing  I would  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the  fact 
that,  owing  to  the  vitality  the  American  aniline  manufacture  is  begin- 
ning to  show  in  the  last  year  or  two,  the  foreign  manufacturers  of  these 
dyes  have  combined  for  a concerted  action,  and  are  making  extraor- 
dinary efforts  looking  to  the  repeal  of  the  duties  and  the  killing  of  this 
promising  industry.  Among  other  devices  adopted,  is  the  one  of  ob- 
taining signatures  to  petitions  among  the  consumers  of  these  dyes,  ask- 
ing for  a repeal  of  the  duties.  These  petitions  have  been  gotten  up  by 
the  New  York  representatives  of  a large  foreign  corporation,  and  are  be- 
ing extensively  circulated  for  signatures.  I state  this  so  that  when  such 
petitions  are  presented,  it  will  be  understood  that  they  are  not  the  sen- 
timents of  the  American  consumers  of  these  dyes,  who,  as  far  as  my 
knowledge  enables  me  to  speak,  are  universally  in  favor  of  and  willing 
to  pay  their  quota  towards  the  successful  introduction  of  this  manufact- 
ure in  the  United  States.  The  actual  disposition  of  the  largest  con- 
sumers of  the  anilines  is  fairly  represented  by  the  following  sentence  in 
a letter  recently  received  by  me  from  one  of  these  consumers:  “The 
representatives  of  a large  European  aniline  works  are  making  a great 
push  to  have  the  duties  on  anilines  reduced.  I inclose  you  their  circu- 
lar which  they  are  sending  to  all  the  manufacturers  to  obtain  signatures. 
What  do  you  as  a manufacturer  think  of  it,  and  what  would  you  pro- 
pose! We  can  stand  it  as  it  is,  and,  having  all  the  protection  we  need 
on  our  manufactures,  are  willing  to  give  all  that  is  required  to  others.” 
I have  the  honor  of  remaining,  very  truly,  yours, 

Y.  G.  BLOEDE. 

Parkersburg,  W.  Va.,  Aug.  10,  1882. 


ALFRED  EARNSHAW.] 


IRON  ORE. 


569 


i 


ALFRED  EABESHAW. 


Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  21,  1882. 

Mr.  Alfred  Earnshaw,  of  Philadelphia,  an  importer  of  iron  ore, 
appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following  statement: 

In  asking  that  foreign  iron  ore  be  put  on  the  free  list,  I do  not  find 
any  fault  with  the  present  duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  as  being  in 
any  way  excessive  or  oppressive  per  se1  but  I claim  that  under  existing 
circumstances  any  duty  at  all  is  a misapplication  of  the  true  principle 
of  protection. 

Iron  ore  is  not  mentioned  in  the  present  tariff,  but  it  comes  in  under 
one  of  the  drag-net  clauses,  as  a “ crude  mineral  substance  not  otherwise 
provided  for,”  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Under  no  circumstances 
whatever  should  this  present  duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  be  al- 
lowed to  remain  ; and  if  a duty  be  imposed  at  all  it  should  be  specific. 
The  endless  trouble  and  confusion  that  has  been  caused  by  this  ques- 
tion of  u free  on  board  value”  on  the  date  of  a vessel’s  sailing  from  the 
other  side  has  so  thoroughly  wearied  the  government  employes  and  all 
importers  that  I can  confidently  say  they  will,  one  and  all,  join  in  re- 
questing that  the  duty  be  made  specific. 

I desire  to  be  understood  as  speaking  of  the  importation  of  iron  ore 
and  manganiferous  iron  ore  into  this  country  from  abroad  without  any 
reference  to  the  consideration  of  a u tariff  for  revenue,”  and  as  being 
myself  a believer  in  true  protection,  and  with  an  earnest  desire  to  do 
all  I can  to  have  the  iron  and  steel  industries  of  this  country  thoroughly 
and  intelligently  protected. 

I ask  that  iron  ore  and  manganiferous  iron  ore  be  admitted  free  of 
duty,  as  one  means  of  protection  to  the  iron  and  steel  trades. 

The  present  duty  on  iron  ore,  although  not  averaging  more  than  50 
cents  per  ton,  is  a very  important  factor  in  limiting  the  amount  that  is 
yearly  brought  here.  The  price  of  foreign  iron  ore  in  this  country  is 
mainly  dependent  upon  the  price  of  ocean  freight,  and  that  is  directly 
influenced  by  the  amount  of  tonnage  required. 

There  are  a certain  limited  number  of  vessels  available  for  bringing 
iron  ore,  which  must  either  take  it  or  come  out  here  in  ballast,  and  with 
these  vessels  a small  quantity  of  iron  ore  can  be  brought  here  at  a very 
low  cost.  If  you  exceed  that  quantity,  you  create  competition,  and  raise 
the  price  of  ocean  freight,  not  only  on  the  small  excess  but  on  the  whole 
quantity.  The  more  you  increase  the  quantity  the  higher  you  raise  the 
freight ; and  there  is  a point  beyond  which  the  quantity  cannot  be  in- 
creased, excepting  by  paying  full  ocean  freights,  which  are  simply  pro- 
hibitory. 

The  removal  of  this  2s.  per  ton  (50  cents)  average  duty  would  not  af- 
fect the  price  of  foreign  ore  here  at  all.  It  would  simply  be  swallowed 
up  in  increased  ocean  freight,  on  account  of  the  increased  quantity  of 
tonnage  that  would  be  required. 

On  the  other  hand,  supposing  the  present  duty  on  ore  were  doubled, 
so  as  to  average  $1  per  ton,  instead  of  50  cents  per  ton,  as  it  is  now,  it 
would  not  stop  the  whole  business.  It  would  simply  take  2s.  per  ton 


570 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| ALFRED  EARN8HAW. 


from  the  average  freight  that  is  now  paid,  and  thus  materially  reduce 
the  number  of  tons  brought  here. 

Let  me  state  here  that  it  is  a common  fallacy  to  believe  that  foreign 
ore  is  only  brought  to  this  country  as  ballast,  without  paying  ocean 
freight.  The  average  freight  for  1880  was  12$.,  for  1881,  14$.,  and  for 
this  year  I think  it  will  be  about  the  same. 

The  effect  of  an  importation  of  iron  ore,  double  the  present  amount 
(twice  500,000  tons),  would  be  a direct  decrease  of  250,000  tons  in  the 
importation  of  Bessemer  pig  iron,  without  taking  into  account  the  native 
ore  used  with  the  foreign  as  a mixture,  and  any  decrease  in  the  amount 
of  ore  imported  will  act  directly  to  reciprocally  increase  the  amount  of 
pig  iron  imported  for  Bessemer  purposes. 

If  you  stop  the  importation  of  foreign  ores  altogether,  it  will  not  in- 
crease directly  by  one  iota  the  price  of  native  ore ; and  it  will  not  cause 
the  mining  of  one  ton  more  ore  in  this  country,  simply  because  to-day 
every  ton  of  good  ore  that  can  be  mined  here  is  being  mined  without 
any  regard  to  foreign  ore  at  all,  but,  as  I show  hereafter,  it  will  render 
useless  many  thousand  tons  of  native  ore  now  used  as  a mixture  in  the 
furnace  with  foreign  ores. 

The  importation  of  foreign  ore  is  merely  an  adjunct  of  the  steel  busi- 
ness, and  must  be  so  considered.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  general  iron  business  of  the  country.  It  is  the  outcome  of  the  enor- 
mous increase  of  the  manufacture  of  steel  in  this  country  during  the 
last  five  years,  and  it  is  coincident  with,  and  has  kept  steady  pace  with, 
the  increased  importation  of  foreign  pig  iron  for  Bessemer  purposes. 

America  requires  to-day,  for  yearly  consumption  in  her  steel  mills, 
roughly  speaking,  2,000,000  tons  of  pig  iron,  of  which  not  less  than  one- 
fifth  (400,000  tons)  is,  and  must  be,  imported,  unless  you  can  increase 
the  manufacture  of  Bessemer  pig  iron  in  this  country. 

These  400,000  tons  are  imported  chiefly  from  England,  and  are  a part 
of  her  surplus  manufacture,  and  these  foreign  400,000  tons  to-day  abso- 
lutely control  the  price  of  the  1,600,000  tons  of  native  steel  pig  iron. 
When  I ask,  therefore,  that  you  place  iron  ore  on  the  free  list  I only 
ask  that  you  give  the  iron  makers  in  this  country  the  chance  of  driving 
out  of  our  market  the  surplus  production  of  England. 

England  is  chiefly  dependent  upon  the  Spanish  and  African  ores  for 
her  supply  of  Bessemer  pig  iron ; and  in  the  present  state  of  the  trade,  to 
impose  any  duty  on  these  ores  here,  is  simply  offering  to  England  that 
amount  of  premium  to  keep  many  of  her  furnaces  running  while  our 
furnaces  here  are  legislated  out  of  blast. 

The  chief,  and  I believe  only,  objection  to  free  importation  of  iron 
ore  that  you  will  hear  made,  is,  that  duty  on  these  ores  will  act  as  an 
incentive  to  search  for  and  discover  new  deposits  of  Bessemer  ores  in 
this  country.  This  is  a sentimental  fallacy,  and  no  foundation  in  truth 
whatever.  There  is  not  to-day  in  this  country  any  industry  that  pays 
such  enormous  profits  as  the  mining  of  good  Bessemer  ore  deposits 
when  in  any  reasonable  quantity,  and  for  confirmation  of  the  state- 
ment I appeal  to  the  share  list,  where  the  quotations  of  Lake  Superior 
mines  are  shown,  and  where  to-day  can  be  seen  twenty -five  dollar 
shares  quoted  at  $300,  and  also  to  the  last  transaction  in  these  mines, 
where  a company  with  a total  capital  of  $100,000  sold  a moiety  of  their 
possessions  for  $1,800,000  and  asked  $5,000,000  for  the  remainder. 

The  search  for  Bessemer  ore  is  being  actively  pressed,  and  it  will  be 
kept  up.  The  various  steel  companies  alone  have,  of  my  own  knowl- 
edge, spent,  during  the  last  three  years,  over  $1,000,000  in  what  has 
been  chiefly  fruitless  search  for  available  deposits  of  Bessemer  ore.  It 


ALFRED  EARNBHAW.  1 


IRON  ORE. 


571 


would  not  stimulate  the  search  in  the  slightest  to  have  foreign  ore  ex- 
cluded from  this  country,  unless  you  also  exclude  Bessemer  pig  iron ; 
because,  as  I have  explained,  foreign  Bessemer  pig  iron  governs  the 
price  of  native  pig  iron,  and  through  it  governs  the  price  of  foreign  ore, 
or,  more  correctly  speaking,  fixes  a limit  beyond  which  it  cannot  ad- 
vance. Stop  this  ore  from  coming,  and  you  simply  increase  the  impor- 
tation of  foreign  pig  iron,  and  you  do  not  aid  or  assist  American  ore 
in  the  slightest.  To  stop  the  importation  of  foreign  ore,  and  leave  for- 
eign pig  iron  alone,  is  like  watching  the  spigot  and  letting  the  cask 
leak  at  the  bung. 

You  will  be  asked  to  believe  that  these  statements  of  mine  are  not 
so,  and  the  effect  that  high  protection  on  wool,  spool  cotton,  and  the 
steel-rail  trade  itself,  has  had  upon  the  development  of  those  industries 
will  be  cited  to  you  as  proof  to  the  contrary  of  my  statement.  The  cases 
are  not  analogous.  Man  can  control  the  production  of  wool,  spool  cotton, 
and  steel  rails,  but  man  cannot  control  the  phosphorus  in  iron  ore,  nor 
change  the  location  of  a deposit.  Man,  in  this  case,  is  helpless.  He 
can,  by  legislation,  prevent  the  importation  of  low  phosphorous  ores, 
but  he  cannot  create  an  ounce  of  it. 

Foreign  ore  is  imported  here  chiefly  because  it  is  so  low  in  phospho- 
rus, and  a large  amount  of  native  ore  is  now  used  as  a mixture  in  the 
furnace,  that  without  it  it  would  not  be  available  for  Bessemer  purposes 
at  all.  It  is  not  because  foreign  ore  is  cheap  that  it  is  used,  but  because 
it  is  low  in  phosphorus.  This  is  a point  I cannot  too  strongly  impress 
upon  you. 

The  mining  of  Bessemer  ore  in  this  country  has  wonderfully  increased 
within  the  last  few  years,  but  it  has  not  kept  pace  with  the  demand. 

The  new  discoveries  of  ores  have  almost  altogether  been  in  the  West. 
East  of  the  Alleghanies  the  discoveries  have  been  small  and  isolated. 
The  West  is  well  supplied  with  ore,  and  does  not  require  any  legisla- 
tion to  protect  its  interests.  Inland  freight  alone  is  quite  sufficient. 
The  East  has  almost  no  Bessemer  ore  to  depend  upon,  and  it  is  here 
that  foreign  ore  finds  its  chief  market. 

The  ground  here  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  has  been  so  thoroughly 
searched  that  I do  not  think  any  premium  could  stimulate  discovery 
to  the  point  of  finding  a large  deposit  available  for  Bessemer  wants. 
Our  looks  and  inquiries  have  to  be  to  the  South,  and  we  do  not  find 
Bessemer  ore  in  quantity  before  we  reach  North  Carolina.  The  haul- 
age is  too  great  to  allow  of  any  ore  being  brought  from  there  except  in 
entirely  exceptional  cases.  The  remedy,  I suppose,  looks  simple;  put 
a high  tariff  on  ore  and  then  the  Eastern  furnaces  can  afford  to  pay  for 
the  very  long  haulage,  and  Southern  ore  will  be  used  instead  of  foreign. 
This  simple  remedy,  however,  will  not  work,  because  the  steel  men  nat- 
urally will  buy  their  iron  in  the  cheapest  market,  and  if  it  pays  them 
better  to  buy  foreign  pig,  they  will  do  it,  and  rather  let  their  furnaces 
stand  idle,  and  so  give  Southern  ores  the  go-by.  A better  way  of  util- 
izing these  Southern  ores  is  to  stimulate  the  production  of  Bessemer 
pig.  The  exact  mode  in  which  to  most  efficiently  stimulate  this  indus- 
try in  the  South  is  a very  open  question,  and  I do  not  propose  to  enter 
upon  it  now. 

I will  simply  say  that  an  increase  in  the  duty  on  foreign  ore  will  not 
do  it,  but  that  if  a higher  value  of  ore  in  this  country  is  all  that  is  re- 
quired this  can  be  at  once  brought  about  by  increasing  the  duty  on  pig 
iron. 

Let  me,  however,  be  distinctly  understood  as  not  advocating  any  ad- 


572 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f ALFRED  EARNSHAW. 


vance  in  the  duty  on  pig  iron.  I am  merely  stating  wliat  would  be  one 
of  the  effects  of  such  an  increase. 

There  is  splendid  fuel,  and  not  too  far  away  from  these  good  ores,  and 
sooner  or  later,  with  higher  duty  or  without,  the  pig  iron  must  be  made 
right  there  and  then  shipped  to  Pennsylvania.  Pig  iron  will  stand  the 
heavy  haulage,  but  ore  will  not. 

But  you  may  ask,  would  not  a higher  duty  on  pig  and  free  ore  tend 
greatly  to  increase  the  importation  of  foreign  ore?  Certainly  it  would, 
but  the  increased  importation  would  be  at  a considerably  advanced 
price,  on  account  of  the  increased  ocean  freight  that  would  have  to  be 
paid.  The  matter  balances  so  well  that,  practically,  as  I have  already 
shown,  foreign  ore  can  have  no  influence  on,  and  never  has  influenced, 
the  price  at  all  of  either  native  pig  iron  or  native  ore.  Every  dollar  of 
increased  duty  would  be  added  directly  to  the  price  of  pig  iron,  because 
foreign  pig  controls  the  price  in  this  country.  Furthermore,  the  furnace 
men  would  get  none  of  it,  because  the  poor  and  rapacious  ore  men  would 
raise  their  prices  to  correspond,  and  so  swallow  the  whole  of  it. 

The  furnace  men  are  to-day  the  slaves  of  the  ore  men,  and  so  they 
must  remain  until  the  supply  of  good  ore  exceeds  or  equals  the  demand. 

I trust  I have  made  my  meaning  plain  and  that  I am  reasonably  in- 
telligible. What  I have  tried  to  show  is — 

First.  That  a prohibitory  duty  on  ore  would  not  affect  the  price  of 
native  ore. 

Second.  That  the  removal  of  all  duty  would  not  affect  the  price  of 
native  ore. 

Third.  That  a prohibitory  duty  on  ore  would  materially  increase  the 
importation  of  Bessemer  pig  iron. 

Fourth.  That  free  ore  would  decrease  materially  the  importation  of 
pig  iron. 

Fifth.  That  an  increased  duty  on  pig  iron  would  decrease  the  impor- 
tation of  pig  iron. 

Sixth.  A higher  duty  on  pig  iron  would  stimulate  the  development  of 
Southern  ore  beds  and  the  erection  of  furnaces  South. 

Seventh.  The  higher  duty  on  pig  iron  would  greatly  increase  the'  price 
of  ore;  and  I may  go  farther  and  say — 

Eighth.  That  the  development  of  the  Southern  iron  business  on  any 
large  scale  would  jiermanently  reduce  the  price  of  Bessemer  pig  iron 
and  Bessemer  ore  in  this  country. 

Protection  to  native  labor  is  secured  in  foreign  ores  by  the  ocean 
freight,  say  not  less  than  $3  per  ton,  which  it  has  to  pay  before  it  gets 
here,  an  amount  certainly  in  excess  of  the  ordinary  expenses  of  mining 
Bessemer  ore  per  ton  in  this  country. 

I have  drawn  up  a table  showing  the  amount  of  protection  that,  in- 
cluding ocean  freight,  the  present  tariff  offers  to  ore  and  pig  iron. 


Ocean 

freight. 

Tariff. 

Total. 

Rfisspmfir  iron  nrft _ . 

Per  cent. 
150 

Per  cent. 
20 

Per  cent. 
170 

Spiegeleisen  ore 

90 

20 

50 

no 

70 

Bessemer  pig  iron 

20 

20  per  cent.  Spiegel 

10 

25 

35 

Of  course,  I am  aware  that  some  people  who  are  interested  will  claim 
that  ocean  freight  is  not  protection,  that  it  is  only  a natural  advantage, 
and  that  they  have  a right  to  protection  as  well.  Protection  for  native 


ALFRED  EARNSIIAW.J 


IRON  ORE. 


573 


ore,  when  to-day  the  ore  necessary  for  making  a ton  of  pig  iron  is  worth 
in  Pittsburgh  $4  more  than  a ton  of  the  best  Barrow  pig  free  on  board 
at  Barrow;  and  $7  per  ton  duty,  leaves,  therefore,  $3  per  ton  to  cover 
the  cost  of  fuel,  labor,  limestone,  interest  on  capital,  and  profit?  And 
where  would  the  furnace  owners  be  without  the  further  protection  of 
three  dollars  per  ton  ocean  freight?  It  is  this  exceeding  high  price  of 
ore  that  forces  the  cost  at  furnace  of  simple  pig  iron  sufficient  to  make 
a ton  of  Bessemer  steel  rails,  to  a higher  figure  in  Pittsburg  to-day  than 
the  cost  of  a ton  of  English  steel  rails  on  wharf  at  New  York,  duty 
unpaid. 

You  must  remember  that  when  iron  began  to  be  first  an  important 
industry  in  this  country,  it  naturally  located  as  near  fuel  as  possible  in 
the  manufacturing  States  where  its  market  existed,  and  where  it  had 
moderate  facilities  for  transportation  to  that  market.  What  is  the  con- 
sequence? Not  ten  per  cent,  of  the  furnaces  in  this  country  have  both 
fuel  and  ore  within  reasonable  distance.  Some  have  fuel,  and  some  have 
ore,  but  rare  indeed  are  the  furnaces  that  have  them  both. 

The  average  absolute  cost  of  manufacture  in  America  of  common  pig 
iron  is  $20,  and  in  England  it  is  $10.  There  are  furnaces,  however,  in 
America  that  are,  and  have  been  for  years,  making  pig  iron  at  not  over 
$13  per  ton.  It  is  perhaps  needless  to  say  that  both  fuel  and  mineral 
are  quite  handy  in  all  these  cases. 

American  labor  is  not  the  chief  element  of  cost  in  making  pig  iron  that  re- 
quires protection.  It  is  against  natural  disadvantages  that  protection  is 
required.  Strong  protection  on  pig  iron  is  an  absolute  necessity  , for  with- 
out it  nine- tenths  of  all  American  furnaces  would  be  forced  out  of  blast. 
Increase  the  duty  so  that  it  is  prohibitory,  and  by  the  laws  of  natural 
trade  the  price  will  gradually  fall,  for  home  production  will  be  felt,  and 
a survival  of  the  fittest  will  gradually  and  naturally  follow.  Lower  the 
duty,  and  new  enterprises  would  be  discouraged,  capital  would  take 
alarm  and  seek  other  channels  for  investment,  the  badly  situated  fur- 
naces would  be  immediately  forced  out  of  blast,  and  trade  would  languish, 
and  the  market  be  Hooded  with  foreign  pig.  Our  workmen  would  be 
compelled  to  seek  other  trades,  and  in  two  or  three  years  the  accrued 
benefits  of  years  of  wise  legislation  would  be  dissipated  and  dispersed 
to  the  winds. 

Apart  from  this  question  of  iron  ore  is  the  importation  of  manganifer- 
ous  iron  ore,  used  in  the  manufacture  of  Spiegeleisen,  an  article  of  abso- 
lute necessity  in  the  manufacture  of  Bessemer  steel.  There  are  no  known 
deposits  of  suitable  ore  in  quantity  in  this  country,  and  the  exceedingly 
small  quantity  of  Spiegel  now  manufactured  here  is  smelted  chiefly  from 
foreign  ores.  No  harm  can  possibly  be  done  to  anybody,  and  by  remov- 
ing the  duty  the  manufacture  may  at  least  have  some  encouragement 
to  transfer  itself  from  Europe  to  this  country. 

The  importation  of  Spiegeleisen  amounts  to  about  150,000  tons  per 
annum. 

Finally,  I would  ask  you  to  remember  that  the  importation  of  foreign 
ore  is  a trade  that  brings  large  numbers  of  ships  to  our  shores,  and  that 
it  decreases  the  rate  of  freight  at  which  these  ships  can  afford  to  carry 
grain  to  Europe.  That  it  gives  a large  back  freight  to  the  railroad  com- 
panies, and  reduces  the  cost  of  their  haulage  on  grain,  &c.,  from  the 
West  to  the  seaboard.  That  it  induces  the  use  of  large  quantities  of 
native  ores  as  a mixture  that  could  not  otherwise  be  used,  and  that, 
being  manufactured  here  into  pig  iron,  it  pays  large  wages  to  our  work- 
men and  consumes  a large  amount  of  our  fuel.  And,  most  important 
consideration  of  all,  it  prevents  the  importation  of  an  equivalent  amount 


574 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALFRED  EARNSHAW. 


of  foreign  pig  iron,  and  accomplishes  all  this  without  being  injurious  in 
the  slightest  to  a single  ore  mine  in  America. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  Are  you  a manufacturer! — Answer.  No,  sir;  I am  inter- 
ested in  native  mines,  but  my  business  is  chiefly  the  importation  of  iron 
ore. 

Q.  Do  you  purchase  the  iron  ore  abroad  and  import  it,  or  do  you  re- 
ceive it  on  consignment  % — A.  I purchase  it  abroad,  and  ship  it  here. 
Occasionally  I receive  some  on  consignment. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  When  did  the  importation  of  European  ores  in  large  quantities 
begin! — A.  In  the  second  half  of  1879, 1 think,  it  began  to  be  a business. 
That  is  the  time  when  the  material  increase  in  the  business  was  first 
felt.  Before  that  we  did  not  import,  I think,  more  than  about  100,000 
tons  or  150,000  tons  a year ; but  in  the  latter  part  of  1879  the  business 
was  fully  trebled. 

Q.  What  were  the  importations  for  1879, 1880,  and  1881 ! — A.  In  1879 
the  importation  amounted  to  about  300,000  tons;  in  1880, 1 think  it  was 
nearly  500,000  tons;  and  in  1881,  about  700,000  tons.  This  year  the 
importation  will  probably  be  under  500,000  tons. 

Q.  The  importation  in  1882  was  reduced  by  the  high  freights,  I sup- 
pose!— A.  Yes;  the  freights  have  been  almost  prohibitory. 

Q.  Where  do  these  ores  generally  come  from  ! — A.  Erom  the  Mediter- 
ranean, from  the  southern  part  of  Spain,  from  the  north  of  Africa,  from 
the  island  of  Elba,  a small  quantity  from  the  north  of  Spain,  and  also 
some  from  England,  the  Cumberland  red  hematite,  but  only  in  very  small 
quantities. 

Q.  Are  the  deposits  in  those  regions  generally  near  the  water  ! — A.  Y es ; 
most  of  them  are  on  the  coast  line.  They  lie  generally,  1 suppose,  from 
two  to  a dozen  miles  back  from  the  coast. 

Q.  How  do  they  average  in  yield  of  iron! — A.  The  leaner  ores  are  not 
brought  here.  The  ores  that  are  imported  average  perhaps  53  or  54 
per  cent.  Some  of  them,  of  course,  are  richer,  and  some  leaner;  they 
sometimes  go  below  50,  and  sometimes  above  58  per  cent. 

Q.  About  what  has  been  the  average  rate  for  those  ores  “free  on 
board”! — A.  Of  course,  some  are  much  more  expensive  than  others;  but 
the  average  rate  would  not  exceed,  I think,  $2  a ton  “ free  on  board.” 

Q.  Is  that  about  the  rate  upon  which  the  duties  have  been  assessed  ! — 
A.  That  is  about  the  average.  Some  ores,  of  course,  are  considerably 
cheaper,  and  some  much  higher.  But  take,  for  instance,  the  barrow  pig, 
which  is  a fair  criterion  of  the  whole,  the  price  of  that  iron  to-day  is 
not  more  than  $1.50  or  $1.75  “free  on  board.” 

Q.  The  20  per  cent,  duty  has  averaged  about  how  much  during  the  last 
three  years! — A.  I think  the  exact  average  has  been  56  cents. 

Q.  The  statement  which  you  have  made  does  not  touch  the  point 
whether  the  importers  of  ore  would  prefer  a specific  duty  of  so  much  a 
ton. — A.  I think  I stated  in  the  commencement  of  my  paper  that  under 
no  circumstances  should  the  duty  be  anything  but  specific. 

Q.  Have  you  generally  had  trouble  in  getting  ores  through  the  custom- 
house!— A.  Yes;  endless  trouble.  I think  I have  between  twenty  and 
thirty  suits  with  the  government  now  pending  on  the  question  of  valua- 
tion. The  law  requires  the  importer  to  state  the  value  in  the  market  ot 
the  particular  country  on  the  day  of  the  ship’s  sailing.  If  the  ore  comes 
in  a sailing  vessel,  that  day  maybe  two  or  three  months  back,  and,  deal- 
ing with  an  article  that  is  so  cheap  that  almost  any  advauce  at  all  may 


ALFRED  EARN8HAW.] 


IRON  ORE. 


575 


be  more  than  10  per  cent.,  and  where  such  an  advance  carries  a penalty, 
it  is  almost  impossible  for  two  men  to  sit  down  and  agree  upon  an  exact 
price  for  the  article  on  any  particular  day.  Of  course,  the  government 
officers  want  to  get  as  much  duty  as  they  can  out  of  it,  and  we  want  to 
get  as  near  the  real  price  as  we  can,  and  the  whole  question  becomes 
wearisome  and  burdensome  to  the  last  degree. 

Q.  I suppose  your  importations  have  been  principally  at  the  three 
great  ports? — A.  Yes.  Baltimore  leads,  New  York  is  second,  and  Phila- 
delphia next. 

Q.  Has  there  been  uniformity  in  the  appraisement  at  the  different 
ports? — A.  No.  I have  had  no  difficulty  at  all  in  Philadelphia  or  Balti- 
more. All  my  trouble  has  been  in  New  York. 

Q.  Does  much  ore  come  in  from  Canada? — A.  I think  the  statistics 
show  about  50,000  tons  last  year  imported  from  Canada,  and  that  amount 
will  gradually  increase. 

Q.  You  have  not  imported  any  from  that  region? — A.  No;  that  is  out 
of  my  line. 

Q.  Are  all  the  ores  that  have  been  imported  what  are  called  Besse- 
mer ores;  are  they  low  enough  in  phosphorus  to  be  so  classed? — A. 
You  may  say  they  are.  There  has  been  an  infinitesimal  percentage  of 
other  ores;  but  most  of  the  importations  have  been  of  Bessemer  ore. 

Q.  Are  the  mines  from  which  the  deposits  now  being  imported  are 
obtained,  mainly  new  mines? — A.  Oh, no.  They  are  deposits  from  which 
England  has  drawn  for  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years.  Of  course,  new 
deposits  are  being  discovered  all  the  time;  but  there  have  been  mines 
in  the  same  districts  for  years  and  years. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  That  Elba  mine  is  of  great  antiquity,  is  it  not? — A.  Yes,  the  Elba 
mines  were  undoubtedly  worked  by  the  Bomans. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Labor  must  be  very  cheap  and  the  facilities  very  good  to  enable 
those  people  to  put  ores  on  board  vessels  for  $1.75. — A.  No,  not  necessa- 
rily, when  you  come  to  consider  the  matter  in  detail.  In  the  first  place, 
the  government  owns  the  mineral;  the  possessor  of  the  land  does  not. 
The  government  owns  the  mineral,  and  fixes  a tax  of  about  3 cents  a 
ton,  which  is  all  the  royalty  there  is  to  pay.  Therefore  this  $1.75  or  $2 
a ton  represents  nearly  all  labor,  because  the  mineral  has  cost  little  or 
nothing.  Now,  there  is  hardly  a mine  in  America  where  ore  cannot  be 
handled  at  $2  a ton.  The  miners  in  the  Lake  region  can  handle  it  at 
that  rate. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Are  they  able  to  put  ores  “free  on  board”  at  Marquette  at  $2  a 
ton  ? — A.  Yes.  They  will  tell  you  that  they  are  not,  but  if  they  will 
produce  their  cost-sheets  you  will  see  that  it  costs  them  less.  If  that 
were  not  so,  they  would  not  be  able  to  pay  such  dividends  as  they  do 
pay,  and  $25  shares  would  not  be  worth  $300. 


576 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  MACKELLAR. 


THOMAS  MacKELLAB, 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  2 1,  1882. 

Mr.  Thomas  MacKellar,  of  Philadelphia,  representing  the  type- 
founding  industry,  made  the  following  statement: 

There  are  about  thirty  type  foundries  in  the  United  States,  represent- 
ing a production  of  some  $2,000,000  a year.  These  foundries  are  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  country — in  the  East,  in  the  West,  and  in  the  North- 
west; but  there  are  none  farther  south  than  Bichmond,  the  nature  of 
the  business  being  such  that  it  requires  a cooler  climate  than  they  have 
in  the  South.  In  1796  the  first  type  foundry  in  America  was  established 
in  Philadelphia,  and  that  establishment  is  in  existence  to-day.  Until 
that  time  the  printers  of  this  country  were  wholly  dependent  on  foreign 
type  founders.  Type,  as  you  gentlemen  are  probably  aware,  is  of  many 
sizes,  beginning  with  brilliant , which  is  so  excessively  small  that  it 
takes  about  4,200  letters  to  weigh  a pound,  and  gradually  increasing  in 
size  up  to  the  largest  type.  Nonpareil  is  a middle-size  type,  such  as  is 
used  mostly  in  newspapers,  and  I will  speak  of  it  as  representing  type 
generally.  In  1812  nonpareil  type  sold  in  London  at  $1.80  per  pound. 
In  the  same  year,  in  Philadelphia,  the  same  type  sold  at  $1.75  per 
pound,  5 cents  less  than  the  English  price.  In  1827  the  price  was  down 
to  $1.20;  in  1866  it  went  down  to  84  cents;  and  in  1882  the  price  is  58 
cents  a pound.  This  shoVs  how  much  the  printers  of  America  are  in- 
debted for  cheap  type  to  American  type  founders.  Nevertheless,  Con- 
gress at  every  session  is  beset  with  petitions  for  free  type.  Those 
petitions  are  nearly  always  gotten  up  in  the  interest  of  foreign  type 
founders.  One  of  the  most  outrageous  instances  of  this  kind  was  a 
petition  gotten  up  by  a foreigner  in  California.  It  was  sent  to  editors 
all  over  the  country,  accompanied  by  envelopes  already  addressed,  and 
copies  of  that  petition  were  sent  into  Congress  at  the  rate  of  300  or  400 
a day.  The  petition  was  a tissue  of  lies  from  beginning  to  end ; but 
many  country  printers,  good,  honest  men,  signed  it,  not  knowing 
whether  its  statements  were  true  or  false.  We  have  now  a protection 
of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  on  all  foreign  type.  Type  metal 
is  a composition,  made  of  lead,  tin,  antimony,  and  copper,  in  certain 
proportions.  The  lead  pays  a duty  of  2 cents  per  pound,  the  copper  a 
duty  of  5 cents  per  pound;  tin  comes  in  free;  but  antimony  pays  a duty 
of  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Brass  is  used  quite  extensively  in  connec- 
tion with  our  business,  and  the  duty  on  it  is  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem; 
and  on  our  iron  castings  there  is  a duty  of  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  We 
are  thus  handicapped  by  a heavy  tax  upon  the  raw  materials  which 
enter  into  the  composition  of  type,  or  into  the  composition  of  our  ma- 
chines, and  to  offset  all  these  disadvantages  we  have  simply  a duty 
25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  upon  foreign  type.  If  the  duties  were  removed 
from  all  our  raw  materials,  so  that  we  could  meet  the  foreign  manufact- 
urers on  a fair  footing,  we  would  not  fear  their  competition,  although  we 
pay  45  per  cent,  higher  wages  than  are  paid  in  England,  and  bring 
our  tin  and  antimony  from  England;  but  if  the  present  duty  on  our  raw 
materials  is  to  be  continued,  then  we  claim  that  the  protection  which  we 
now  enjoy  ought  to  be  continued. 


THOMAS  MACKELLAB.] 


TYPE-FOUNDING. 


577 


In  London,  at  the  present  time,  the  price  of  the  type  which  we  sell 
for  58  cents  is  two  shillings  and  fourpence,  about  56  cents ; so  you  can 
see  that  the  American  type  founders  are  not  oppressing  the  American 
printers  very  much.  Yet,  notwithstanding  the  facts  I have  stated,  and 
notwithstanding  this  duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  we  find  difficulty 
in  keeping  out  English  type.  You  may  think  this  a strange  statement, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  sell  our  type  here  at  almost  the  same  price 
at  which  the  English  founders  sell  theirs  at  home,  but  I will  explain. 
To  get  up  a font  of  type  requires  the  employment  of  a punch  cutter  at 
very  high  wages,  from  $30  to  $50  per  week.  He  cuts  each  of  the  differ- 
ent letters  on  the  end  of  a piece  of  steel,  and  the  letters  all  have  to 
harmonize  in  the  lightness  of  the  lines,  in  the  heaviness  of  the  lines,  in 
height  and  breadth  and  all  dimensions,  so  as  to  get  a good  effect  in  your 
print.  The  work  has  to  be  very  exact.  No  watch  making  can  compare 
with  it  j in  fact,  there  is  hardly  any  work  that  can  compare  with  it  in  the 
degree  of  accuracy  that  is  required.  We  have  the  most  delicate  files 
and  gauges,  and  other  tools,  that  can  be  made,  so  as  to  get  everything 
as  exact  as  possible.  The  first  step,  as  I have  said,  is  to  cut  the  letter 
on  the  end  of  a piece  of  steel.  Then  that  steel  is  hardened  and  driven 
right  into  a matrix,  as  if  it  were  printed  there.  That  is  delicately  filed 
up  and  tested,  so  that  all  the  letters  will  agree  when  they  are  put  in  the 
casting.  Then  the  molds  and  casting  machines  must  be  just  as  accurate 
as  clockwork.  Now,  it  is  evident  that  all  these  appliances  are  very  ex- 
pensive; but  when  you  have  once  provided  yourself  with  them  you  can 
do  a great  deal  of  work  with  that  one  plant.  The  English  manufact- 
urers take  that  view.  They  say,  u We  have  these  matrices  and  punches 
and  molds  all  on  hand,”  and  they  regard  them  as  free  of  cost;  so  they 
make  a lot  of  this  nonpariel  type  and  sell  it  very  low — away  below  our  price. 
They  take  nothing  into  account  but  the  costof  the  labor,  the  metal,  and  the 
profit.  Then  two  or  three  printers  go  and  buy  this  English  type  at  this  low 
figure,  and  make  affidavit  that  they  have  bought  it  in  Eugland  at  that 
figure;  and  so  the  price  is  fixed  so  low  that  they  can  afford  to  pay  the  duty. 
We  have  had  to  fight  them  in  this  matter  for  years.  I went  before 
committees  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  of  the  Senate  in  regard 
to  the  matter,  and  before  Secretary  Bristow  and  Secretary  Sherman, 
and  we  succeeded  in  convincing  those  officers  of  the  facts  of  the  case. 
We  succeeded  also  in  fastening  the  fraud  upon  parties  in  California, 
and  they  were  mulcted  about  $3,000.  Afterwards,  however,  they  got 
an  appraiser  out  there  from  Boston  and  had  the  matter  decided  in 
their  favor  before  we  had  time  to  get  a statement  of  the  English  market 
prices.  As  soon  as  the  question  was  brought  to  my  attention,  I wrote 
to  the  Hon.  John  Welch,  our  minister,  to  send  me  the  English  founders’ 
prices,  and  he  did  so  as  quickly  as  possible ; but  it  was  too  late.  The 
appraiser  closed  up  the  question  and  admitted  the  foreign  type  at  the 
fraudulent  valuation,  and  so  I believe  the  matter  stands  to  this  day. 
Now,  the  type  founders  of  this  country  ask  nothing  except  that  the  duty 
upon  foreign  type  shall  be  made  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem.  Type, 
as  I have  said,  increases  in  size  by  successive  steps,  and  there  are  a 
great  many  different  varieties ; but  I think  they  might  all  be  put  into 
three  classes : type  of  one  class  paying  a duty  of,  say,  10  cents ; another 
class,  12  cents;  and  another,  14  cents.  Unless  something  of  this  kind  is 
done  it  will  be  impossible  to  prevent  fraud.  I have  been  before  the 
appraisers  in  the  New  York  custom-house  and  explained  the  matter, 
and  have  convinced  them,  so  that  the  importation  of  English  type 
through  that  custom-house  has  been  stopped.  But  1 could  not  go 
to  California  to  meet  the  question  there.  1 now  ask  this  Cominis- 
H.  Mis.  6 37 


578 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


I THOMAS  MACKELLAR. 


sion  to  help  us  in  our  effort  to  have  the  law  honestly  administered 
for  the  protection  of  this  important  business.  Unless  that  can  be  done, 
I do  not  think  we  can  compete  with  this  imported  type.  It  is  true  that 
we  might  cut  down  the  wages  of  our  workmen,  but  we  do  not  wish  to 
do  that.  We  wish  to  give  them  fair  wages,  so  that  they  can  live  com- 
fortably. Theirs  is  skilled  labor  and  ought  to  be  well  paid.  If  the 
duty  were  taken  off,  and  type  were  put  on  the  free  list,  as  some  parties 
propose,  then  we  might  close  our  foundries,  except  for  one  thing,  namely, 
that  our  ornamental  type  is  patented  as  fast  as  it  appears,  which  pre- 
vents foreigners  from  sending  imitations  of  it  into  this  country.  If  the 
Commission  visit  Philadelphia,  I shall  be  pleased  to  take  the  members 
through  our  foundry,  which  is  the  largest  of  the  kind  in  America,  and 
the  most  varied  in  the  world ; and  I think  such  a visit  would  give  you 
gentlemen  a better  idea  than  you  can  get  in  any  other  way  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  establishing  such  a business,  and  the  wisdom  of  cherishing  it 
when  it  is  established. 

Ity  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  You  suggest  three  rates  of  duty:  cannot  you  arrange  it  so  that 
one  rate  will  cover  all  ? — A.  That  might  be  done,  but  not  very  easily ; 
because  the  difference  between  the  two  extremes  is  so  great.  This  bril- 
liant type,  of  which  I have  spoken,  is  so  small  that  it  takes  about  4,200 
letters  to  make  a pound,  while  at  the  other  extreme  it  does  not  take  one 
hundred  letters  to  make  a pound,  and  then  one  kind  of  type  is  much  cheaper 
than  the  other.  When  the  late  Hon.  Fernando  Wood  framed  his  tariff  bill 
there  was  a rate  fixed  for  type,  but,  of  course,  that  bill  failed  to  become 
a law. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Was  the  rate  in  the  Wood  bill  satisfactory  to  the  type  founders  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  three  separate  duties 
so  near  together  as  10,  12,  and  14  cents,  would  be  satisfactory,  there 
ought  not  to  be  much  difficulty  in  fixing  upon  a single  rate  which  would 
cover  the  whole. 

The  Witness.  Perhaps  not;  and  I will  look  into  the  matter  more 
closely. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Please  do  so;  and  when  you  submit  your 
schedule,  fixing  three  classes  of  type  with  corresponding  rates  of  duty, 
I wish  you  would  give  us,  if  you  can,  at  the  same  time,  an  additional 
proposition  naming  one  rate  which  would  be  satisfactory. 

The  Witness.  As  I have  said,  that  might  perhaps  be  done;  but  I 
fear  that  a rate  fixed  in  that  way  would  be  prohibitory  for  a certain  class 
of  type.  If  we  should  fix  on  the  middle  rate,  it  would  be  prohibitory 
upon  the  extremes,  because  of  the  differences  in  size  and  price. 


MERRITT  WICKHAM. ) 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


579 


MERRITT  WICKHAM. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  21,  1882. 

Mr.  Merritt  Wickham,  an  examiner  of  merchandise  in  the  New 
York  custom-house,  appeared  and  made  the  following  statement: 

I am  an  examiner  of  merchandise  received  at  the  port  of  New  York. 
Carpets,  furs,  hair  of  all  kinds,  bristles,  baskets,  and  all  the  raw  textile 
materials,  except  wool,  are  in  my  department.  I have  been  engaged 
as  an  examiner  some  twenty  years. 

Commissioner  Oliver  (in  the  chair).  You  may  proceed  in  your  own 
way  to  indicate  any  inconsistencies  which  you  think  exist  in  the  present 
tariff  upon  the  articles  that  come  within  your  department,  and  to  make 
any  suggestions  which  you  think  worthy  of  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mission. 

The  Witness.  I will  begin  with  carpets:  The  average  price  of  two- 
ply  ingrain  carpet  is  from  2s.  3d.  to  2s.  6d.,  and  the  duty  upon  that  is 
about  60  per  cent.  Three-ply  carpet  pays  17  cents  per  square  yard 
and  65  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  the  average  price  is  3s.  3d.  to  3s.  6d., 
with  the  ordinary  discount;  that  makes  that  carpet  pay  about  65  per 
cent.  Tapestry  carpet  pays  28  cents  per  square  yard  and  35  per  cent, 
ad  valorem,  and  the  average  price  is  from  2s.  to  2s.  2d.  sterling;  which 
makes  a high  rate  of  duty.  These  figures  are  for  27-inch  carpet.  The 
average  price  of  velvet  carpet  is  3s.  6d.  to  3s.  lOd.  sterling  for  running 
yard  of  27  inches,  and  it  pays  40  cents  and  35  per  cent.  Wilton  carpet 
pays  70  cents  per  square  yard  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the  27- 
inch  running  yard.  While  Axminster  carpet,  at  from  od.  and  6d.  to  8s., 
average  price,  pays  50  per  cent.  Now,  the  inconsistencies  of  that  tariff 
are  obvious.  A poor  man  buying  a two-ply  ingrain  carpet  pays  a higher 
percentage  of  duty  than  a man  buying  an  Axminster  carpet;  for  the 
duty  on  a two-ply  carpet  is  about  60  per  cent.,  while  on  the  Axminster 
it  is  only  50  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  Do  you  find  any  difficulty  in  levying  the  present  duties? — 
Answer.  No,  sir ; the  duties  are  very  simple.  I only  speak  of  these 
facts  to  call  your  attention  to  the  inconsistencies  of  the  tariff.  There 
are  no  tapestries  imported,  very  few  body  Brussels,  very  few  or  no  Wil- 
tons, no  velvets,  and  no  Axminsters.  The  carpets  that  are  principally 
imported  now  are  oriental  whole  carpets,  and  though  I have  now  as 
many  invoices  for  Sloane  as  I had  ten  years  ago,  yet  where  I would 
have  one  hundred  bales  of  carpet  on  one  invoice  at  that  time,  I have 
now  two  or  three  or  four  instead.  There  have  been  no  tapestries  im- 
ported for  the  last  two  years.  Now,  a specific  duty  could  be  easily 
levied  upon  each  make  of  carpets.  The  prices  of  these  carpets  vary 
very  little,  so  that  the  percentage  would  not  be  changed  if  you  put  a 
specific  duty  upon  them  at  so  much  a square  yard  for  each  make  of 
carpet,  and  it  could  be  so  regulated  as  to  make  it  about  the  same  as 
the  ad  valorem  duty.  The  carpet  trade  is  in  the  hands  of  a class  of 
people  about  whose  character  there  can  be  no  question.  I have  never 
had  any  trouble  so  far  as  qualities  and  prices  are  concerned,  and  in  all 
my  experience  I do  not  think  I have  advanced  carpets  more  than  ten 


580 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[MEKRITT  WICKHAM. 


times,  and  those  were  cases  where  some  outside  parties  had  imported 
them. 

Mattings  are  all  paying  a specific  duty.  We  get  some  mattings  from 
Bombay,  but  only  very  few.  The  Ki-ya  mats  are  all  made  in  this  coun- 
try, as  the  duty  is  prohibitory. 

There  is  another  matter  that  ought  to  be  regulated.  We  have  estab- 
lished an  arbitrary  line  of  distinction  between  the  carpet  and  the  rug. 
When  I was  in  Boston  several  years  ago  the  question  was  asked  me, 
what  is  a rug  and  what  is  a carpet.  Whole  carpets  pay  50  per  cent. 
aLd  wool  rugs  pay  45  per  cent.  duty.  This  question  was  raised,  and 
as  100  square  feet  makes  a very  fair-sized  room,  I suggested  to  the  ap- 
praisers at  Boston  and  Philadelphia  that  that  should  be  the  standard. 
Some  of  them  thought  it  was  too  much  and  some  thought  it  was  very 
fair,  and  we  finally  agreed  upon  100  square  feet  for  a “carpet,”  and  the 
department  approved  of  our  decision,  and  since  that  time  that  has  been 
the  standard.  Everything  under  that  is  a “rug,”  which  makes  a differ- 
ence of  5 per  cent,  in  the  rate  of  duty.  These  rugs  pay  now  the  duties 
of  their  respective  makes  of  carpet,  but  they  could  be  brought  in  under 
a specific  duty. 

In  relation  to  furs,  there  has  been  a good  deal  of  controversy  as  to 
what  constitutes  a fur  skin.  There  are  skins,  the  issue  of  a sheep  raised 
for  furriers,  purposes,  like  the  Caricoo,  the  Persiana  and  others.  A skin 
of  that  kind  which  would  be  worth  $3  for  the  wool  or  fur,  would  not  be 
worth  six  cents  for  the  pelt.  Sealskins  with  the  fur  on  are  worth  from 
65  to  150  British  shillings,  while  with  the  fur  off  they  are  worth  only  20 
British  shillings  a dozen.  For  this  reason  there  has  been  a good  deal  of 
controversy  in  relation  to  what  constitutes  a fur  skin,  and  we  have  had 
a great  many  sheepskins  brought  in  with  the  wool  on.  They  are  dressed 
with  the  wool  on,  and  the  consequence  is  that  the  wool  is  good  for  noth- 
ing. They  are  imported  largely  for  trimmings  for  cloaks  and  garments 
of  different  kinds,  and  under  a ruling  of  the  department  they  were 
taken  out  of  the  fur  class  and  put  into  a higher  scale  of  duty.  In  that 
connection  I would  suggest  that  all  leather  and  all  skins  of  every  name 
and  nature,  whether  mentioned  in  that  connection  or  not,  be  fixed  at 
one  rate  of  duty.  My  idea  is  that  there  are  too  many  classes  of  goods 
and  too  many  rates  of  duty  in  our  tariff,  and  that  it  could  be  simplified 
very  materially  by  having  many  less  rates  of  duty.  Fur  skins  of  all 
descriptions,  not  dressed  in  any  manner  are  free.  They  take  those  skins 
and  trim  them,  and  then  they  are  brought  here  and  recut  by  American 
machinery,  and  they  make  what  is  known  as  short  fur,  felt  fur.  Those, 
as  I have  said,  come  in  free.  Then  there  is  another  class  that  come  in 
at  20  per  cent.,  simply  because  they  have  been  dressed,  although  they 
are  used  for  the  same  purposes.  They  are  put  into  a little  machine  and 
cut  fine,  and  the  fur  is  blown  out  of  them  and  is  used  with  other  furs 
in  making  felt,  !Now  I would  suggest  that  pieces  of  fur  skins,  whether 
dressed  or  undressed,  for  recutting  into  hatters,  furs,  should  all  pay  the 
same  duty. 

I see  no  way  of  putting  a specific  duty  on  furs  under  any  circum- 
stances, because  the  skins  range  in  value  from  5 cents  up  to  $50  apiece ; 
a squirrel  skin  is  worth  10  cents,  while  a sable  skin  is  worth  $100.  Then 
there  is  an  article  known  as  isple.  It  comes  from  Mexico.  It  is  used 
for  making  cheap  brushes,  scrubbing  brushes  and  the  like.  It  is  the 
product  of  the  cactus.  Sisal  grass  for  matting  pays  a duty  of  $15  a 
ton,  although  it  is  the  same  species  of  goods.  Manilla  hemp  is  not  pro- 
duced in  this  country.  It  is  imported  for  cordage.  It  comes  in  compe- 
tition with  nothing  raised  in  this  country  that  I know  of.  All  the 


MERRITT  WIC  K H AM . ] 


appraiser's  department,  n.  y. 


581 


hemps  differ  but  slightly  in  their  prices,  and  consequently  may  be  left 
under  a specific  duty  at  whatever  rate  maybe  determined  upon;  but 
dressed  flax  ranges  from  7 pence  to  24  pence  sterling  and  pays  a duty 
of  $40  a ton.  You  see,  therefore,  that  a poor  man  has  to  pay  a large  rate 
of  duty  on  cheap  flax,  while  the  wealthy  man  pays  no  more  on  high 
priced  goods,  and  that  seems  to  me  an  unfair  rule. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  How  would  you  make  a dividing  line? — A.  I have  no  suggestions 
to  make  on  that  point. 

Q.  Could  these  goods  be  assorted  and  divided  satisfactorily? — A. 
That  is  a rather  vexed  question.  I have  been  thinking  of  it  for  the  last 
week,  and  I don’t  see  any  way  of  arranging  it,  but  you  can  see  that  the 
rates  of  duty  are  very  unequal. 

There  is  another  article  which  comes  here  that  has  been  causing  a 
good  deal  of  trouble,  and  lias  caused  us,  perhaps,  to  do  injustice  to  some 
parties.  I mean  baskets.  They  do  not  belong  to  my  department,  but 
I have  had  charge  of  them  for  a number  of  years.  Baskets  came  in 
various  shapes  and  forms,  and  now  they  are  getting  to  trim  them,  and 
the  department  sometime  ago  made  a rule  that  baskets  trimmed  and 
lined  with  worsted  should  pay  a certain  rate  of  duty.  About  six  months 
ago  a gentleman  had  the  courage  to  sue  the  government,  and  he  beat 
them  on  that  point.  The  court  decided  that  they  must  exhaust  the 
basket  before  they  could  levy  any  other  rate  of  duty.  But  when  you 
come  to  silk  linings,  the  department  has  decided  that  we  must  charge 
60  per  cent,  upon  them,  provided  the  silk  is  the  chief  value,  and  I defy 
any  man,  in  most  cases,  to  tell  whether  the  silk  is  the  chief  value  or  not. 
Now  my  suggestion  would  be  to  have  two  classes  of  baskets,  one  con- 
sisting of  baskets  lined  or  trimmed  with  silk  and  paying  one  rate  of 
duty,  and  all  other  baskets  coming  in  at  another  rate. 

Q.  W ould  it  not  be  better  to  say  that  all  baskets  lined  or  trimmed  with 
silk  worsted  should  pay  a certain  rate,  and  that  all  baskets  trimmed 
with  other  material  should  pay  another  rate  ? Are  they  not  sometimes 
trimmed  with  other  material  ? — A . They  trim  them  with  cotton  and  with 
jute.  But  silk,  you  know,  pays  60  per  cent.,  and  therefore  if  I were  to 
make  the  law  myself,  I should  provide  that  baskets  of  whatever  mate- 
rial should  pay  one  rate  of  duty,  but  if  there  was  to  be  any  discrimination, 
and  if  it  was  thought  desirable  to  have  silk-lined  baskets  pay  more  than 
others,  the  duty  should  be  specific.  In  baskets  trimmed  with  worsted,  the 
worsted  is  so  insignificant  in  value  that  it  would  be  hardly  worth  while 
to  make  any  discrimination  between  a basket  so  trimmed  and  the  clean 
basket,  because  cotton  pays  the  same  rate  of  duty.  Bristles  are  another 
article  that  come  in  from  Russia  and  Germany.  That  is  a very  exten- 
sive trade.  Now  bristles  vary  in  price  from  75  cents  to  $9  a pound,  and 
I do  not  know  how  you  are  going  to  make  proper  discrimination. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  That,  I suppose,  is  a case  in  which  an  ad  valorem  duty  would  be 
better,  according  to  your  judgment? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  You  could  see  the  way  out  with  an  ad  valorem  duty? — A.  Yes; 
but  vith  a specific  duty  I cannot  see  the  way  out.  Very  few  high- 
priced  bristles  come  here ; but  bristles  do  range  in  price  from  75  cents 
up,  and  they  all  pay  a duty  of  15  cents. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Is  sisal  in  your  department  ?— A.  It  is ; it  pays  $15  a ton. 


582 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[MERRITT  WICKHAM. 


Q.  Wliat  does  it  come  in  competition  with  ? — A.  Nothing  that  I know 
of  in  this  country. 

Q.  Why  could  not  sisal  and  manila  be  put  into  the  free  list  ? — A. 
I should  say  they  ought  to  be.  They  do  not  compete  with  anything  that 
is  produced  here.  Some  hemps,  perhaps  the  Eussian  and  Italian  hemps, 
come  in  competition  with  our  own,  but  there  is  no  sisal  raised  in  this 
country,  and  no  manila  that  I know  of.  My  individual  opinion  has 
always  been  that  raw  materials  that  do  not  come  in  competition  with 
our  borne  products  should  be  admitted  free.  There  are  certain  raw  ma- 
terials which  do  come  in  competition  with  our  home  products,  and  they, 
of  course,  ought  to  pay  duty  ; but  my  idea  in  regard  to  the  tariff,  based 
upon  many  years  of  experience,  is  that  we  should  have  fewer  classes  of 
goods  and  fewer  rates  of  duty,  and  that  where  a manufacture  has  been 
thoroughly  established  in  this  country,  the  tariff  should  be  regulated 
simply  with  the  view  to  equalize  the  difference  in  the  price  of  labor  here 
and  abroad. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  you  have  any  trouble  with  the  item  of  “charges”  in  your  de- 
partment?—A.  Carpets  are  “free  on  board.”  The  European  manufact- 
urers deliver  their  goods  on  shipboard. 

Q.  What  commission  is  charged? — A.  2J  per  cent,  on  English  goods; 
3 per  cent,  on  French. 

Q.  Do  you  think  a uniform  fixed  rate  for  both  charges  and  commis- 
sions would  give  less  trouble  and  more  satisfaction  ? — A.  My  idea  is 
that  inland  charges  should  be  abolished. 

Q.  Can  you  name  a rate  that  would  cover  the  line  of  goods  that  you 
have  had  experience  with  ? — A.  I think  that  perhaps  a rate  of  3 per 
cent,  would  do ; or  an  addition  of  1 or  1J  per  cent,  to  the  regular  com- 
mission of  the  country.  It  is  a difficult  matter  to  get  at  the  charges 
exactly,  and  I should  be  inclined  to  recommend  a uniform  rate. 

Q.  Would  you  recommend  a uniform  rate  for  commissions? — A.  It 
would  simplify  the  business  very  materially.  About  one  half  pay  com- 
mission and  the  other  half  do  not. 


R.  BLAKELEY.] 


SORGHUM. 


583 


E.  BLAKELEY. 

Long  Branch,  1ST.  J.,  August  21,  1882. 

The  following  communication  in  relation  to  the  duties  upon  sugar  and 
sugar  sirups,  was  received  from  Mr.  E.  Blakeley,  of  Saint  Paul,  Minn., 
and  ordered  to  be  printed : 

Gentlemen  : Supposing  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  your  Commission  to 
hear  what  may  be  said  in  relation  to  the  bearings  a tariff  may  have 
upon  the  industries  of  the  country,  as  well  as  to  raise  the  means  for  sup- 
port of  the  government,  I am  induced  to  present  to  you  a few  thoughts 
on  the  subject  of  the  production  of  sugar  and  sugar  sirup,  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  people  of  this  country,  and  my  object  is  to  induce  the 
Commission,  so  far  as  I may,  to  protect  this  new  industry  by  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  rates  of  duties  upon  the  imports  of  sugar  and  sirups  from 
other  or  foreign  countries,  in  competition  with  our  own. 

As  is  well  known  to  all,  the  effort  to  make  sugar  and  sirups  from  sor- 
ghum has  had  a varied  and  mostly  an  unsuccessful  existence  for  twenty 
years  or  more,  and  the  most  sanguine  had  about  given  up  the  strife 
against  the  adverse  experiences  attending  all  such  new  enterprises. 

Some  five  years  ago,  in  spite  of  all  former  experiences  and  against 
every  rule  for  making  sugar,  an  old  sorghum  boiler’s  sirups  turned  to 
sugar  in  his  barrels  in  his  cellar,  and  thus,  in  spite  of  all  the  ignorance, 
charlatanism,  bogus  professors,  and  patent  rights  for  making  sugar  from 
sorghum  which  had  been  used  for  over  twenty  years  to  present  this  re- 
sult, nature  has  finally  asserted  herself  and,  against  all  hope,  produced 
a few  hundred  pounds  of  sugar,  which  has  again  induced  the  enterpris- 
ing people  of  this  Northwest  to  give  it  another  trial,  and  with  such  suc- 
cess that  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture  of  the  United  States  felt  com- 
pelled to  give  the  matter  his  personal  attention,  and  it  finally  has  chal- 
lenged the  attention  of  the  “Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,”  who,  at  the 
request  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  took  up  the  work  of  the 
chemist  of  the  Agricultural  Department  and  reported  the  same  to  a com- 
mittee of  the  most  eminent  scientists  in  the  country,  who  have  given  the 
last  two  years’  work  a careful  investigation,  and  have  unanimously 
agreed  that  this  plant  stands  next,  if  not  equal,  to  the  sugarcane  of  the 
tropics  as  a sugar-producing  plant.  This  report  has  not  yet  been 
printed. 

During  the  past  five  years  the  produce  of  sirup  from  this  plant  has 
constantly  increased,  and  now  amounts  to  some  millions  of  gallons  per 
year,  which  is  being  sold  by  the  merchants,  wholesale  and  retail,  for  gen- 
eral consumption,  and  machinery  is  now  being  introduced  that  will  make 
yields  in  sugar  that  will  astonish  even  those  the  most  sanguine  and  best 
informed  on  the  subject ; but  those  who  engage  in  this  new  enterprise 
must  feel  that  they  are  to  have  the  care  and  sympathy  of  this  govern- 
ment for  the  development  of  this  promising  and,  if  successful,  great  in- 
dustry. 

Unfortunately  there  are  only  very  few  persons  who  have  as  yet  at- 
tempted to  produce  sugar,  from  this  source,  as  the  machinery  that  is 
used  in  making  sirup  is  not  calculated  to  make  sugar.  I am  the  only 


584 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[R.  BLAKELEY. 


one  in  this  State  that  has  expended  the  money  necessary  to  put  up  the 
machinery  to  make  sugar,  and  have  made  only  what  may  be  called  an 
experiment,  but  I have  made  some  twelve  thousand  pounds  of  sugar, 
which  was  sold  at  the  factory  for  9 cents  per  pound,  and  the  sirup  for 
50  cents  per  gallon.  I have  inclosed  herewith  a sample  of  this  sugar. 
This  is  not  a selected  sample ; it  is  taken  from  the  produce  of  the  mill 
without  extra  handling  or  care,  but  is  a true  sample  commercially. 

I may  be  somewhat  presumptuous  in  venturing  an  oxnnion  upon  this 
subject  when  addressing  a commission  selected  for  their  great  and  varied 
intelligence  and  experience  on  the  subject  submitted  to  them  j still,  I 
feel  justified  in  saying  that  if  the  government  shall  by  legislation  foster 
the  production  of  these  now  indispensable  articles  of  daily  consumption 
by  the  people,  the  near  future  will  justify  and  approve  the  action. 

I am  sorry  that  I am  unable  to  present  you  something  more  convinc- 
ing upon  this  subject,  but  the  scarcity  of  material  is  owing  to  the  new 
and  undeveloped  condition  of  the  industry,  and  I have  not  thought  I 
would  be  justified  in  taking  too  much  of  your  time  by  attempting  to  dis- 
play any  great  information  on  the  subject,  as  that,  in  my  opinion,  would 
be  out  of  place  before  you,  but  I simply  hope,  by  this  communication, 
to  induce  you  to  give  it  a favorable  consideration. 

Respectfully, 


Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  August  9,  1882. 


R.  BLAKELEY. 


STEPHEN  BKOWN.  ] 


LEATHER. 


585 


STEPHEN  BROWN. 

Lono  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  21, 1882. 

Mr.  Stephen  Brown,  of  New  York,  a broker  in  leather  and  hides,  ap- 
peared before  the  commission,  and  made  the  following  statement : 

The  duties  now  levied  on  leather,  say  10  per  cent.,  15,  20,  25,  and  35, 
according  to  description,  appear  very  inconsistent.  The  imports  of 
leather  for  1881  amounted  in  value  to  $5,651,272.  The  aggregate  duty 
paid  was  $1,219,805.  The  largest  item  of  import  was  tanned  and  finished 
calf,  amounting  to  $2,365,672,  which,  at  25  per  cent,  duty,  paid  $591,418. 
Sole  leather  paid  $1,259  only  on  an  import  of  $8,398  at  15  per  cent, 
duty. 

It  would  seem  quite  unnecessary  to  have  more  than  two  classes  in  lay- 
ing a duty  on  leather.  The  great  advantage  which  tanners  of  sole  leather 
in  America  have  over  all  the  countries  of  Europe  in  cheap  bark  has 
enabled  us  to  sell  for  export  a large  amount  of  sole  leather  besides,  a con- 
siderable quantity  of  upper  leather. 

The  exports  of  leather  from  the  port  of  New  York  alone  in  1881, 
amounted  in  value  to  $5,375,760,  and  from  other  ports  there  was  enough 
to  make  a total  of  more  than  $7,000,000.  This  export  of  American  leather, 
which  is  composed  largely  of  hemlock-tanned  sides,  has,  within  the  past 
ten  years,  greatly  increased ; for  in  1871  the  amount  was  barely  $1,000,000. 
Whatever  advantage  a tariff  may  have  been  to  American  tanners  in  the 
past,  it  would  seem  probable  that  it  has  outlived  its  usefulness. 

Tanners  in  Europe  regard  with  alarm  this  augmented  demand  on  the 
part  of  manufacturers  of  shoes  and  other  goods  made  of  American 
leather,  and  complain  that  while  America  requires  a duty  on  the  goods 
that  they  produce  she  inundates  their  own  markets  with  an  article  they 
cannot  compete  with. 

The  German  Government  responded  to  the  clamors  of  tanners  some 
three  years  since,  and  put  a duty  on  foreign  leather  equal  to  6 cents  per 
pound,  or  about  25  per  cent.  France  protects  her  tanners  ostensibly  for 
the  same  reason,  and  English  tanners  are  begging  for  the  same  protection, 
but  claim  that  if  they  could  sell  us  their  goods  on  equal  terms,  that  is,  “free 
of  duty,”  many  articles  they  make  could  at  at  times  be  sold  here  and  the 
trade  be  more  “fair.” 

The  shoe  manufacturers  of  England  and  of  Switzerland  have  every- 
thing they  use  free  of  duty,  and  they  sell  their  shoes  in  great  quantity 
to  Brazil,  to  the  countries  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean,  to  Mexico, 
and  all  parts  of  the  Spanish  Main  of  South  America  and  adjacent  islands. 
This  is  an  immense  trade,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  the  shoemakers 
and  artisans  of  the  United  States  should  not  be  competing  successfully 
for  it.  But  that  cannot  take  place  while  a duty  so  large  and  so  intri- 
cate exists  on  foreign-tanned  leather.  We  make  excellent  upper  leather 
of  many  grades,  and  sell  a deal  of  it  abroad,  but  many  kinds  of  foreign- 
made  leather  (it  would  be  tedious  to  enumerate  them)  areneeded  in  mak- 
ing leather  goods  for  export,  which  come  too  expensive  to  our  manufact- 
urers to  purchase  abroad,  and  which  are  not  required  for  home  use  j so 
that  our  exports  of  boots  and  shoes  are  as  yet  scarcely  worthy  of  men- 
tion. 


586 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[STEPHEN  BBOWX. 


In  consultation  with  leading  tanners  making  their  headquarters  in 
New  York,  I have  found  that  there  is  scarcely  one  who  does  not  express 
himself  in  favor  of  absolute  free  trade  in  leather.  A confirmation  of 
this  assertion,  if  desired  by  this  Commission,  could  be  readily  obtained 
by  the  signatures  to  such  a statement  of  the  principal  well-known  large 
leather  houses  in  what  is  known  as  the  u swamp”  section  of  that  city. 

If  the  requirements  of  government  for  revenue  would  be  deemed  so 
imperative  as  to  need  the  duties  that  might  be  obtained  from  the  impor- 
tation of  leather  goods,  it  would  seem  that  a uniform  duty  of  10  per 
cent,  would  reach  that  case,  as  the  various  duties  now  imposed  are  vex- 
atious to  those  interested  in  handling  foreign  leather  on  both  sides  of 
the  Atlantic. 

The  leather  trade  and  tanners  of  America  are  strong  enough  to  feel 
indifferent  to  foreign  competition,  and  generous  enough  to  their  brethren 
in  the  craft  all  over  the  world  to  meet  them  on  equal  grounds,  and  all 
the  most  extensive  tanners  in  America,  whether  at  the  seaboard  or  in 
the  great  wilderness  tracts  (where  they  are  the  pioneers),  would  hail 
with  pleasure  such  a revision  of  the  tariff  as  would  make  leather  free  of 
duty,  or  at  least  reduce  the  duty  to  the  lowest  rate  that  the  interest  of 
the  people  would  permit.  They  believe  that  the  more  free  the  inter- 
change the  greater  would  be  the  volume  of  our  exports,  and  feel  sure 
that  instead  of  the  country  relying  eutirely  on  its  exports  of  cotton  and 
food  products  to  keep  up  the  balance  of  trade  with  foreign  countries,  it 
would  be  better  to  enable  our  citizens  to  avail  themselves  of  the  raw  ma- 
terial of  other  countries  as  well  as  of  such  manufactured  articles  as  are 
auxiliary  to  their  operations.  They  would  then  be  put  in  position  to 
add  to  the  volume  of  exports,  as  our  tanners  are  now  doing,  and  thereby 
consume  at  home  our  food  products. 

Switzerland  has  many  tanners,  and  they  are  prosperous ; but  Switzer- 
land would  have  no  work  for  her  great  army  of  shoemakers  if  a duty  on 
leather  products  in  America  and  other  countries  was  prohibitory  instead 
of  those  products  being  free. 

We  can  never  compete  with  Europe  in  supplying  Mexico  and  South 
America  with  shoes  for  their  growing  nations  while  we  impose  a high 
duty  on  material  and  invite  Germany  and  France,  and  perhaps  England, 
to  put  discriminating  imports  on  our  leather. 

Shoemaking  in  every  land  becomes  an  important  source  of  employ- 
ment for  surplus  population  when  agriculture  and  kindred  occupations 
change  their  base.  It  has  been  so  in  New  England;  it  is  becoming  so 
in  other  sections.  The  tanners  of  America  would  aid  it,  and  they  have 
material  and  bark  enough  to  sole  and  to  half-sole  all  creation.  They 
have  capital,  enterprise,  and  ample  intelligence,  and,  like  all  good  citi- 
zens, do  not  ask  to  be  assisted  to  grow  rich  by  the  shield  of  a protective 
tariff.  They  do  not  believe  that  intelligent  labor  can  be  performed  cheaper 
elsewhere  than  in  America,  but  many  articles  which  are  not  yet  introduced 
into  this  country  to  any  extent  would  greatly  facilitate  shoes  being  pro- 
duced suitable  for  export,  and  the  goods  that  are  made  here  would  also 
enter  largely  into  those  manufactures. 

The  idea  of  the  present  period  is  that  the  American  people  should  be 
intrusted  with  the  utmost  freedom,  having  at  the  same  time  laws  strong 
enough  to  shield  society  from  any  recoil  of  its  outburst.  There  is  no 
element  of  freedom  that  we  can  give  to  the  next  generation  of  Americans 
which  they  will  so  gratefully  accept  and  applaud  as  the  legacy  of  free 
trade. 

Our  export  trade  in  sole  leather  is  very  important.  I have  been  en- 
gaged in  it  for  twenty  years ; indeed,  I was  the  pioneer  in  it,  and  1 feel 
a strong  interest  that  it  should  continue  to  prosper. 


STEPHEN  BROWN.] 


LEATHER. 


587 


By  the  President  : 

Question.  What  are  the  peculiar  advantages  of  American  tanners  in 
the  possession  of  hemlock  bark? — Answer.  We  have  bark  so  much 
cheaper  than  they  have  in  any  part  of  Europe  that  in  that  respect  they 
cannot  begin  to  compete  with  us.  We  have  it  generally  at  $4  a ton,  and 
$5  a ton  is  perhaps  as  high  as  any  of  the  great  tanners  in  this  country  pay 
for  it,  while  in  Europe  it  costs  five  or  six  times  as  much. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  Has  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Association  ever  taken  any  action  in 
this  matter? — A.  I am  not  aware  that  the  association  ever  made  any 
statement  on  the  subject,  but  probably  they  will  send  a representative 
before  your  Commission  when  you  go  to  Boston.  You  have  in  that  as- 
sociation a combined  interest,  the  shoe  interest  and  the  leather  interest. 
The  shoe  men,  of  course,  would  like  to  have  their  leather  as  cheap  as 
possible,  while  the  tanners  in  some  sections  of  the  country  might  pos- 
sibly feel  that  they  needed  some  protection.  I am  not  aware,  however, 
of  any  tanner  who  asks  any  favor  in  the  way  of  protection.  The  only 
article  of  leather  imported  largely  now  is  French  calfskin.  This  in- 
tricate duty  of  10,  15,  20,  25,  and  35  per  cent,  is  very  embarrassing,  and 
even  the  custom-house  appraisers  find  it  so.  I think  it  would  be  worth 
while,  therefore,  for  this  Commission,  if  the  duty  must  be  continued,  to 
recommend  that  it  be  made  uniform.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  duties 
should  be  so  various  ux>on  goods  of  slightly  different  grades. 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  tanning  industry  has  been  brought 
to  such  perfection  here  that  you  think  it  can  now  compete  with  the  Euro- 
pean tanners? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  we  can  compete  in  all  tanning 
goods.  There  are  goods  made  in  Vienna  that  must  be  still  imported, 
because  nobody  in  America  attempts  to  make  Vienna  leather  or  Russia 
leather,  although  we  do  make  some  kind  of  an  imitation  of  Russia 
leather. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  You  suggested  two  rates,  but  afterwards  in  your  paper  you  named 
only  one.  Assuming  that  we  make  two  rates,  I should  like  to  have  you 
suggest  what  those  rates  should  be. — A.  I think  there  is  no  object  at 
all  in  having  a duty  on  sole  leather.  We  only  collected  $1,200  last  year 
from  the  duty  on  sole  leather  on  a 15  tier  cent,  basis,  and  I do  not  see 
what  the  object  is  in  continuing  that  duty. 

Q.  Then  you  suggest  that  sole  leather  should  be  free?  Please  give  us 
the  next  grade  of  duty  that  you  propose? — A.  I am  so  thoroughly  a 
free  trade  man  that  I hardly  dare  name  even  10  per  cent.;  but  that 
would  seem  to  me  to  be  ample. 

Q.  Then  your  suggestion  is,  sole  leather  free,  and  10  per  cent,  duty 
on  other  leathers? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  would  seem  to  be  about  right. 

Q.  What  are  the  grades  of  leather? — A.  We  imported  last  year 
$2,365,000  worth  of  tanned  calf,  and  of  other  upper  leather,  $2,881,000. 
On  tanned  calf  the  charge  is  25  per  cent. ; on  bend  and  sole  leather  it  is 
15  per  cent.,  but  we  import  none  of  that;  and  on  morocco  the  rate  now 
is  10  per  cent.  The  principal  duties  collected  were  upon  tanned  calf 
and  what  is  generally  known  as  upper  leather.  Of  patent  leather  we 
import  very  little ; the  duty  on  that  is  35  per  cent.  1 am  filling  orders 
from  Europe  all  the  time  for  large  quantities  of  carriage  leather.  They 
have  just  learned  there  what  American  leather  is.  Our  leather  is  tanned 
with  bark,  while  in  England,  owing  to  the  high  price  of  bark,  they  have 
been  compelled  to  use  bichromate  of  potash  and  other  chemicals,  which 
do  not  make  so  good  a leather  as  ours.  Twenty  years  ago  we  exported 


588 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[STEPHEN  BROWN. 


no  leather,  but  now  the  trade  is  very  extensive.  It  was  started  in  1859, 
but  the  war  coming  on  soon  after  broke  it  up.  In  1870,  however,  it 
revived,  and  it  has  since  grown  largely,  so  that  it  is  now  a very  im- 
portant item  of  export.  There  are  few  manufactures  in  America  that 
have  grown  as  fast,  and  it  is  probable  the  business  will  increase  largely 
in  the  future,  because  we  have  the  hemlock  forests  to  supply  the  bark. 

Q.  How  is  it  as  to  oak-tanned  leather?  Do  we  stand  as  well  on  that 
as  on  leather  tanned  by  the  use  of  hemlock  bark? — A.  In  Pennsylvania 
there  is  a great  deal  of  oak  leather  made,  but  the  home  demand  has 
been  sufficient  to  use  all  that  is  made.  There  is  considerable  demand 
for  it  in  Europe,  but  we  do  not  sell  it  cheap  enough.  We  make  an  ex- 
cellent article  of  oak  leather  in  Pennsylvania,  but  the  English  have  such 
a talent  for  imitating  it  by  using  a little  oak  and  a large  quantity  of 
chemicals,  that  we  cannot  go  into  that  market.  "Neither  have  we  so 
much  oak  bark  in  America  as  we  have  hemlock  bark.  I do  not  think 
we  shall  do  a very  great  business  in  exporting  any  leather  except  hem- 
lock-tanned sole  leather,  and  even  as  to  that,  foreign  countries  are  threat- 
ening us  with  an  embargo  on  our  exports  of  leather,  because,  as  they  say, 
we  make  no  concessions  to  them. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Has  any  government  in  Europe  up  to  this  time  retaliated  upon  us 
because  of  our  duty  on  foreign  leather? — A.  Yes,  sir;  Germany  did  so 
three  years  ago. 

Q.  What  duty  did  she  put  on  sole  leather? — A.  About  six  cents  a 
pound. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Has  there  not  grown  up  quite  a business  in  extracting  and  con- 
centrating the  essence  of  the  hemlock  bark  and  shipping  it  abroad? — 
A.  Yes,  sir,  a very  large  business. 

Q.  When  did  that  begin? — A.  I think  it  has  been  going  on  more  or 
less  for  fifteen  years.  They  are  shipping  a great  deal  from  Canada  now, 
and  also  a good  deal  from  this  country — from  Pennsylvania. 

Q.  Do  they  ship  it  also  in  the  form  of  ground  bark? — A.  They  do  that  to 
some  extent,  but  they  have  a system  of  extracting  the  tanning  material 
by  evaporation — quite  an  ingenious  process — making  a liquid  very  sim- 
ilar in  appearance  to  molasses.  They  claim  to  get  the  strength  of  a ton 
of  bark  in  an  ordinary  barrel  of  the  liquid. 

Q.  Does  that  liquid  answer  the  purpose  of  tanning  as  well  as  the 
bark,  or  is  there  a special  advantage  in  using  the  bark  itself  ? — A.  State- 
ments on  that  subject  are  very  contradictory.  Our  tanners  say  that  the 
liquid  is  not  so  good  as  the  bark  itself,  but  in  England  many  tanners  use 
it,  and  they  claim  that  it  is  just  as  good.  I have  not  any  positive  opinion 
on  the  subject  myself.  I think  that  for  many  kinds  of  leather  the  liquid 
is  as  good,  but  for  solid,  hard  leather,  I do  not  think  it  is  so  good  as  the 
bark.  That  is  my  impression  from  information  that  I have  received. 

Q.  Still  it  will  be  quite  an  advantage  to  foreign  tanners  if  they  are 
able  to  obtain  this  extract,  which  can  be  readily  and  cheaply  trans- 
ported?— A.  Oh,  yes,  and  they  have  used  it  very  largely.  They  were 
using  it  very  extensively  three  or  four  j^ears  ago,  but  for  the  last  year 
or  two  they  have  used  less  of  it,  because  they  have  been  attempting  to 
work  other  chemicals.  The  result  is  that  they  make  their  leather  soft, 
and  when  it  gets  wet  it  is  just  like  cloth ; and  the  more  they  use  those 
chemicals  instead  of  bark,  the  more  of  our  sole  leather  we  shall  be  able 
to  sell  in  their  markets. 


STEPHEN  BKOWN.] 


LEATHER. 


589 


By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  not  the  hemlock  bark  tanning  industry  almost  entirely  a North- 
ern industry'? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Still,  there  is  a great  deal  of  good  tanning 
done  in  the  Southern  States  with  what  they  call  their  chestnut  oak. 
They  make  a very  excellent  leather  in  the  South,  but  they  do  not  make 
as  solid  a leather  as  is  made  with  hemlock  bark ; in  fact,  the  Southern 
people  use  the  hemlock-bark  sole  leather  almost  entirely,  and  I am  told 
by.  tanners  who  have  establishments  in  the  Southern  States  that  the 
bark  is  already  becoming  quite  expensive. 

Commissioner  Botelee.  There  are  vast  forests  of  it  still  untouched  in 
West  Virginia;  the  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  its  use  being  the  cost 
of  transportation.  Very  large  tanneries  have  been  established  within 
the  last  few  years  in  the  Southern  States.  Within  the  last  year  one  has 
been  established  in  the  Luray  Valley,  where  they  are  using  oak  bark, 
and  making  excellent  leather;  and  in  fact  that  portion  of  the  South 
never  has  depended  on  the  North  for  its  leather,  but  has  used  the  oak 
leather. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  Germany  had  levied  a duty  upon  our 
leather  by  way  of  retaliation  for  our  tariff  on  leather;  I should  like  to 
know  your  reason  for  that  statement.  How  do  you  know  the  fact'? — A. 
Well,  I never  conversed  with  Bismarck  on  the  subject,  but  I understood 
that  the  German  tariff  was  retaliatory ; that  the  German  tanners  clam- 
ored about  it,  and  petitioned  the  Beichstag  to  protect  their  leather,  and 
that  they  succeeded  in  getting  the  desired  protection. 

Q.  You  made  the  statement  without  qualification,  and  I simply  de- 
sired to  know  the  basis  on  which  you  made  it. — A.  I suppose  there  may 
be  some  question  as  to  whether  that  statement  could  be  exactly  proved 
or  not;  but  we  read  in  the  Eurojiean  free-trade  journals  statements  that 
America  is  sending  a great  deal  of  leather  over  there,  and  that  they 
ought  to  retaliate. 


590 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  LYALL. 


WILLIAM  LYALL. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  22,  1882. 

Mr.  William  Lyall,  a manufacturer  of  jute,  appeared  and  submitted 
the  following  statement  of  changes  in  the  existing  tariff  on  jute  manufact- 
ures, recommended  by  the  Dolphin  Manufacturing  Company,  by  John 
♦Sloan,  Paterson,  N.  J. ; Planet  Mills,  by  Buchanan  & Lyall,  Brooklyn, 
N.  Y. ; Finley  & Schlicliter,  Lambertville,  N.  J.;  Chelsea  Jute  Mills, 
New  York  City;  Peter  Bentley,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.;  J.  & W.  Lyall,  New 
York  City: 


Present  tariff  designation, 


Present  rate  of  duty. 


Proposed  rate. 


Reasons  for  the  change. 


Burlaps  made  of  jute 

Bags  m ade  of  j ute  

Colored  or  partly  colored 
jute  manufactures. 

Jute  yarns 

Abolishment  of  the  draw- 
back on  jute  goods 
after  use  here. 

Canvas,  paddings,  cot 
bottoms,  crash,  hop 
sacking,  and  webbing 
made  of  jute. 

Oilcloth  foundation  or 
floor-cloth  canvas  made 
of  jute. 

Bagging  made  of  jute, 
except  gunny  bagging. 


Russia  and  other  sheet- 
ing. component  parts 
of  jute. 

Carpets  made  of  jute 


Articles  made  of  jute,  or 
of  which  jute  shall  com- 
pose the  chief  article 
in  quantity,  not  other- 
wise provided  for,  ex- 
cept such  as  shall  be 
suitable  for  bagging  for 
cotton. 


30  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
40  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 
30  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 

25  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 


3^  mills  per  ounce See  Schedule  A. 

do See  Schedule  B. 

8 cents  per  square  yard . See  Schedule  C. 


3J  cents  per  pound See  Schedule  I). 

See  Schedule  E. 


35  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 


40  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 


.do. 


35  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 


8 cents  per  square  yard . 


30  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 


The  same  as  proposed 
upon  burlaps,  3|  mills 
per  ounce. 


.do 


.do 


.do 


8 cents  per  square  yard 
not  weighing  over  24 
ounces,  and  3 mills  for 
each  additional  ounce, 
but  that  carpet  made 
after  the  manner  of 
making  Brussels  tap- 
estry, tapestry  velvet, 
or  any  other  kind  of 
carpet,  shall  be  duti- 
able the  same  as  the 
carpet  made  in  the 
same  manner. 

50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  . 


They  are  a similar  or 
better  class  of  goods  to 
burlaps  and  should  be 
dutiable  at  the  same 
rate. 

It  is  a similar  or  better 
class  of  goods  to  bur- 
laps and  should  be 
dutiable  at  same  rate. 

It  is  the  same  class  of 
goods  as  burlaps  and 
should  be  dutiable  at 
the  same  rate. 

Do. 


See  Schedule  E. 


Because  there  is  not  suf- 
ficient protection  now 
to  maintain  the  jute  in- 
dustries which  pay  a 
duty  of  fully  30  per 
cent,  on  the  raw  jute. 


Raw  jute,  105  rupees  or  $46.72  per  ton;  United  States  duty  on  same  $15  or  32  per  cent. 


Schedule  A. 

The  reasons  for  the  changes  proposed  are — 

First.  Because  the  jute  interest  under  the  existing  tariff  is  not  remu- 
nerative, and  consequently  requires  additional  protection. 

Second.  Because  there  is  a tariff  of  $15  per  ton  or  30  per  cent,  on  the 


WILLIAM  LYALL.] 


JUTE. 


591 


raw  material  here,  and  free  jute  in  Scotland,  while  our  labor  is  about 
double. 

Third.  Because  the  tariff  should  be  specific  to  insure  uniformity.  To 
illustrate,  in  1872  burlaps  was  worth  one  cent  per  ounce,  now  it  is  only 
worth  one-half  cent  per  ounce ; thus  the  duty  has  been  reduced  to  one- 
half  what  it  was  originally. 

Fourth.  Because  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  in  Gumming  v.  Arthur  (91  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.  Bep., 
362),  defined  oilcloth  foundations  dutiable  now  at  40  per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rem to  be  only  that  class  of  jute  fabric  which  has  24  porters  or  thread 
to  the  square  inch ; the  result  is  that  all  the  foundations  for  oilcloth 
now  imported  and  used  in  this  country  are  called  burlaps  and  are  duti- 
able as  such,  not  having  24  porters  or  threads  to  the  square  inch. 

Schedule  B. 

The  reason  for  the  proposed  change  is,  that  bags  which  have  been  used 
abroad,  and  known  as  second-hand  bags,  are  purchased  at  very  low 
prices  and  sent  here  and  sold.  The  tariff  being  upon  the  value  of  the 
goods  at  the  point  of  shipment  makes  the  protection  entirely  inadequate. 

Schedule  C. 

The  reason  for  the  proposed  change  is,  that  there  is  a class  of  novel- 
ties in  jute  goods  being  manufactured,  which  are  of  the  same  grade  and 
style  of  manufacture  as  jute  carpetings,  which  are  not  provided  for 
specifically  in  the  present  tariff,  and  therefore  come  under  the  general 
provision,  and  are  thus  dutiable  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; this  change 
will  place  these  novelties  under  the  same  protection  which  jute  carpet- 
ings have. 

Schedule  D. 

The  reason  for  the  proposed  change  is  to  put  the  duty  at  about  what 
it  was  when  the  present  rate  was  fixed,  and  to  make  it  specific  that  it 
may  be  uniform.  In  1872  the  price  of  yarn  was  13  cents  per  pound ; 
now  it  is  worth  only  7 cents. 

Schedule  E. 

The  reason  for  abolishing  the  drawback  is  that  the  importer  of  bur- 
laps is  allowed  under  the  existing  law  to  sew  it  into  a bag,  sell  it  to  the 
miller  here,  and  after  it  has  been  exported  obtain  a drawback  of  the 
entire  duty  less  one  per  centum.  The  effect  of  this  is  best  shown  by 
the  following  advertisement  and  correspondence: 

[Advertisement.  ] 

EXPORT  FLOUR  SACKS,  BURLAP,  BRAN  SACKS,  WOOL  SACKS,  OIL-CAKE  BAGS,  HAM 

BAGS,  ETC. 

Morison,  Anderson  & Buchart,  Dundee,  Scotland,  Manufacturers  of  all 

kinds  of  Jute  Goods, 

Have  established  a branch  house  in  Minneapolis  for  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
their  products.  Exporters  of  flour  will  receive  from  them  rebate  of  duty  on  all  bags 
exported.  Bags  printed  in  the  best  possible  style.  Apply  for  samples,  prices,  and 
particulars  to 

J.  P.  THOMPSON,  Manager, 

214  and  216  First  avenue  S.,  Minneapolis. 


592 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  LYALL. 


[Letters.] 

Minneapolis,  Minn.,  March  29,  1882. 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  the  18th  to  Mr.  Campbell  received.  We  do  not  know  what  the 
matter  is  with  oar  export  trade.  Can  you  tell? 

Ogden  has  left  for  Saint  Louis.  A new  man  has  taken  his  place  here.  Your  name- 
sake is  still  here,  but  not  handling  Morrison’s  branch  house  of  Dundee,  Scotland,  sax. 
Mr.  Thompson  is  doing  business  here,  and  is  taking  the  persimmons  because  he  makes 
a low  price  on  the  sax  and  then  pays  us  2 cents  rebate,  according  to  weight  of  sack, 
collecting  it  himself  afterwards.  As  to  orders,  would  say  that  we  are  still  in  favor  of 
the  seamless  sack,  made  by  the  Chelsea  Jute  Mills,  New  York  City ; still  consider  them 
the  best,  and  are  glad  we  can  go  to  headquarters  to  buy  them  and  get  quality  guar- 
anteed. We  should  preferto  buy  when  we  want  them  and  not  carry  a stock,  which  we 
dislike,  as  we  have  no  warehouse.  We  shall  be  glad  to  see  you  here,  and  if  you  can 
arrange  to  keep  a stock  shall  be  glad  to  give  you  a share  of  our  patronage. 

Yours  truly, 

CHAS.  A.  PILLSBURY  & CO. 

L.  M.  Ballard, 

Care  Chelsea  Jute  Mills,  Twenty-fourth  street  and  Thirteenth  avenue,  New  York  City. 

Kankakee,  III.,  May  13,  1882. 

Gents  ; Yours,  no  date,  received.  Until  recently  we  have  been  using  Dundee  bags 
29  x 40,  but  now  we  are  using  a bag  made  in  Saint  Louis  from  burlap,  11  oz.,  32  x 40, 
which  is  a better  size  for  our  cake.  A good  many  mills  in  the  West  are  changing  to 
this  size,  and  for  our  style  of  cake  it  will  no  doubt  be  the  popular  bag.  If  you  can 
make  32  x 40  bags  in  your  seamless  goods  we  would  be  pleased  to  have  sample  and 
price.  The  advantage  in  use  of  a burlap  bag  made  in  this  country  is  that  we  can  ob- 
tain a custom  rebate  of  about  2 cents  each  when  the  cake  is  exported. 

Yours,  truly, 

M.  BAILEY  & CO. 

Chelsea  Jute  Mills,  New  Yorlc. 

Schedule  F. 

The  reasons  for  the  proposed  changes  are  that  weight  constitutes  value 
to  a great  extent,  and  that  heavy  carpets  should  pay  more  than  light 
ones.  Also,  that  the  method  of  manufacture  should  be  considered ; for 
example,  the  ordinary  j ute  carpet,  the  only  one  which  was  known  in 
this  country  and  in  Europe  at  the  time  the  tariff  upon  it  was  fixed,  is 
worth  in  this  market  about  25  cents  per  yard ; since  that  time  the  Scotch 
manufacturer  has  used  jute  successfully  in  the  manufacture  of  Brussels 
and  other  styles  of  carpets,  and  is  enabled  to  dispose  of  his  Brussels 
carpets  here  at  about  50  cents  per  yard,  because  the  custon  department 
has  ruled  that  the  style  of  manufacture  does  not  alone  make  the  carpet, 
but  the  article  used  has  standing  in  determining  it,  and  thus  the  foreign 
manufacture  is  driving  out  a large  part  of  the  trade  in  ordinary  jute 
carpets. 


J.  Q.  HOWARD.] 


HOME  VALUATIONS. 


593 


J.  Q.  HOWARD. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  22,  1882. 
The  following  letter  of  Mr.  J.  Q.  Howard,  appraiser  at  the  port  of 
New  York,  was  ordered  to  be  printed: 

Port  of  New  York,  Appraiser’s  Office, 

May  14,  1880. 

Sir:  Respectfully  referring  to  department  letter  of  May  5,  requesting  a report  em- 
bodying my  views  upon  the  bill  now  pending  before  the  House  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means,  in  relation  to  the  collection  of  the  revenue  from  customs,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses, I have  the  honor  to  say  that  the  bill  in  question  contemplates  a radical  and 
fundamental  change  in  the  basis  for  the  collection  of  ad  valorem  duties. 

The  bill  is  constructed  on  the  theory  that  the  market  value  of  merchandise  in  the 
principal  markets  of  the  United  States,  at  the  time  of  entry,  can  be  more  easily  and 
more  accurately  ascertained  than  the  market  value  of  such  merchandise  at  the  time 
and  place  of  shipment.  Where  goods  are  procured  by  actual  purchase  abroad,  the 
evidence  of  foreign  market  value  afforded  by  a bona  fide  purchase  and  sale  of  the 
identical  goods  shipped,  would  seem  to  be  better  evidence  of  their  value  than  that 
based  on  opinions  as  to  what  such  goods  could,  would,  or  should  sell  for  in  the  dooiestic 
market,  before  they  are  either  offered  for  sale  or  sold.  If  merchandise  is  procured 
otherwise  than  by  purchase  abroad,  we  have  the  cost  of  manufacture,  among  oth  r 
elements,  to  aid  in  arriving  at  market  value.  By  a comparison  of  invoices  of  like 
merchandise  from  the  same  foreign  district,  or  port,  our  experts  are  able  to  equalize 
valuations  on  invoices  and  raise  the  prices  upon  the  invoice  of  the  dishonest  shipper 
to  the  standard  of  the  prices  on  the  invoice  of  the  honest  exporter.  The  prices  current, 
constant  correspondence,  and  the  assistance  furnished  by  consular  officers,  have,  of 
late  years,  lessened  the  difficulties  of  approximating  closely  to  the  foreign  market 
value  of  all  merchandise  shipped  from  other  ports  of  the  world. 

So  far  as  the  home  market  value  of  staple  goods  is  concerned,  it  would  not  perhaps 
be  very  difficult  to  keep  pace  with  the  gradual  fluctuations  in  the  prices  of  shell  goods 
in  the  principal  market  of  the  United  States.  Many  lines  of  fancy  goods  vary  in 
market  value  in  this  market,  not  only  from  day  to  day,  but  from  hour  to  hour.  The 
amount  in  duty  paid  by  one  merchant,  who  enters  goods  in  the  morning,  would  be 
greater  or  less  than  the  amount  paid  on  the  same  goods  entered  by  another  merchant 
in  the  afternoon.  No  two  merchants  would  be  likely  to  agree  as  to  what  the  market 
value  of  any  particular  article  was  on  any  given  day. 

On  the  question  of  percentage  of  damage  on  damaged  merchandise,  the  best  mer- 
chant experts  at  this  port  have  varied  from  2 to  40  per  cent.  Their  opinions  would, 
of  course,  vary  as  to  market  value.  By  whose  opinion  is  our  expert  to  be  governed? 
Is  he  to  leave  his  desk  and  go  on  the  street  to  learn  the  market  value  of  each  new  lot 
of  goods,  covered  by  each  one  of  the  ninety  invoices  which  he  sometimes  passes  in  a 
single  day,  or  must  each  examiner  be  furnished  with  a messenger  to  be  sent  hourly  to 
ascertain  market  value?  When  an  undeniably  new  fabric  is  imported,  what  is  the 
market  value  of  that  fabric  at  this  port?  And  how  can  that  market  value  be  ascer- 
tained before  the  fabric  is  either  seen  by  the  importer  or  sold?  There  are  certain  lines 
of  merchandise  that  are  controlled  in  this  market  by  three  or  four  houses.  The  market 
value  would  be  whatever  those  few  firms  chose  to  make  it.  If  such  goods  were  taken 
to  the  account  of  the  government  to  be  sold  at  auction,  the  price  at  which  they  would 
sell  would  often  be  controlled  by  two  or  three  houses,  and  where  the  importation  was 
very  large,  in  many  instances  by  a single  house.  In  fact,  it  seems  not  only  probable, 
but  reasonably  certain,  that  if  such  a bill  as  the  one  proposed  should  go  into  effect, 
the  price  of  merchandise  sold  by  the  collector  at  auction  would  be  in  many  instances 
absolutely  controlled  by  ring  combinations  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  the  collector  to 
sell  the  merchandise  at  rates  far  below  the  true  market  value. 

In  appraising  merchandise,  we  are  required  to  consult  the  principal  markets,  not 
the  principal  market  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  determine  market  values.  This 
would  seem  to  require  the  appraiser  not  only  to  be  informed  in  regard  to  the  market 
value  of  thousands  of  articles  of  merchandise  in  the  New  York  market,  but  also  their 
value  in  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and  Boston.  How  is  the  market  value  of  goods  at 
the  other  ports  to  be  obtained  on  the  day  when  a thousand  invoices  are  received,  the  num- 
ber of  invoices  passed  by  this  department  reaching  as  high  as  30,000  in  a single  month  ? 
The  market  value  of  almost  all  merchandise  varies,  more  or  less,  at  different  ports.  If 
less  at  the  smaller  ports,  a less  amount  of  duty  will,  of  course,  be  j>aid  by  impor  - 
ers  at  those  ports;  consequently  injustice  would  be  done  importers  at  the  larger 
ports.  The  efforts  of  one  merchant  to  undersell  another  at  different  ports,  or  at 
the  same  port,  cause  home  market  values  to  bo  a constantly  varying  and  fluctu- 
ating thing.  This  is  especially  true  of  articles,  the  sale  of  which  depends  upon  the 

H.  Mis.  6 38 


594 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


£r.  Q.  HOWARD. 


varying  tastes  and  fashions  of  people  of  fashion.  These  market  values  of  most  goods 
vary  with  the  seasons.  Woolen  goods  are  often  imported  in  August;  for  which  there 
is  no  market  value  until  the  following  fall  or  winter.  Importers  would  he  likely  to 
import  goods  at  the  time  when  their  market  value  is  the  lowest;  that  is  to  say,  when 
summer  goods  would  be  imported  in  winter,  when  there  is  little  or  no  market  for 
them,  and  winter  goods  imported  in  midsummer. 

Many  lines  of  goods,  such  as  carriages  and  furniture,  and  wearing-apparel,  both  old 
and  new,  are  not  sold  at  the  ports  where  imported,  and  consequently  have  no  fixed 
market  value  there.  >■ 

The  difficulty  in  obtaining  the  domestic  market  value  of  most  kinds  of  merchandise 
is  illustrated  by  green  fruits.  Almost  all  kinds  of  green  fruit  are  sold  at  this  port,  at 
auction,  and  the  market  value  in  this  market  is  what  it  brings  at  auction,  which  can- 
not be  ascertained  until  the  auction  is  over  and  the  accounts  are  settled.  In  the  case 
of  all  perishable  goods,  undervaluations,  on  the  part  of  the  importer,  of  from  10  to  30 
per  cent,  would  be  perfectly  safe,  because  no  prudent  collector  would  assume  the  risk 
of  selling  oranges  and  bananas,  daily  deteriorating  in  value,  ten  days  after  importa- 
tion, when  they  might  not  be  worth  more  than  one-tenth  what  they  were  worth  on 
the  day  of  importation. 

When  articles  are  imported  in  a crude  or  unfinished  condition,  they  are  of  little  or 
no  value,  except  to  those  for  whom  they  are  imported.  Of  this  class  are  portions  of 
machinery  and  patented  articles.  We  are  now  receiving,  for  example,  importations 
of  kid  gloves,  cut  and  made  especially  for  the  “ Foster  fastening,”  which  is  applied 
here.  These  gloves  are  useless  to  the  general  trade,  in  the  condition  in  which  they 
are  imported,  and  the  patentees  are  the  only  parties  who  can  put  them  in  marketable 
condition.  They  would  not  have,  under  the  law  proposed,  any  dutiable  value,  as 
they  have  no  market  value  in  the  condition  in  which  they  are  imported. 

The  interminable  calculations  that  would  be  necessary  to  arrive  at  the  exact  home 
value  of  merchandise,  less  the  duty  imposed  upon  it  by  our  present  tariff,  present  in- 
superable objections  to  the  first  section  of  the  bill  under  consideration.  This  difficulty 
will  be  apparent  in  the  case  of  an  invoice  of  dress  goods,  varying  in  quality  and  width, 
a portion  being  21  inches  wide,  worth  20^  cents  per  yard  ; some  24  inches  wide,  worth 
32  cents  per  yards ; and  a part  27  inches  wide,  worth  16  cents  per  yard.  The  duties 
upon  this  class  of  goods  are,  “if  not  exceeding  20  cents  per  square  yard,”  6 cents  per 
squareyard,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  percentum  ad  valorem  ; valued  at  above  20  cents 
per  square  yard,  8 cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  40  per  centum  ad 
valorem.  The  same  difficulties  exist  in  relation  to  cotton  goods,  metals,  wools,  and 
woolens,  and  all  other  articles  subject  to  a mixed  rate  of  duty.  An  increased  clerical 
force,  with  mathematical  ability  of  the  highest  order,  would  not  prevent  aggravating 
delays  in  the  classification  of  such  merchandise. 

If  the  main  principle  embodied  in  the  first  section  of  the  “ proposed  bill  ” is  unsound, 
the  remaiuing  sections  of  the  bill  fall  with  it,  and  need  not  be  at  length  discussed. 

Section  2,  I may  say,  however,  re-enacts  one  of  the  worst  features  of  the  existing 
law,  a law  which  no  district  attorney  has  had  the  audacity  to  enforce  in  the  United 
States,  and  which  is  practically  a “dead  letter.” 

Section  16  of  the  bill  sounds  like  the  production  of  an  inspirational  medium,  so  de- 
void is  it  of  the  practical,  equitable,  common-sense  elements  which  should  control  a 
government  in  dealing  with  its  citizens.  It  is  a sound  principle  that  a man  should 
not  be  compelled  to  pay  a duty  or  tax  upon  what  he  never  receives.  What  he  receives 
in  an  absolutely  worthless  condition,  he  does  not  in  any  proper  sense  receive  at  all. 
The  government,  therefore,  should  not  add  to  the  calamity  of  a loss  of  merchandise 
the  infliction  of  a tax  upon  the  merchandise  lost.  Under  this  section,  if  an  importer 
receives  100  cases  of  oranges,  40  of  which  are  rotten  and  worthless;  or  100  cases  of 
window  glass,  the  glass  in  45  of  which  cases  is  broken  and  worthless,  a rebate  of  duty 
should  be  refused  on  this  worthless  merchandise,  which,  in  reality,  has  never  been 
imported,  unless  the  importer  abandons  all  his  goods  to  the  government.  There  is  a 
manifest  inconsistency  between  section  16  and  section  12  of  this  bill,  for  the  reason 
that  it  is  immaterial  to  the  merchant  where  his  goods  are  destroyed,  whether  on  the 
voyage  of  importation,  or  after  the  voyage  ended ; the  fact  of  their  destruction  being 
the  only  material  point  in  the  case. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  say  that  section  14,  which  provides  for  the  abolition  of  petty 
fees,  is  the  only  section  of  the  bill  which  meets  with  the  hearty  approval  of  all  the 
principal  officers  in  this  department.  The  exaction  of  petty  fees,  which  involves  au 
additional  tax  on  imports,  and  a tax,  also,  upon  goods  free  by  law,  is  an  annoyance 
and  au  abuse  which  ought  to  be  speedily  removed. 

With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  Q.  HOWARD, 

Appraiser. 

Hon.  John  Sherman, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C. 


H.  0.  HOUGHTON.] 


AMERICAN  PUBLICATIONS. 


595 


H.  O.  HOUGHTON". 


Boston,  Mass.,  August  22, 1882. 

Mr.  H.  O.  Houghton,  of  the  firm  of  Houghton,  Mifflin  & Co.,  pub- 
lishers, Boston,  Mass.,  submitted  the  following  statement: 

I merely  desire  to  say  that  I trust  the  tariff  on  books  will  not  be 
changed,  unless  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a specific  duty.  If  this  can  be 
done,  and  the  rates  properly  adjusted,  it  would  be  a great  gain  in  the 
way  of  preventing  improper  entries. 

The  reasons  why  I think  the  duty  is  low  enough  now,  and  that  it 
would  be  a great  injury  to  our  business  to  have  it  reduced,  are  the  fol- 
lowing: In  making  the  stereotype  plates  of  a book,  I took  occasion 

some  years  ago  to  estimate  carefully  the  proportion  of  manual  labor  to 
the  whole  cost  of  the  manufactured  product,  and  my  recollection  is  that 
it  was  90  per  cent  of  the  whole  cost  of  the  plates ; and  I think  I could 
demonstrate  readily  that  I made  no  substantial  error  in  that  estimate. 
Labor  of  the  kind  employed  in  this  business  when  I was  in  England, 
in  1864,  was  about  one-third  of  what  we  then  paid  for  it  here.  I did 
not  make  so  careful  an  investigation  last,  year,  when  I was  abroad  again, 
but  from  what  I made  I should  judge  that  labor  employed  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  books  was  about  half  the  cost  in  England  of  what  it  is  in 
this  country.  In  machinery  we  equal,  if  we  do  not  in  some  respects  ex- 
cel, the  English,  and  if  there  were  not  so  large  an  element  of  hand- 
labor  in  the  production  of  books  in  this  country  we  should  be  able  to 
get  on  with  a less  tariff. 

Everything  that  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  a book,  and  in  that 
respect  is  raw  material,  is  subjected  to  a higher  or  as  high  a duty  as 
manufactured  books,  viz,  paper,  boards,  and  cloth.  The  latter,  notwith- 
standing the  high  duty  now  fixed  upon  it,  is  chiefly  imported,  as  the 
manufacturers  in  this  country  have  never  been  able  successfully  to  com- 
pete with  the  foreign  manufacturer. 

There  is  another,  and  to  my  mind  a more  important,  reason  why  the 
duty  on  manufactured  books  should  be  maintained,  and  that  is,  that 
authors  are  likely  to  reside  at  the  centers  of  the  manufacture  of  books. 
If  the  duty  were  removed,  the  manufacture  of  books  for  this  market 
would  largely  be  in  Germany  and  in  England.  This  would  compel  the 
residence  of  even  American  authors,  to  a very  large  extent,  abroad.  We 
all  know  how  much  any  person  is  influenced  by  the  locality  in  which  he 
resides,  and  this  fact  cannot  fail  to  show  itself  in  the  character  of  the 
books  written  by  such  authors.  The  readers  of  books  in  this  country 
are  very  largely  young  persons,  and  our  institutions,  both  political  and 
religious,  and  our  modes  of  thought  are  radically  different  from  those 
abroad.  The  effect,  therefore,  of  removing  this  duty  would  be,  prim arily, 
the  manufacture  of  American  books  abroad;  secondarily,  their  teaching 
principles  of  politics  and  religion  and  modes  of  thought  alien  to  the 
theory  of  our  institutions. 

To  show  what  the  effect  of  a high  duty  on  the  article  of  paper,  which 
enters  so  largely  into  the  production  of  a book,  has  been,  I beg  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  ordinary  book  paper  before  the  war  was 


596 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  O.  HOUGHTON. 


12J  cents  per  pound,  and  in  the  early  part  of  the  war  the  duty  was  from 
25  to  35  per  cent. ; notwithstanding  which  fact,  a good  deal  of  paper 
was  imported  at  that  time.  However,  the  duty  has  effectually  protected 
the  manufacture  of  paper  here,  and  the  result  now  is  that  we  have  a 
better  quality  of  paper  than  is  made  in  England,  and  the  price  of  or- 
dinary book  paper  which  was  12 J cents  in  I860  is  now  7 J to  10,  so  that 
the  consumers  have  largely  derived  the  advantage  of  the  extreme  pro- 
tection, if  you  please  to  call  it  so,  of  paper-makers. 


J.  U.  SARGENT.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


597 


J.  B.  SARGENT. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  22,  1882. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Sargent,  of  New  Haven,  Conn.,  a manufacturer  of  shelf 
hardware,  appeared  and  made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  : An  active  business  experience  of  nearly  forty  years, 
thirty  of  which  have  been  occupied  in  manufacturing,  a fair  actual 
acquaintance  with,  and  knowledge  of,  the  natural  resources  of  this 
country  and  of  most  of  the  countries  of  Europe,  an  examination  and 
comparison  of  the  methods  of  the  United  States  and  European  manu- 
facturers and  their  respective  facilities,  advantages,  and  disadvantages, 
has  convinced  me  that  the  United  States  of  America  is  fully  capable  of 
taking  and  maintaining  an  independent  position  as  a manufacturing 
nation,  and  that  her  manufacturers,  if  left  to  fight  their  own  battles 
against  all  comers,  in  a free-trade  field,  need  no  protection  whatever 
against  foreign  manufacturers. 

The  fact  that  they  are  nov  able  to  sell,  to  some  little  extent,  their 
manufactured  goods  in  neutral  countries  against  the  competition  of  the 
manufacturers  of  Europe,  is  evidence  of  what  they  might  do  if  relieved 
of  the  incubus  of  an  enormous  customs  tax  on  the  foreign  raw  materials 
they  use,  and  the  correspondingly  high  price  of  American  raw  mate- 
rials that  they  are  compelled  to  use. 

Under  our  tariff  system,  which  is  called  “the  protective  system,”  an 
attempt  is  made  from  time  to  time  to  adjust  the  duty  on  the  various 
articles  of  foreign  manufacture  to  conform  to  the  supposed  necessities 
of  the  American  manufacturer  of  similar  articles,  and  as  the  duty  on 
one  article  is  raised  to  meet  the  necessities,  or  more  likely  to  protect  the 
ignorance  and  unthrift  of  the  American  manufacturer,  other  manufac- 
turers, imagining  that  the  cost  of  making  their  own  goods,  or  the  cost 
of  the  living  of  themselves  and  their  employes  has  been  increased  by  this 
advance  in  the  tariff,  combine  and  obtain  an  advance  in  the  tariff  on 
the  classes  of  goods  made  by  them. 

Then  the  producers  of  the  raw  material  think  there  is  an  opportunity 
for  them. to  get  the  duty  on  their  products  raised  (the  order  of  proceed- 
ings is  sometimes  reversed),  and  so  the  figures  have  climbed  upward, 
by  a step  here  and  another  there,  and  then  a good  pull  altogether,  till 
we  have  built  a tariff  wall  around  us  that  not  only  keeps  nearly  all 
foreign  raw  material  and  manufactured  goods  out  of  the  country,  but 
keeps  nearly  all  of  our  manufactured  goods  at  home,  and  so  circum- 
scribes our  market,  dwarfs  American  commerce,  and  suppresses  nearly 
all  possible  material  for  commerce,  except  the  products  of  our  soil  that 
may  be  wanted  abroad.  Is  it  not  time  now  that  we  all  take  a few  long 
steps  downward — nearer  terra  firma — and  get  into  a condition  to  have 
a foreign  commerce? 

This  country  is  so  rich  in  fertile  lands,  on  which  can  be  cheaply  raised  all 
kinds  of  produce  necessary  for  the  sustenance  of  man  and  beast,  and  all 
the  raw  materials  necessary  for  clothing,  it  is  so  rich  in  the  ores  of  all  the 
useful  metals  and  in  the  coal  to  convert  them,  that  surely  no  product  of 
the  soil,  nor  of  animals  supported  on  the  product  of  the  soil,  nor  mineral 


598 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  8 ARGENT. 


ore,  nor  metal  from  tlie  ore,  can  need  the  protection  of  a revenue  tariff. 
These  raw  materials  are  placed  by  a kind  Providence  almost  in  the  pro- 
ducer’s hands,  and  fortunate  should  they  esteem  themselves  who  have, 
at  so  little  cost,  become  the  owners  of  the  fertile  lands  and  rich  mines 
from  which  these  raw  materials  are  so  easily  obtained. 

The  workingman  certainly  needs  no  protection  on  his  labor,  provided 
he  can  get  his  food  and  clothing  and  all  the  articles  that  enter  into  the 
subsistence  of  himself  and  family  free  from  the  high  prices  influenced  or 
induced  by  a high  tariff,  and  even  if  he  does  need  protection  he  cannot 
get  it,  because  if  the  laborer  tries  to  make  a “ corner”  in  the  price  of 
labor,  importations  of  foreign  labor  come  in  without  limit  and  duty  free. 
There  is  n#  revenue  tariff  to  protect  the  wages  of  the  mechanic,  the  clerk, 
and  the  workingman. 

With  raw  materials  free  of  duty,  labor  free  of  duty,  and  freights  and 
other  expenses  on  a free- trade  basis,  the  manufacturer  will  need  no  pro- 
tective tariff,  but,  I am  sure,  can  not  only  hold  all  he  ought  to  hold  of 
the  home  market  but  obtain  a large  share  of  the  foreign  markets. 

It  is  true  that  with  free  trade  some  unhealthy  manufacturing  plants, 
where  an  unwise  attempt  has  been  made  to  manufacture  some  particular 
article  that  can  be  manufactured  in  this  country  only  at  great  disadvan- 
tage, or  that  can  be  manufactured  in  some  other  country  under  great  and 
peculiar  advantages,  must  wilt;  but  it  is  better  for  the  country  that  the 
few  such  schemes  unwisely  projected  should  fail  than  that  all  the  people 
should  forever  be  taxed  to  support  those  manufacturing  establishments 
that  must  inevitaby  be  operated  at  a great  disadvantage  as  compared 
with  similar  establishments  under  more  favoring  circumstances  in  other 
countries.  No  one  country  should  try  to  produce  and  manufacture 
•everything  it  needs.  If  that  were  possible  and  were  carried  into  effect, 
there  would  be  no  commerce  and  no  peaceful  inter-communication  among 
nations  and  peoples. 

Since  the  decline  in  prices  in  and  following  the  “ panic”  of  1873,  when 
the  price  of  raw  materials  went  down  with  the  price  of  manufactured 
goods,  manufacturers  needed  no  protection  till  the  later  advance  in  raw 
materials.  Following  that  “panic”  the  exports  of  manufactured  goods 
became  quite  important  in  amount  and  fairly  profitable  to  the  manufac- 
turers till  the  beginning  of  the  “corner”  in  iron,  called  the  “boom,” 
When,  by  the  manipulations  of  the  iron  men  combined  with  the  specu- 
lators, protected  and  aided  by  a high  tariff*,  a “corner”  was  made  in  iron, 
running  up  the  price  here  to  more  than  twice  the  price  in  Europe,  and 
To  nearly  three  times  the  average  price  in  that  market.  Other  raw  ma- 
terials and  merchandise,  and  the  cost  of  living,  fell  into  line  in  this 
•country,  and  as  a-consequence  the  exportation  of  manufactured  goods 
almost  ceased. 

By  combinations  and  division  of  business  among  the  producers  of  pig 
iron,  bar  iron,  steel,  and  other  metal  products,  by  lock-outs  and  fomen- 
tations of  protracted  strikes,  and  by  the  help  of  a tariff  of  from  50  to 
250  per  cent.,  all  the  metals  and  the  immediate  products  of  metals  that 
are  produced  in  this  country  are  nearly  twice  as  high  here  as  in  Europe. 
How  can  it  be  expected  that  American  manufacturers  should  be  able  to 
sell  their  goods  in  foreign  countries  when  their  raw  materials  costs  so 
much  more  than  their  English  and  German  competitors  pay  for  the 
same 

The  present  fictitious  prices  of  pig  and  bar  iron  in  this  country  enable 
plants  that  are  worked  1)3'  old  expensive  processes,  and  with  machinery 
all  out  of  date,  to  make  large  profits,  and  those  establishments  for  the 
production  of  pig  iron,  bar  iron,  steel,  and  copper,  that  have  good 


J.  B.  S ARGENT.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


599 


modern  improvements,  pile  np  immense  and  illegitimate  gains  out  of 
the  productive  energy  of  the  country  and  the  people,  who  are  enslaved, 
in  this  respect,  by  the  present  protective  tariff. 

With  the  price  of  American  copper  in  this  country  five  cents  per 
pound  higher  than  in  England  and  Germany,  how  can  the  American 
manufacturer  of  brass  goods  export  them  in  competition  with  English 
and  German  manufacturers? 

There  was  a short  time  when  American  manufacturers  could  buy 
American  copper  in  London  at  the  London  market-price  and  import  it, 
free  of  duty,  as  a product  of  the  United  States,  and  in  original  pack- 
ages, but  the  protected  copper  miners  and  smelters  discovered  the  plan, 
and  European  consumption  must  now  be  guaranteed  by  the  foreign 
buyer  of  American  copper  as  a part  of  the  bargain.  And  so  the  Amer- 
ican manufacturer  is  protected  five  cents  per  pound  out  of  pocket  on 
what  is  used  in  this  country,  and  he  is  substantially  estopped  from 
manufacturing  copper  or  brass  goods  for  export. 

The  immigration  into  the  United  States  is  so  large,  and  is  so  largely 
composed  of  mechanics,  either  skilled  or  unskilled,  and  of  laborers, 
who  rapidly  become,  first  unskilled  and  then  skilled  mechanics,  and 
crowd  into  factories,  that  it  is  important  to  make  employment  for  them 
by  an  increase  of  manufactures.  There  is  already  a surplus  of  manu- 
facturing establishments  in  most  branches,  if  confined  to  the  wants  of 
the  home  market  at  the  necessarily  prevailing  present  high  prices, 
based  on  protected  raw  materials : and  but  little  export  business  can 
be  done,  except  in  a few  novelties  and  specialties,  in  competition  with 
foreign  manufacturers  using  duty-free  raw  materials. 

We  should  contrive  some  way  in  which  to  reduce  prices,  not  only  for 
export,  but  for  consumers  in  the  United  States. 

A reduction  of  prices  would  largely  increase  consumption  at  home 
and  for  export,  would  employ  a largely  increased  number  of  mechanics, 
laborers,  agents,  and  clerks,  and  would  immensely  increase  the  con- 
sumption of  raw  materials.  Prices  being  lower  in  all  departments,  the 
producers  of  raw  material  would  be  able,  not  only  to  make  a legitimate 
percentage  of  profit,  but,  as  I believe,  would  in  the  aggregate  make 
larger  permanent  gains  than  under  a high  protective  system. 

A sudden  change  from  a high  tariff  to  free  trade  would  be  likely  to 
unsettle  prices  so  suddenly  as  to  create  commercial  disturbance,  al- 
though the  country  at  large,  and  all  companies,  firms,  and  individuals 
not  burdened  with  debt,  would  be  as  rich  with  prices  low  as  with  prices 
high  ; for  it  is  the  amount  of  property  that  indicates  a country’s  or  an 
individual’s  wealth,  and  not  the  temporary  or  fictitious  valuation  of 
it  measured  by  the  fictitious  valuation  of  other  property.  A house  that 
shelters  the  family  of  the  workingman  shelters  his  family  exactly  as 
well  at  a low  solid  valuation  as  at  a high  fictitious  valuation,  and  his 
taxes  are  likely  to  be  less.  The  manufacturer’s  plant  will  produce 
quite  as  many  goods  at  alow  valuation  of  the  plant  as  at  a high  valua- 
tion, and  if  low  cost  of  production  and  low  selling  prices  increase  de- 
mand, as  is  the  law  of  business,  then  he  will  have  need  to  increase  his 
plant  and  employ  more  labor. 

Therefore,  to  the  end  that  manufactures  may  be  increased,  that  the  de- 
mand for  American  raw  materials  may  be  increased,  and  that  skilled, 
unskilled,  and  common  labor  may  be  fully  and  permanently  employed, 
and  the  cost  of  subsistence  of  all  classes  reduced,  I respectfully  ask 
you  to  recommend  to  Congress  that  the  tariff  laws  be  so  amended  that 
(excepting  articles  which,  if  of  United  States  production,  would  pay  an 
excise  or  internal- revenue  duty)  nothing  shall  pay  a duty  of  over  25 


600 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  SARGENT. 


per  cent,  on  the  value  at  the  last  place  of  export,  and  that  the  tariff  on 
all  articles  not  now  paying  so  much  as  25  per  cent,  shall  remain  as  now  ; 
provided,  however,  that  after  the  amount  of  duty  shall  have  been  as- 
sessed on  the  imported  merchandise  at  the  proper  rate  as  above  stated, 
and  the  account  made  up  for  the  respective  classes  (if  at  more  than 
one  rate  of  duty),  a sum  equal  to  the  legitimate,  proper,  and  actual 
freight  paid,  or  to  be  paid,  on  said  merchandise  Irom  the  foreign  ship- 
ping port  to  the  United  States  port  of  landing,  shall  be  deducted  from 
the  sum  of  the  duties,  and  the  importer  shall  pay  the  remainder  only ; 
and  provided  further,  that  nothing  in  this  amendment  shall  release  the 
importer  from  paying  the  customary  and  lawful  charges,  fees,  and  costs 
as  heretofore. 

I am  aware  that  under  this  provision  very  coarse  articles  of  raw  ma- 
terial, such  as  iron  ore,  would  be  duty  free,  as  they  ought  to  be.  I am 
also  aware  that  the  coarser  the  article,  and  the  nearer  to  the  condition 
of  crude  raw  material,  or  in  other  words  the  less  the  labor  upon  the 
article  the  nearer  the  free  list.  But  in  this  way,  the  avowed  object  of 
a protective  tariff',  the  protection  of  American  labor,  would  be  more 
nearly  gained,  as  the  further  advanced  the  article  is  by  the  hand  of  la- 
bor the  greater  is  the  percentage  of  the  value  of  the  labor  m the  arti- 
cle over  the  percentage  of  the  value  when  taken  in  its  crude  condition 
from  nature. 

The  freight  to  this  country  from  the  place  of  production  in  the  foreign 
country  is  all  the  protection  that  should  be  asked  for  articles  of  raw 
material  produced  here.  There  can  be  no  difficulty  in  arriving  at  the 
correct  amount  of  freight  from  a foreign  port,  as  the  customary  rate  is 
usually  well  known.  It  may  be  sworn  to,  and  a consul’s  certificate  may 
be  required  as  in  the  valuation  of  the  merchandise  at  a foreign  port  of 
shipment. 

Until  the  cost  of  raw  materials  and  manufactured  goods  in  the  United 
States  can  be  reduced,  all  attempts  to  build  up  a respectable  United 
States  commercial  marine  will  be  futile.  Under  existing  circumstances, 
it  is  folly  to  talk  of  steamship  lines  running  direct  between  the  United 
States  and  Australia,  between  the  United  States  and  South  America,  or 
between  the  United  States  and  any  other  purely  agricultural  country. 
We  might  buy  the  steamships  in  Europe,  but  we  cannot  furnish  the  outward 
cargo  of  manufactured  goods.  Under  existing  circumstances,  Europe 
must  furnish  the  outward  cargo  to  be  exchanged  for  the  wools,  hides, 
woods,  gums,  coffees,  and  other  agricultural  products  of  those  countries, 
bring  to  the  United  States  what  of  those  products  are  needed  here,  and 
take  in  exchange  American  agricultural  produce  for  Europe.  Very  few 
United  States  manufactured  goods  enter  into  this  commerce,  and  the 
few  that  do  must  go  via  Europe.  The  starting  point  in  the  circular  or 
triangular  trip  must  be  the  free-trade  or  low-tariff  country  that  can  fur- 
nish the  manufactured  goods  at  the  requisite  price. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  You  have  stated  that  certain  manufactured  articles  are 
being  exported  from  the  United  States;  can  you  enumerate  those  arti- 
cles?— Answer.  We  exported  quite  a large  variety  of  hardware  at  one 
time,  even  to  Germany  and  to  England — builders’  hardware. 

Q.  Also  textile  fabrics? — A.  I am  not  so  familiar  with  those.  I am 
a manufacturer  of  shelf  hardware.  I employ  under  my  own  supervision 
in  that  business  fully  1,500  hands,  and  I have  to  meet  as  severe  a com- 
petition, probably,  as  exists  in  any  line  from  the  manufacturers  in  Bir- 
mingham and  in  Germany. 


J.  B.  SAKGENT.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


601 


Q.  Has  there  ever  been  a time  since  you  began  manufacturing  those 
articles  when  they  were  not  more  or  less  protected  by  our  tariff? — A. 
They  have  been  protected  more  or  less  all  the  time. 

Q.  Could  you  have  attained  the  excellence  you  have  attained  in  the 
manufacture  of  those  articles,  which  enables  you  to  ship  them  to  Europe 
in  competition  with  manufacturers  there,  if  there  had  not  been  a pro- 
tective tariff? — A.  lam  inclined  to  think  we  could.  Whenever  there 
has  been  a high  tariff  on  the  raw  materials,  that  has  been  an  injury  to 
the  trade. 

Q.  But  my  question  is  whether  you  would  have  been  able,  without 
any  protection  from  the  time  you  started  up  to  the  present  day,  to  have 
attained  such  excellence  in  the  manufacture  of  those  articles  as  to  have 
been  enabled  to  ship  them  profitably  to  a European  market? — A.  That 
is  a very  difficult  question  to  answer.  My  own  opinion,  however,  is 
that  we  should  have  begun  to  export  earlier  than  we  have  done. 

Q.  Then  you  think  that  you  would  have  prospered  more  without  a 
tariff  than  with  one? — A.  I think  we  should,  with  free  trade  in  the  raw 
materials  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  You  have  laid  down  the  proposition  here  that  no  nation  ought  to 
desire  or  try  to  manufacture  everything  it  needs  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  remark  applicable  to  the  United  States,  where 
we  have  every  variety  of  climate  and  soil,  extending  north  and  south 
from  Maine  to  Texas,  and  east  and  west  from  ocean  to  ocean?  Writh 
such  a vast  and  varied  territory  and  such  great  variety  of  soil  and 
climate,  why  should  we  not  desire  to  make  everything  we  want ; and 
does  jour  proposition  really  apply  to  this  country? — A.  I think  it  does 
apply  to  the  United  States,  for  this  reason : There  are  a great  many 
articles  which  enter  into  commerce  which,  if  made  in  every  country, 
must  be  made  in  so  small  quantities  as  to  be  made  at  a great  disadvan- 
tage. At  the  same  time,  there  are  in  each  nation  peculiar  advantages 
for  the  manufacture  of  certain  articles,  so  that  some  articles  can  be 
made  in  almost  every  country  cheaper  than  in  any  other.  The  manu- 
facture of  crockery  ware  and  pottery,  for  example,  may  be  carried  on, 
perhaps,  to  better  advantage  in  New  Jersey  than  in  other  places  where 
the  raw  material  is  not  so  easily  obtained,  or  where  fuel  is  higher  in 
price. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I am  asking  these  questions  for  information, 
because  your  point  is  a new  one  to  me.  I have  been  an  agriculturist 
all  my  life ; I have  always  been  told  that  it  was  better  to  make  every- 
thing I required  for  consumption  than  to  buy  it ; and,  therefore,  I sup- 
posed that  your  proposition  was  not  applicable  to  a country  like  ours. 
I can  understand  how  it  would  be  true  of  Switzerland  or  Portugal,  or 
any  other  small  country  of  limited  extent  and  resources,  but  I do  not 
see  how  it  applies  here. 

The  Witness.  It  is  a law  of  business,  well  known  among  manufac- 
turers, that,  no  matter  how  large  the  plant  of  any  one  manufacturer 
may  be,  it  is  better  for  them  to  subdivide  the  work  among  them  and 
give  to  each  manufacturer  the  making  of  a particular  class  of  goods. 
The  brass  mills  make  brass  and  nothing  else.  It  is  better  that  all 
manufacturers  should  confine  themselves  to  one  branch,  or  to  a few 
branches  of  manufacture,  provided  there  is  business  enough  of  that 
kind  to  be  done.  It  is  better,  even,  that  manufacturers  should  buy 
partially  manufactured  supplies  from  some  neighboring  manufacturer, 
or  even  from  another  country,  rather  than  try  to  make  everything 
themselves. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Yes j I understand  that  principle.  I know 


602 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


|J.  B.  SARGENT. 


that  it  is  better  for  a man  to  buy  his  shoes  than  to  attempt  to  make  them, 
if  he  is  a professional  man,  or  if  his  trade  is  that  of  a tailor ; but  the 
question  here  is  whether  we  had  better  buy  from  a neighbor  or  from  a 
distant  party  in  a foreign  land.  You  have  said  that  the  manufactures 
of  the  North  would  be  able  to  exist  on  their  own  basis  without  any 
tariff  protection,  but  do  you  think  the  same  is  true  of  the  manufactures 
of  the  South,  which  are  merely  beginning? 

The  Witness.  I did  not  say  the  manufactures  of  the  North;  I said 
the  manufactures  of  the  country. 

Commissioner  Kenxer.  Well,  that  means,  practically,  the  manu- 
factures of  the  North,  for  it  is  only  at  the  North  that  manufacturing 
has  been  established  to  any  great  extent  up  to  this  time. 

The  Witness.  The  manufactures  of  the  South  need  protection,  if 
they  need  any  at  all,  not  against  European  manufacturers,  but  against 
the  manufacturers  of  the  North.  The  manufacturers  of  the  North  will 
be  very  much  severer  competitors  with  the  manufacturers  of  the  South 
than  those  of  Europe  ever  can  be. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Why  ? 

The  Witness.  For  the  reason  that  we  are  nearer  to  the  customers 
of  the  Southern  manufacturer  than  any  European  manufacturer  is;  we 
can  supply  them  quicker;  we  can  keep  informed  of  the  wants  of  the 
Southern  consumer,  and  adapt  our  manufactures  to  those  wants  very 
much  more  easily  and  quickly  than  the  manufacturers  of  Europe  can 
possibly  do. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Are  we  commercially  nearer  the  South  than 
Europe  is?  Of  course  we  are  nearer  as  to  time  and  as  to  miles,  but 
are  we  in  fact  commercially  nearer?  Are  freights  less,  or  more,  be- 
tween Europe  and  the  bulk  of  our  Southern  country  than  between  the 
Eorth  and  the  same  region? 

The  Witness.  They  certainly  would  be  less  between  the  North  and 
the  South  if  we  had  free  trade  in  ships. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Why? 

The  Witness.  Because  the  voyage  from  New  York  to  Charleston  or 
Savannah,  or  the  voyage  down  the  Mississippi  Biver  from  Pittsburgh 
or  Saint  Louis,  is  very  much  safer,  quicker,  and  cheaper  than  the  voyage 
from  Europe. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  is  to  say,  certain  favored  points  in  the 
North  are  nearer  to  the  South. 

The  Witness.  Those  are  the  points  from  which  the  South  would  be 
likely  to  draw  its  supples.  The  manufacturers  of  the  North,  let  me 
say,  would  be  glad  to  see  manufacturing  establishments  grow  up  in  the 
South.  There  is  no  feeling  of  rivalry  among  Northern  manufacturers 
toward  the  manufacturers  of  the  South — certainly  none  in  the  branch 
that  I am  engaged  in,  nor,  I think,  generally;  because  everything  in  the 
South,  or  in  the  West,  that  tends  to  increase  the  industries,  and  the 
popula  ion  and  the  wealth  of  those  portions  of  the  country,  necessarily 
increases  their  demand  for  our  manufactured  goods. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I understood  you  to  say  that  the  real  cause  of 
your  being  unable  to  compete  with  the  world  in  your  particular  line  of 
goods  is,  in  your  judgment,  the  tariff  on  raw  materials. 

The  Witness.  That  is  the  cause  in  part.  Another  cause  is  the  higher 
price  of  labor  in  this  country,  caused  by  the  higher  cost  of  living. 

Commisioner  Ambler.  You  say  “ caused  by  the  higher  cost  of  living.” 
Do  you  mean  by  that  a higher  cost  for  the  same  grade  of  living. 

The  Witness.  I think  so. 


J.  B.  SARGENT.! 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


603 


Commissioner  Ambler.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  our  working  people  gen- 
erally live  much  better  than  working  people  in  European  countries? 

The  Witness.  Well,  I cannot  admit  that  tlie  workingmen  of  this  coun- 
try universally  live  better  than  the  workingmen  of  Europe. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  would  be,  perhaps,  asking  too  much.  I 
did  not  say  universally,  X said  generally. 

The  Witness.  Well,  I have  been  a good  deal  among  the  working 
classes  of  England  and  Germany,  and  although  in  some  respects  they 
live  more  poorly  than  our  working  people,  still,  in  all  that  are  by  them 
esteemed  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life,  they  do  live  generally 
as  well  as  the  workingmen  of  this  country. 

Commisioner  Ambler.  You  say  11  by  them  esteemed  the  necessaries.” 
I do  not  quite  catch  your  idea. 

The  Witness.  For  instance,  they  do  not  care  for  carpets  over  there, 
as  our  working  people  do. 

Commisioner  Avibler.  They  don’t  care  for  meat  over  there,  either, 
as  our  workingmen  do. 

The  Witness.  No. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Do  you  mean  that  they  do  care  for  it,  or  that 
they  do  not  get  it? 

The  Witness.  They  do  not  get  it. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Don’t  you  suppose  that  the  workingmen  of 
Europe  would  like  to  get  meat  if  they  could  ? 

The  Witness.  Well,  they  do  get  it,  but  they  are  more  economical  in 
the  consumption  of  meat  than  our  people. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Is  not  that  economy  forced  upon  them  ? 

The  Witness.  I don’t  know  whether  it  is  or  not,  but  such  has  been 
the  habit  of  the  people  there  from  time  immemorial.  Even  in  agricul- 
tural countries  in  Europe,  among  the  peasantry,  where  there  are  no  manu- 
factures, meats  are  scarce  and  higher  than  they  are  here,  and  so  are 
all  kinds  of  animals — horses  for  instance.  That  is,  perhaps,  largely  due 
to  the  devastation  produced  by  European  wars  and  the  vast  number  of 
animals  used  by  the  standing  armies  of  Europe. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  say  you  are  engaged  in  manufacturing 
hardware  largely  in  New  Haven? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  originally  imported  such  goods  at  New 
York,  I believe  ? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  we  have  scarcely  ever  imported  anything. 
We  have  dealt  always  in  American  manufactures. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  have  spoken  of  American  manufacturers, 
when  prices  were  low,  exporting  goods  to  England  ; don’t  you  consider 
that  the  reason  they  were  able  to  export  those  lines  of  goods  was  that 
we  had  better  mechanics  and  better  machinery  in  this  country,  and 
that  the  reason  we  had  better  machinery  was  because  the  necessity  for 
it  existed  here  on  account  of  the  higher  price  of  labor? 

The  Witness.  I have  no  doubt  that  in  most  lines  of  manufacture  we 
have  better  machinery. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  average  European  wages  does  not  exceed 
50  or  GO  or  75  cents  a day,  so  that  the  necessity  for  improved  machinery 
is  much  less  there  than  it  is  here;  but  in  this  country,  where  the  price 
of  labor  is  so  high,  the  necessity  for  improved  machinery  was  found  to 
exist,  and  you  New  England  people  created  it,  did  you  not? 

The  Witness.  We  have  created  a good  deal  of  it. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  With  labor  as  cheap  as  it  is  in  Germany,  one 
or  two  marks  a day,  or  as  cheap  as  it  is  in  England,  two  shillings  or 


604 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  SARGENT. 


two  shillings  and  a half,  would  the  improved  machinery  that  you  now 
possess  have  been  created? 

The  Witness.  I think  it  would.  I think,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
composite  character  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  has  had  a great 
deal  to  do  with  that  matter. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  was  not  the  great  incentive  to  the  rapid 
improvement  of  machinery  the  high  price  of  labor?  Was  not  that  the 
main  inducement,  originally,  to  incur  the  expense  of  making  such  im- 
provements? 

The  Witness.  It  is  due  to  competition  not  only  with  Europe  but 
among  ourselves.  It  is  the  interest  of  every  manufacturer,  and  always 
will  be,  to  improve  his  machinery. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Was  it  not  the  possession  of  this  improved 
machinery,  together  with  originality  of  design,  which  enabled  you  to 
export  those  lines  of  builders’  hardware  of  which  you  have  spoken? 

The  Witness.  In  part. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Did  you  not  find  that  when  you  did  export 
those  goods  the  European  manufacturers  began  imitating  them? 

The  Witness.  Not  very  much.  They  do  take  up  our  patterns  some- 
times and  imitate  them. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  As  a manufacturer  you  favor  a gradual  re- 
duction of  duties  to  15  or  20  per  cent.  You  are  manufacturing  in  Con- 
necticut ; now  is  not  your  labor  there  very  much  cheaper  than  it  is  in- 
land, in  Cleveland  or  Chicago,  for  example? 

The  Witness.  I don’t  tbink  it  is. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Don’t  you  get  advantage  of  the  cheaper  labor 
as  it  comes  to  the  seaboard  ? 

The  Witness.  I think  not. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  is  the  general  opinion  throughout  the  coun- 
try that  labor  is  lower  near  the  seaboard  than  it  is  in  the  interiqr,  on  ac- 
count of  the  great  yearly  supply  from  immigration. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  think  it  is  lower  here.  A very  large  propor- 
tion of  the  immigration  goes  immediately  to  the  West. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  you  have  the  first  chance  at  it.  Is  not 
the  average  rate  of  wages  lower  in  New  Haven  than  it  is  in  Cleveland, 
Cincinnati,  or  Saint  Louis,  which  are  all  hardware  manufacturing  points  ? 

The  Witness.  I think  not.  It  is  our  experience  that  of  the  work- 
men who  go  out  there  many  soon  return  to  the  East,  saying  that  they 
cannot  do  as  well  in  the  West  as  in  the  East.  I have  often  had  such 
instances  among  my  own  men. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Cleveland,  Columbus,  Cincinnati,  and  Saint 
Louis  are  all  hardware  manufacturing  points,  and  are  pretty  fairly  situ- 
ated for  the  business,  are  they  not? 

The  Witness.  They  are. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  If  your  large  factory  was  located  at  either 
of  these  points,  or  at  any  other  point  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains, 
would  you  advocate  this  reduction  of  duties  which  you  now  advocate? 

The  Witness.  I certainly  should. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Would  not  the  reduction  which  you  advocate 
give  you  in  Connecticut  the  advantage  of  cheaper  foreign  pig  iron,  and 
cheaper  coal  from  the  British  provinces  (getting  it  on  tide- water),  and  is 
not  that  the  main  reason  why  the  manufacturers  on  tide-  water  desire  the 
duty  on  crude  materials  reduced  ? 

The  Witness.  I hardly  think  that  there  is  any  foreign  coal  used  in 
this  country. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I only  used  coal  as  an  illustration.  My  point 


J.  B.  SARGENT.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


605 


is  that  the  interest  of  the  manufacturer  on  tide-water  is  to  have  the 
duties  on  crude  materials  decreased,  so  that  he  can  have  the  advantage 
of  buying  his  materials  abroad. 

The  Witness.  I have  no  doubt  that  benefit  would  accrue  to  the  west- 
ern manufacturer,  as  well  as  to  the  eastern,  from  the  proposed  change, 
for  the  reason  that  pig  iron  or  other  raw  material  coming  in  here  would 
have  its  influence  upon  the  prices  of  raw  materials  further  west.  Then, 
too,  the  freight  from  the  seaboard  to  the  West  is  very  light.- 

Commissioner  Oliver.  And  the  freight  from  England  or  Germany  to 
New  England  is  very  light. 

The  Witness.  The  freight  on  pig  iron  has  been  from  $2.50  to  $3  for 
several  months. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  This  last  year  has  been  an  exception,  on  ac- 
count of  the  short  crop,  but  the  average  freight  has  not  been  over  six 
or  eight  shillings.  Is  not  that  the  fact? 

The  Witness.  It  varies,  of  course. 

Comnfissioner  Oliver.  Following  out  your  argument,  would  you  pro- 
pose that  the  duties  on  general  hardware  be  taken  off? 

The  Witness.  I would  make  a level  rate  of  25  per  cent,  ou  everything, 
of  whatever  nature,  that  is  now  taxed  at  that  rate  or  above  it,  and  allow 
from  that  duty  the  freight  from  the  foreign  point  of  shipment  to  the 
United  States. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  price  of  labor  in 
the  manufacturing  districts  of  Germany  to-day  does  not  rise  above  2 
marks,  that  is,  about  50  cents,  and  it  is  lower  still  in  Belgium  and 
France.  Nowt,  what  I want  to  get  at  is  this : Yre  you  prepared  to-day  to 
come  down  and  leave  only  the  margin  of  15  or  20  per  cent,  between  that 
cheap  European  labor  and  the  prices  which  you  pay  to-day,  which  I 
judge  will  average  about  three  times  as  much?  I speak,  of  course,  of 
adult  labor,  not  of  boys  or  girls. 

The  Witness.  I certainly  am  prepared  to  do  it,  and  I should  welcome 
the  change.  From  our  experience  in  exporting  such  goods  as  we  can 
export  in  competition  with  the  European  manufacturers,  I am  fully  con- 
vinced that  we  can  export  very  largely  under  a system  of  absolute  free 
trade. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Of  what  extent  are  those  European  markets 
for  your  line  of  goods,  compared  with  our  home  market? 

The  Witness.  We  have  the  markets  of  Southern  Europe — the  Med- 
iterranean countries. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  But  do  they  compare  at  all  in  extent  with  the 
markets  of  our  own  Western  States? 

The  WTtness.  They  are  not  so  much. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  your  firm  lias  been  very 
successful  in  originating  novel  and  handsome  designs  for  hardware? 

The  Witness.  We  have  not  been  specially  so. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  is  your  general  reputation,  I think. 

The  Witness.  We  have  not  been  sleeping,  of  course,  but  there  are 
others  who  have  done  quite  as  well  in  that  respect. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  have  made  great  improvements  in  your 
line  of  manufactures,  and  so  have  found  a market  for  your  goods,  but 
what  effect  would  the  radical  change  which  you  wish  have  upon  the  bulk 
of  the  hardware  manufacturers  along  the  seaboard? 

The  Witness.  I think  they  would  generally  be  more  benefited  by 
the  low  price  of  raw  material  than  we  would  be. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Eventually  perhaps  they  would,  but  would 
there  not  be  an  interim  in  which  they  would  have  great  trouble? 


606 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  SARGENT. 


The  Witness.  I think  not. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Would  there  not  be  an  interim  between  the 
‘‘evening  up”  of  the  low  wages'  abroad  and  our  comparatively  high 
wages  here? 

The  Witness.  I think  that  a reduction  of  duties  to  25  per  cent,  on 
everything,  including  manufactured  goods  and  raw  material,  less  the 
freights,  would  have  an  immediate  effect  to  cut  down  the  profits  of  the 
manufacturers  to  some  extent,  and  then  gradually,  as  the  price  of  liv- 
ing would  be  reduced,  it  would  have  the  effect  to  reduce  the  price  of 
labor;  but  that  would  be  no  disadvantage  to  the  laborer,  and  I think  it 
would  be  a vast  benefit  to  the  great  consuming  masses  of  this  country, 
the  farmer,  the  clerk,  the  professional  man,  the  retired  capitalist,  widows 
and  orphans,  and  all  who  live  upon  interest. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  It  would  undoubtedly  be  an  advantage  to 
everybody  who  lives  upon  a fixed  income  to  buy  his  labor  and  every- 
thing else  in  the  cheapest  market  he  could  find.  Professional  gentle- 
men we  can  perhaps  afford  to  let  take  care  of  themselves  while  we  look 
after  the  interests  of  the  others.  Now,  are  you  able  to  give  us  any  idea 
of  the  proportion  which  the  raw  material  which  you  use  in  your  manufac- 
tures bears  in  cost  to  the  labor  that  you  put  upon  it? 

The  Witness.  It  varies  so  much  that  I should  be  timid  about  giving 
any  figures  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Perhaps  until  you  are  prepared  to  give  fig- 
ures upon  that  subject  there  may  be  some  liability  to  mistake  as  to  what 
is  the  real  trouble  in  the  case — whether  it  is  owing  to  the  high  wages 
that  you  pay  or  the  cost  of  material — may  there  not? 

The  Witness.  Well,  sir,  without  being  able  to  go  into  details  just 
now,  I can  only  say  that  I am  perfectly  satisfied  as  to  where  the  trouble 
is,  and  I am  fully  convinced  that  the  price  of  labor  would  drop  with  the 
price  of  goods,  and  at  the  same  time  the  cost  of  living  would  be  re- 
duced. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  In  other  words,  you  would  contemplate  be- 
ing able  to  keep  up  your  competition  with  foreign  manufacturers,  first, 
by  a reduction  of  the  cost  of  raw  material,  and,  second,  by  a corre- 
sponding reduction  of  the  price  of  labor. 

The  Witness.  Labor  and  all  expenses. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Well,  “all  expenses”  is  labor,  in  point  of 
fact,  is  it  not?  It  may  be  clerical,  or  it  may  be  mechanical,  labor,  but  it 
is  still  labor. 

The  Witness.  Yes. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Then  I am  right  in  saying  that  you  would 
expect  to  be  able  to  compete  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  first,  by  a re- 
duction in  the  cost  of  your  raw  materials,  and,  next,  by  a reduction  in 
the  cost  of  your  labor.  Now  I understand  you  to  say  that  that  would 
be  merely  a nominal  reduction  to  the  laborer,  because  the  cost  of  living 
would  also  be  reduced. 

The  Witness.  Yes. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  You  have  had  the  advantage  of  seeing  the 
laborers  in  portions  of  Europe;  is  it  not  a fact  that,  as  a rule,  the 
American  laborer  is  better  housed  and  has  more  comforts  than  the 
E u ropean  laborer  ? 

The  Witness.  I should  hardly  say  that  he  has.  The  tenement 
houses  of  England  are  better  than  those  of  New  York,  and  the  houses 
occupied  by  the  working  classes  of  Europe  are  usually  better  than  the 
houses  of  our  working  people;  uot  so  “fancy”  on  the  outside,  but  more 
solid,  aud  they  rent  lower. 


J.  B.  SABGENT.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


6 07 


Commissioner  Ambler.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  your  ex- 
perience leads  you  to  the  conclusion  that,  as  a rule,  the  houses  of  the 
laboring  classes  in  England  are  as  good  as,  or  better  than,  the  houses 
of  the  laboring  classes  in  this  country1? 

The  Witness.  In  the  manufacturing  districts  I think  they  are. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Take  the  American  manufacturing  district 
which  you  are  particularly  acquainted  with;  how  are  the  working 
people  of  New  Haven  housed  as  compared  with  the  working  people  of 
Birmingham  and  Sheffield,  for  instance1? 

The  Witness.  They  are  housed  very  differently,  but  no  more  com- 
fortably, I think. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Which  are  the  more  expensively  housed?  I 
am  speaking  not  about  nominal  but  about  actual  cost. 

The  Witness.  As  a rule  the  house  itself,  the  building,  is  better  in 
England,  for  it  is  usually  built  of  brick,  and  here  it  is  usually  a cheap 
wooden  structure,  often  two  or  three  stories  high,  with  a dozen  or 
twenty  families  in  the  one  house. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Yes;  in  our  larger  cities  there  is  often  a 
duplication  of  tenants  in  the  same  house;  but  is  there  not  the  same 
state  of  things  in  Europe? 

The  Witness.  Not  to  the  same  extent.  The  houses  there  are  usually 
smaller. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Passing  now  from  the  house,  the  building 
itself,  state,  if  you  please,  which  is  better  furnished  on  an  average,  the 
American  or  the  foreign  workingman’s  house. 

The  Witness.  The  houses  are  better  furnished  in  this  country  among 
the  well-to-do  classes. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I am  speaking  of  mechanics  generally,  of 
the  man  who  makes  his  living  by  some  sort  of  manual  labor,  and  I in- 
clude in  my  question  not  only  the  skilled  mechanic  but  unskilled  laborer 
also.  I want  to  get  at  a general  average. 

The  Witness.  I think  that  on  a general  average  the  furniture  of 
such  houses  in  this  country  is  better  than  the  furniture  of  such  houses 
abroad. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I understood  you  to  say  awhile  ago  that 
you  thought  that  foreign  workingmen  lived  about  as  well  as  American 
workingmen. 

The  Witness.  Yes. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  According  to  your  experience  and  observa- 
tion, what  is  the  food  of  the  ordinary  laboring  classes  in  England,  for 
example  ? 

The  Witness.  Of  course  my  experience  of  their  food  is  not  very  ex- 
tensive. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I do  not  speak  alone  of  your  personal  expe- 
rience; I want  to  get  at  your  knowledge  upon  that  subject,  however 
obtained. 

The  Witness.  I am  aware  that  foreign  working  people  do  not  eat  so 
much  meat  as  Americans  do,  and  neither  do  the  wealthy  classes.  The 
midday  meal  all  over  England  is  a slice  of  cold  corned  beef  or  roast 
beef,  with  bread,  and  a mug  of  beer — no  vegetables ; and  it  is  the  same 
among  the  working  classes. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  among  the  working 
classes  of  England  the  midday  meal  generally  includes  meat? 

The  Witness.  I know  that  it  does  often,  but  it  is  not  the  habit  of 
English  workingmen,  or  employers  either,  to  have  such  a variety  of 
food  as  we  have  iu  this  country.  They  have  no  such  variety  of  vege- 


608 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  SARGEXT. 


tables.  Even  at  a first-class  hotel  there,  you  get  perhaps  two  vegetables, 
while  here  you  may  get  a dozen. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  In  short,  then,  the  working  classes  here  do 
in  fact  live  better  than  the  working  classes  abroad,  do  they  not? 

The  Witness.  Well,  if  the  eating  of  more  meat  is  living  better, 
which  I doubt,  they  do  live  better  here  than  in  Europe. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  You  have  stated  that  our  working  people  have 
an  advantage  as  to  meat  and  vegetables,  and  you  have  failed  to  mention 
in  what  respect  the  workiug  people  of  European  countries  live  better 
than  ours.  Please  give  us  that  information  now. 

The  WYtness.  It  is  a question  whether  the  variety  of  food  that  the 
American  laborer  or  the  American  citizen,  whether  laborer  or  employer, 
is  in  the  habit  of  eating  is  any  better  for  him  than  the  less  variety  which 
satisfies  the  foreigner.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  English  working- 
man has  fewer  vegetables  than  the  American  has.  England  is  not  so 
prolific  in  vegetables  as  this  country  is. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  And  if  it  were,  the  rate  of  wages  paid  to  an 
English  workingman  would  not  permit  him  to  buy  them? 

The  Witness.  I don’t  see  much  difference  in  that  respect. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  We  will  pass  now  to  another  question. 
Taking  the  families  of  workingmen  in  both  countries,  which  are  best 
clothed  ? 

The  Witness.  I don’t  think  there  is  very  much  difference  in  respect 
to  that.  English  workingmen  wear  less  showy  clothing  than  our  work- 
ingmen do,  but  their  clothing  is  quite  as  substantial. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Yes,  they  run  to  substantials  over  there; 
but  I am  asking  not  only  about  the  English  workingman  himself,  but 
about  his  family  also. 

The  Witness.  It  is  true,  I think,  that  very  much  more  money  is 
spent  here  in  dress  than  is  spent  there. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Very  much  more,  even  in  proportion  to  the 
wages  paid  and  the  cost  of  clothing,  is  there  not? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  I think  so. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  In  which  country  have  the  working  people 
the  best  opportunities  for  education? 

The  Witness.  The  opportunities  for  education  in  England  are -quite 
as  good  as  here.  The  national  schools  of  England  are  as  good  as  our 
common  schools,  and  in  England  they  have  compulsory  education  to  a 
greater  extent  than  we  have  it  in  this  country. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Perhaps  that  is  because  there  is  more  neces- 
sity for  it.  I mean  that  the  necessities  of  the  workingman’s  family  there 
compel  him  to  put  his  children  to  work  younger  than  such  children  are 
put  to  work  here,  so  that  the  government  is  compelled  to  interfere  and 
compel  the  English  workingman  to  send  his  children  to  school.  Is  not 
that  the  fact  ? 

The  Witness.  I do  not  think  it  is.  The  tendency  of  parents  every- 
where is  to  set  their  children  at  work  at  too  early  an  age.  We  have 
compulsory  education  in  Connecticut.  We  are  not  allowed  to  employ 
children  under  14  years  of  age  unless  they  have  been  at  school  at  least 
three  months  during  the  year.  That  law  was  found  necessary,  because, 
owing,  probably,  to  the  carelessness  of  well-meaning  employers,  and  the 
desire  of  parents  to  get  some  income  from  the  labor  of  their  children, 
they  have  been  in  the  habit  of  setting  them  to  work  too  young.  It 
would  appear,  therefore,  that  the  same  necessity  for  compulsory  educa- 
tion exists  in  this  country  as  in  England. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  And  to  as  great  an  extent? 


J.  B.  SARGENT.  J 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


609 


Tlie  Witness.  I think  so.  We  find  very  few  people  illiterate  to  the 
extent  of  being  unable  to  read  and  write  among  the  foreign  laborers,, 
except  among  the  Italians.  There  are  very  few  such  among  the  Ger- 
mans and  English. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  The  comparison  that  we  have  been  endeavor- 
ing to  make  so  far  has  been  between  this  country  and  England. 

The  Witness.  Well,  I think  that  as  a rule  the  same  is  true  of  Ger- 
many. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  How  is  it  as  to  France? 

The  Witness.  In  France  the  people  use  more  wine.  They  take  their 
vegetable  food  in  liquid  state  there. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  How  is  it  as  to  Italy  ? 

The  Witness.  There  they  live  not  so  much  on  meats  as  upon  soups, 
vegetables,  and  oils. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Then  as  I get  your  idea  in  a general  way,  it 
is  that  the  European  workingman  is  quite  as  well  off  as  the  American 
workingman  ? 

The  Witness.  I would  not  say  that  the  European  workingman  is  in 
all  respects  as  well  off*  as  the  American  workingman ; but  I do  not 
think  that  the  difference  is  the  result  of  free  trade  in  Europe. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Let  us  get  the  facts  before  we  undertake  to 
reason  upon  them.  In  what  respect  is  the  European  workingman  not 
so  well  off  as  the  American  workingman? 

The  Witness.  Well,  he  certainly  does  not  live  in  all  respects  as  well 
as  the  workingman  lives  in  this  country.  That  is  true,  however,  more 
in  regard  to  what  are  not  considered  essentials  there,  or  even  here — it 
applies  more  to  unnecessary  expenses — luxuries  they  may  perhaps  be 
called. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Then  the  European  workingman  has  fewer 
luxuries  than  the  American  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes;  I think  he  has. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Do  you  think  it  is  desirable  that  the  Amer- 
ican workingman’s  luxuries  should  be  curtailed? 

The  Witness.  I do  not  think  it  is  desirable,  and  I do  not  think  they 
would  be  curtailed  by  the  change  I propose. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Then  while  you  think  that,  as  a general 
rule,  the  European  workingman  is  as  well  off  as  the  American  with  re- 
gard to  the  substantial  of  life,  we  are  agreed  that  the  workingman 
here  has  some  advantage  in  the  way  of  luxuries.  Now,  which  accumu- 
lates most  to  provide  for  old  age  and  its  necessities,  the  English  or  the 
American  workingman  ? 

The  Witness.  I am  not  sufficiently  informed  in  respect  to  that  to  be 
able  to  make  any  statement. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Take  New  England,  where  you  are  ac- 
quainted. Is  it  a fact  that  the  savings  banks  and  the  other  institu- 
tions demonstrate  to  your  mind  that  working  people  there  make  better 
provision  for  their  future  by  savings  than  they  do  abroad  ? 

The  Witness.  I presume  so. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Now  we  have  got  two  things  settled  in  re- 
spect to  these  people.  First,  our  American  workingmen  live  at  least 
as  well  in  regard  to  necessities,  and  they  have  more  luxuries  than  the 
English  workingman ; and,  second,  notwithstanding  this  increased  ex- 
penditure, they  save  more  for  old  age.  These  facts  being  so,  does  it 
not  necessarily  follow  that  the  American  working-man  is  better  off  than 
the  English  working-man? 

H.  Mis.  6 39 


610 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  SABGENT. 


The  Witness.  Of  course  he  is  better  off  under  all  those  circum- 
stances. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  And  do  you  think  it  desirable  that  our  work- 
ing people  should  be  brought  down  to  the  plane  that  the  English  work- 
ers occupy  ? 

The  Witness.  I desire  to  keep  the  workingman  here  in  as  good  a 
condition  as  possible. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  is  to  say,  you,  like  every  other  respect- 
able and  wellmeaning  citizen,  desire  that  the  American  workingman 
shall  be  as  well  off  as  he  can  be  consistently  with  carrying  on  the  busi- 
ness of  the  country.  Now,  with  these  differences  which  you  admit  do 
exist  in  favor  of  the  American  workman,  do  you  think  it  possible  to 
reduce  his  wages  to  the  same  actual  value  as  the  wages  of  the  working 
classes  in  Europe,  and  at  the  same  time  to  preserve  to  him  the  advan- 
tages that  he  now  possesses  ? 

The  Witness.  1 think  it  is  possible. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Suppose  that  his  wages  have  been  brought 
down  until  they  are  upon  exactly  the  same  basis  of  actual  value  as  the 
wages  of  the  English  workman,  will  not  the  result  of  the  expenditure 
of  those  wages  be  precisely  the  same  here  as  in  England?  When  the 
wages  of  the  American  workman  reach  the  same  actual  value  as  the 
English  workingman’s  wages,  can  he  spend  them  so  as  to  get  more  for 
them  here  than  can  be  got  for  the  same  wages  in  England? 

The  Witness.  He  would  get  more  here  than  there  with  the  same 
wages? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Why  ? 

The  Witness.  Because  the  wages  of  the  workingman  in  this  country 
are  controlled,  not  by  the  protective  tariff,  and  not  altogether  by  the 
demand  for  labor  in  the  factories,  but  by  the  rate  of  wages  that  the 
man  can  get  or  earn  on  our  cheap  lands.  It  is  that  which  controls  the 
price  of  labor  in  this  country,  and  which  will  control  it  until  our  lands 
become  as  dear  as  those  of  Europe.  So  long  as  the  products  of  the  soil 
of  this  country  can  be  raised  on  land  costing  not  more  than  from  $10  to 
$20  an  acre,  while  the  products  of  the  soil  in  England  aud  Germany  are 
raised  on  land  costing  five  or  ten  times  as  much,  the  products  which 
can  be  raised  so  cheaply  in  this  country  will  necessarily  be  cheaper  and 
more  common  among  working  people  here  than  in  England.  But  that 
is  not  due  to  the  protective  tariff,  and  it  is  not  owing  to  the  tariff  that 
wages  are  higher  here  than  in  Europe.  It  is  owing  to  our  cheap  and 
prolific  soil.  It  is  due  also  largely  to  the  fact  that  this  country  does 
not  take  the  products  of  the  soil,  the  animals,  and  the  vegetables  and 
the  grain  from  the  laboring  man  and  convert  them  to  the  uses  of  a 
standing  army.  We  are  apt  to  think  that  the  wages  of  workingmen  in 
this  country  are  governed  altogether  by  the  tariff*,  but  it  really  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  them. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  statement  opens  up  a new  field  for  in- 
quiry, but  it  does  not  answer  my  question  at  all.  I agree  with  you  that 
our  high  wages  are  not  caused  entirely  by  the  tariff*.  I will  not  stop 
now  to  discuss  the  other  questions  which  your  remarks  involve,  but  you 
have  not  even  suggested  an  answer  to  my  question.  That  question  was 
this:  If  you  reduce  the  prices  of  American  labor  to  the  same  actual  rate 
in  value  as  the  wages  of  the  English  workingmen,  how  will  it  be  possible 
for  the  American  workingman  to  expend  the  same  amount  of  money  in 
actual  value  and  to  get  more  for  it? 

The  Witness.  1 intended  to  say  that  the  workingman  can  spend  his 


J.  B.  SARGENT.]  REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES.  611 

wages  to  more  advantage  in  tliis  country,  owing  to  the. fact  that  our 
fertile  lands  make  the  cost  of  living  lower  than  in  other  countries. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  is  to  say,  the  advantage,  and  the  only 
advantage  that  the  American  workingman  would  have  in  the  case  which 
you  put,  would  be  that  he  might  buy  certain  portions  of  his  living 
cheaper,  his  breadstuffs,  and  his  meat,  and  his  vegetables.  That  is  the 
extent  of  your  proposition'? 

The  Witness.  That  is  the  extent  of  it. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Do  you  think  that  margin  would  cover  the 
difference  between  the  prices  of  labor  in  the  two  countries'? 

The  Witness.  I think  it  would.  The  actual  difference  between  the 
wages  of  the  workingmen  of  this  country,  and  the  workingmen  of 
Europe  is  really  quite  small;  although  when  accumulated  and  piled  up 
in  savings  banks,  the  many  littles  become  large.  Under  a system  of 
free  trade,  the  workingman  on  the  land  gets  what  he  can  for  his  labor 
on  the  soil,  and  whenever  the  workingman  in  the  factory  can  do  bet- 
ter by  working  on  the  soil,  he  does  that  and  earns  his  living  in  that  way 
instead  of  in  the  factory;  and  the  manufacturer  must  always  pay  at 
least  as  much  wages  as  the  man  could  earn  at  agricultural  labor,  and 
probably  a little  more,  in  order  to  induce  him  to  go  into  the  factory;  for 
I suppose  that,  in  a natural  condition,  man  prefers  to  work  upon  the 
soil  rather  than  in  the  shop.  I say,  therefore,  that  the  wages  that  a man 
can  earn  upon  the  soil  of  our  cheap  lands  determines  the  rate  of  wages 
that  must  be  paid  by  our  manufacturers,  and,  in  my  opinion,  the  agri- 
cultural laborer  should  not  be  taxed  in  any  way  to  support,  at  a higher 
rate  of  wages,  the  laborer  in  the  factory. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Undoubtedly  he  should  not  without  receiv- 
ing some  compensation. 

The  Witness.  Another  point  which  I have  not  yet  mentioned,  and 
which  illustrates  the  desirableness  of  free  trade,  is  the  advantage  of 
having  foreign  markets,  and  a variety  of  foreign  markets.  This  is  an 
important  point.  The  manufacturer  in  this  country  who  confines  him- 
self to  one  or  two  customers  is  liable  to  lose  one  of  them  and  thereby 
to  lose  an  outlet  for  half  his  goods,  and  it  may  take  him  a long  time  to 
find  a new  one.  The  manufacturers  of  this  country  who  are  confined 
to  the  market  of  this  country  have  only  one  customer,  and  may  in  a 
time  of  serious  depression  find  themselves  without  any;  but  if  we  had 
customers  in  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  we  would  not  be  restricted  to 
any  one  market. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  In  your  opinion,  would  not  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois consume  more  of  the  line  of  goods  that  you  manufacture  than  all 
Great  Britain  and  Germany  combined  ? 

The  Witness.  Not  at  all.  The  home  trade  of  England  is  very  large, 
and  the  home  trade  of  Germany  is  large  also.  We  of  course  cater 
now  to  the  wants  of  our  home  market.  As  we  have  no  other  market, 
we  must  not  only  supply  the  wants  of  our  friends  in  Illinois  and  else- 
where at  home,  but  we  must  try  to  increase  them — as  we  do. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Is  it  not  a fact  that,  with  all  the  hardships 
of  the  tariff  which  have  been  bearing  upon  you  and  upon  this  country 
generally,  America  is  the  best  market  in  the  world,  in  proportion  to  its 
population,  for  the  goods  which  you  manufacture'? 

The  Witness.  1 suppose  it  is  a fact  beyond  question  that  the  fifty 
millions  of  people  in  the  United  States  consume  more  manufactured 
goods  than  any  other  fifty  millions  of  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth ; 
but  that  is  not  due,  in  my  opinion,  to  a protective  tariff. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I did  not  ask  that.  I wish  to  make  another 


612 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


|J.  B.  SARGENT. 


inquiry.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  population  increases  in  this  country  in  a 
considerably  greater  ratio  than  the  manufactures  which  are  to  supply 
that  population  ? 

The  Witness.  I don’t  think  it  is. 

Commissioner  Porter.  During  the  last  ten  years,  for  instance,  has 
it  not  been  so? 

The  Witness.  In  my  own  special  branches  the  increase  has  been 
very  large  during  the  last  ten  years.  I should  say  that  within  that 
time  I have  doubled  my  capacity  for  manufacturing. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  And  at  the  same  time  that  you  have  doubled 
your  capacity  you  still  keep  the  home  market? 

The  Witness.  Yes ; we  still  keep  the  home  market. 


J.  II.  BREWER.  1 


POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


613 


J.  H.  BREWER. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  22,  1882. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Brewer,  of  Trenton,  N.  J.,  appeared  before  the  Commis- 
sion, and,  on  behalf  of  the  pottery  manufacturers  of  the  United  States, 
made  the  following  argument. 

Gentlemen  : We  are  here  representing  the  manufacturers  of  white 
and  decorated  crockery  and  china  ware  of  the  United  States.  We  are 
delegated  by  this  industry  to  present  their  argument  for  your  fair  and 
deliberate  consideration.  We  are  manufacturers  of  crockery,  and  have 
been  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  business  ever  since  the  industry 
first  blossomed  into  a commercial  success,  in  1863,  under  the  incidental 
and  accidental  protection  afforded  by  the  gold  premium;  and  just  here 
we  assert  that  our  industry,  practically,  has  never  had  any  adequate 
protection  since  the  gold  premium  receded  and  gold  and  paper  money 
resumed  their  healthy  relations.  We  take  it  to  be  unnecessary  to  argue 
the  abstract  question  of  protection.  We  conclude  it  to  be  the  policy  of 
this  civil  commission,  in  pursuance  of  the  manifest  wishes  of  the  gov- 
ernment, to  protect,  absolutely  protect,  all  industries  needing  the  aid  of 
tariff  laws. 

ORIGIN  AND  PRESENT  STATUS  OF  THE  INDUSTRY. 

There  was  a pottery  in  South  Carolina  as  early  as  1765;  established, 
as  were  the  potteries  of  to-day,  by  English  potters.  At  that  time  W edg- 
wood  wrote  to  Sir  William  Meradith  : 

This  trade  to  our  colonies  we  are  apprehensive  of  losing  in  a few  years.  They  are 
establishing  a new  pot-works  in  South  Carolina.  They  have  every  material  there, 
equal,  if  not  superior,  to  our  own. 

Here,  then,  we  have  had  unused  in  the  earth  for  over  a century,  in 
the  State  of  South  Carolina,  as  indeed  we  have  in  almost  every  State, 
simply  for  want  of  government  protection,  the  prolific  germs  of  an  art 
at  once  useful  and  ornamental. 

The  other  attempts  to  manufacture  white  ware,  at  Philadelphia,  Ben- 
nington, Vt.,  Jersey  City,  Greenpoint,  East  Liverpool,  Trenton,  and 
other  places  at  different  times,  from  1765  to  1863,  always  resulted  in 
puny  and  sickly  ventures;  neither  quality  nor  quantity  of  goods  being 
worth  mentioning.  Not  so  to-day.  The  value  of  white  ware  alone, 
made  and  to  be  made  in  the  United  States,  in  1882,  I estimate  will 
amount  to  $5,299,140;  capital  invested,  $5,076,000;  wages,  $2,387,000; 
material,  $2,028,  950;  employing  about  7,000  hands. 

This  industry  is  distributed  throughout  the  United  States,  as  fol- 
lows : 


© 

^ • 

|| 
© © 

S o 

<D 

Sh 

ei 

is » 

is3 

£ 

New  Jersey 

23 

118 

Ohio  

19 

80 

New  York  

3 

16 

Baltimore,  Md 

3 

10 

Pennsylvania 

2 

7 

Indiana 

1 

2 

West  Virginia 

4 

Massachusetts 

J 

3 

Louisiana 

1 

2 

Missouri 

1 

2 

Total 

55 

244 

614 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  BKEWER. 


Only  four  of  the  above  manufacture  exclusively  porcelain  or  “French 
china,”  so  called. 

The  quality  of  the  ware  produced  is  not  surpassed  by  the  foreign 
wares.  The  following  testimony  from  the  English  manufacturers  them- 
selves, as  given  before  the  Potters’  Board  of  Arbitration,  December, 
1877,  will  corroborate  what  I say.  Vast  improvements  since  1877  have 
been  made  in  the  quality  of  our  wares. 

Mr.  Shaw,  English  manufacturer,  said:  “He  found  that  from  time 

to  time  first  one  article,  and  then  another,  was  being  made  in  America 
at  a less  cost  than  here.”  (See  page  4 of  report.) 

In  reply  to  a question  as  to  quality  of  American  ware,  Mr.  John  Mad- 
dock,  English  manufacturer,  produced  samples  of  white  granite  ware  of 
American  manufacture,  from  Trenton,  and  said  they  were  sold  fully  10 
per  cent,  less  than  English  goods. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Shaw,  witness  said  “he  was  convinced  that  the  Ameri- 
cans had  superior  materials  to  what  they  had  in  Staffordshire,  or  they 
could  not  produce  the  articles  they  did.  They  had  every  material  nec- 
essary. The  difficulty  now,  as  to  strength  and  soundness,  was  got  over, 
in  his  opinion,  and  he  would  guarantee  the  samples.” 

Mr.  Ellsmore,  another  English  manufacturer,  said  “he  was  engaged 
in  the  American  trade;  had  been  to  the  United  States,  and  had  had 
opportunities  of  seeing  the  quality  of  their  goods.  His  impression  was 
that  the  goods  they  were  now  making  were  superior  to  our  own.” 

During  this  examination  it  was  brought  out  that  the  recent  reductions 
in  the  selling  prices  of  English  goods  amounted  to  from  20  to  35  per 
cent.  This,  bear  in  mind,  was  in  1877.  Since  then  they  have  still  fur- 
ther declined  about  15  to  20  per  cent.,  and  these  reductions  have  been 
made  notwithstanding  the  cost  of  making  ware  in  England  had  largely 
increased,  as  see  report  of  Board  of  Arbitration,  January  9 and  10, 1877. 
From  this  testimony  every  fair-minded  man  will  see  that  the  quality  of 
our  ware  is  no  less  perfect  than  is  the  effectiveness  of  our  competition. 
But  it  is  plain  to  see  that,  with  our  incidental  gold-premium  protection 
withdrawn,  along  with  the  constant  decline  in  selling  prices,  no  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  can  do  business  except  at  a loss. 

Forty  per  cent,  ad  valorem  will  not  begin  to  compensate  for  113  per 
cent,  difference  in  labor  of  adults  and  200  to  300  per  cent,  difference  in 
labor  of  children.  Is  it  not  plain  that  40  per  cent,  protection  is  quite 
inadequate?  All  the  recent  arguments  of  political  economists,  in  and 
out  of  Congress,  concede  that  the  tariff  should  compensate  for  such 
difference.  Now,  what  is  the  difference?  We  contend  that,  as  a com- 
pensation for  our  industry,  we  should  have  the  difference  between  labor 
in  England  and  America,  and  that  the  difference  in  labor  is  the  exact 
and  only  difference,  because  the  freights  from  England  to  our  chief  sea- 
ports, as  well  as  to  our  interior  custom-houses,  equals  the  freights  from 
our  manufacturing  centers  to  the  same  points,  and  that  to  the  other  ex- 
penses attending  and  incident  to  foreign  importations  of  crockery  we 
are  alike  subjected,  so  that  any  array  of  figures  gotten  up  to  show  our 
“geographical  protection”  is  a myth  and  not  worthy  of  a moment’s 
consideration.  Let  us  then  compare  labor. 

In  no  other  industry  will  you  find  a more  complete  and  accurate  array 
of  wages  at  home  and  abroad  than  we  here  present.  It  is  always  very 
easy  to  assert,  simply,  that  wages  are  so  and  so,  but  here  we  have, 
through  the  fortuitous  dispute  of  an  English  labor  trouble,  a list  of  the 
wages  paid  in  all  the  branches  of  labor  in  our  trade  in  England — thir- 
teen branches  in  all.  You  will  see  we  have  compared,  by  the  same 
kind  of  a table,  American  prices.  Our  work  being  mostly  piece  work, 


J.  H.  BREWER. J 


POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


615 


and  the  articles  being-  unequal  in  demand,  the  average  earnings  for 
three  months  for  each  man  has  been  taken  at  fifteen  different  factories, 
and  then,  to  get  the  wages  for  each  branch,  the  average  of  all  the  fifteen 
in  each  branch  was  taken,  so  that  no  one  can  say  that  the  figures  are 
either  inaccurate  or  unfair.  The  English  table  was  made  from  the 
books  of  fifteen  different  manufacturers  during  the  last  labor  dispute  in 
Staffordshire,  England,  and  published  over  the  name  of  Edwin  Powell, 
chairman  of  the  Manufacturers’  Associations. 

Now  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  English  manufacturers,  in  showing 
what  the  earnings  of  the  men  were,  would  not  place  them  less  than  they 
really  were.  I have  no  doubt  that  their  statement  is  fair.  I have  ex- 
amined it  pretty  thoroughly  and  think  it  not  exaggerated  either  one  way 
or  the  other;  but  discounting  the  possibilities  and  probabilities  in  the 
case,  the  earnings  would  be  large  enough. 

Average  net  earnings , after  all  deductions  for  attendants , <fc.,  of  the  workmen  employed  at 
fifteen  manufactories , Staffordshire , England. 

THIRTEEN  BRANCHES. 


No. 

Flat-pressers. 

Dish-makers,  j 

Cup-makers. 

Saucer-makers. 

Hand-basin 

makers. 

Hollow-ware 

pressers. 

Hollow-w  are 
presser  jig- 
gers. 

£ 

s. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ s.  d. 

£ s.  d. 

£ 8. 

d 

£ 

8.  d 

1 

1 

11 

10 

1 

11 

0 

2 

3 

0 

Women. . . 

Witbdishes- 

1 10 

0 

None 

2 

1 

5 

7* 

1 

7 

6 

3 

0 

0 

1 4 9 

1 13  6 

1 11 

5 

2 

11  3 

3 

1 

10 

3 

1 

7 

7 

Women 

1 10  0 

17  0 

2 2 

5 

2 

0 10 

4 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 10  0 

2 5 0 

1 18 

0 

5 

1 

7 

7 

1 

19  11 

1 10  10 

2 4 11 

1 18 

3 

1 

15  5 

6 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

9 

0 

1 11  0 

1 12 

0 

2 

5 0 

7 

1 

9 11 

1 

10 

6 

Women 

W omen . . . 

1 12  10 

1 12 

0 

2 

2 0 

8 

1 

16 

0 

1 

11 

0 

1 16  9 

1 10 

5 

2 

0 0 

9 

1 

9 

9 

1 

16 

7 

1 

8 

7 

18  6 

1 17  6 

1 13 

2 

2 

12  24 

10 

1 

17 

6 

1 

10 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 19  2 

1 19 

0 

11 

1 

5 

3 

2 

8 

0 

1 

6 

5 

15  8 

2 7 8 

1 12 

4 

2 

5 4 

12 

1 

10 

9 

3 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 4 0 

3 8 4 

1 7 

8 

4 

5 0 

13 

1 

18 

0 

2 

5 

0 

3 

9 

0 

1 15  0 

1 12  0 

1 10 

0 

2 

2 0 

14 

1 

13 

0 

2 

12 

6 

1 

13 

0 

1 18  6 

1 15  0 

1 15 

0 

2 

19  6 

15 

1 

15 

0 

1 

16 

6 

Women 

1 15  10 

1 18  8 

1 12  10 

1 

17  9 

Totals 

23 

17 

14 

29 

16 

1 

18 

9 

0 

19  13  3 

23  19  2 

25  4 

6 

28 

16  34 

Averages : 

Pounds 

1 

11 

10 

1 

19 

9 

2 

1 

0 

1 12  9| 

1 19  11 

1 13 

74 

2 

8 04 

Dollars 

7 70 

9 62 

9 93 

7 93 

9 66 

8 14 

11  62 

616 


TARIFF  COMMISSION, 


[J.  H.  BREWER. 


THIRTEEN  BRANCHES— Continued. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 
15. 


Totals  . . 

Averages : 
Pounds. 
Dollars  . 


No. 


£ 8 d. 


15  4 
18  0 

16  0 


1 11  3 


14  17  11^ 


7 1 
6 55 


£ 8.  d. 


7 6 

8 11 
7 6 

7 6 
13  0 

8 0 
9 10 
7 6 
7 6 

7 6 

8 6 
10  0 

7 6 
7 6 
7 6 


£ s.  d. 
1 11  8 
1 10  6 


5 0 


17  0 

1 19  10 
Contract. . 

1 16  8 
1 12  0 
1 10  2\ 
1 10  0 

2 10  0 
1 11  6 


9 j 19  4 4} 


1 8 4i 


i 14  iii 
8 46 


Mold-makers. 

Turners. 

Handlers. 

1 

s. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ s.  d. 

17 

0 

1 

11 

6 

1 13  6 

16 

8 

1 

10 

3 

1 4 10 

10 

3 

1 

7 

5 

2 0 10 

5 

0 

1 

10 

0 

1 10  0 

15 

0 

2 

0 

7 

i n 8 

7 

0 

1 

16 

0 

2 0 0 

11 

6 

2 

0 

7 

1 10  8 

9 

4 

18  0 

4 

0 

1 

7 

8 

Women. 

14 

0 

1 

16 

0 

2 2 0 

4 

6 

1 

11 

0 

1 12  0 

4 

7 

1 4 10 

3 

0 

1 19  0 

14 

6 

2 13  6 

17 

11 

W omen. 

14 

3 

16 

11 

0 

22  10  10 

2 

1 

13 

1 

1 14  8 

10  23 

8 00 

8 39 

Average  net  earnings  per  man  per  week,  all  deductions  for  attendance  and  other 


purposes  being  deducted: 

£ s.  d. 

Of  a flat-presser 1 11  10=  $7  70 

The  like  of  a dish-maker 1 19  9=  9 02 

The  like  of  a cup-maker 2 1 0=  9 92 

The  like  of  a saucer-maker 1 12  9=  7 93 

The  like  of  a hand-basin  maker 1 19  11=  9 66 

The  like  of  a hollow-ware  presser 1 13  7=  8 14 

The  like  of  a hollow- ware  presser  jigger 2 8 f=  11  62 

The  like  of  a printer 1 7 1=  6 55 

The  like  of  an  ovenman 1 8 4=  6 86 

The  like  of  a sagger-maker 1 14  11  = 8 46 

The  like  of  a mold-maker 2 2 3 = 10  23 

The  like  of  a turner 1 13  1=  8 00 

The  like  of  a handler 1 14  8 = 8 39 


13)23  7 2=113  07 


The  total  average  per  man  per  week  is £1  15  10 


8 69 


The  fifteen  manufacturers  represent  all  markets  of  the  potting  trade,  and  in  the  case 
of  each  separate  branch  the  figures  show  the  average  of  the  wages  earned  at  each  of 
the  fifteen  manufactories. 

I think,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  at  all  misleading  for  the  thirteen  branches  to  be 
averaged  as  appeared  in  Mr.  AckrilPs  letter,  giving  £1  15s.  lOd.  per  man  as  the  aver- 
age of  the  men  in  all  branches  at  the  said  manufactories. 

Truly  yours, 

EDWIN  POWELL, 

Chairman  of  the  Manufacturer s’  Association. 

Hanley,  December  23,  1881. 


I have  taken  fifteen  potteries  in  Trenton,  with  the  average  work  of 
each  man  in  the  different  branches,  for  comparison  with  the  earnings  in 
English  manufactories. 


J.  H.  brewer.  | POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


617 


Average  iveeJcly  wages  for  three  months  at  fifteen  different  potteries  at  Trenton , N.  J.,  after 
all  deductions  for  attendants,  <fc. 

FEBRUARY  22,  1882. 


No. 

0Q 
U 
<0 
r* 1 

a 

a 

<b 

Ph 

Dish-makers. 

Cup-makers. 

u 

<D 

r* 

a 

a 

8 

o 

0 

m 

Basin-makers. 

Hollow-ware 

jiggers. 

Hollow-ware 

pressers. 

1 

Kilnmen. 

1 

$16  00 

$18  00 

None 

$16  00 

$18  00 

None  . . . 

I 

$21  00 

$12  00 

2 

22  tO 

20  00 

$20  00 

17  00 

16  00 

$25  00 

14  (0 

12  75 

3 

13  55 

26  14 

17  06 

17  06 

26  14 

12  57 

13  99 

13  03 

4 

22  00 

20  00 

20  00 

20  00 

20  00 

24  00 

21  00 

12  00 

5 

29  50 

19  71 

22  37 

28  41 

None  . . . 

20  25 

17  44 

6 

16  00 

14  25 

13  25 

13  50 

13  75 

24  00 

13  00 

12  00 

7 : 

20  22 

11  61 

15  79 

15  79 

None  . 

22  33 

24  96 

8 

19  36 

17  84 

26  81 

16  04 

16  02 

21  05 

20  28 

12  00 

9 

19  50 

16  00 

14  00 

15  00 

None  . . . 

None 

14  00 

12  00 

10 

15  50 

20  00 

14  50 

15  25 

22  25 

22  50 

13  50 

12  00 

11 

23  50 

20  98 

29  40 

None 

None  . . . 

None  . . . 

17  65 

17  40 

12 

17  47 

17  33 

34  75 

23  85 

None  . . . 

20  84 

23  40 

13 

27  47 

25  10 

None 

30  17 

26  12’ 

21  65 

16  38 

None 

14 

22  12 

24  52 

14  25 

13  53 

14  05 

None  . . . 

17  47 

13  50 

15 

20  29 

20  00 

13  56 

18  54 

24  99 

24  91 

17  60 

12  00 

Totals 

3o4  48 

291  48 

255  74 

260  14 

197  32 

218  85  | 

268  48 

158  12 

American  average... 

20  30 

19  43 

19  67 

18  58 

19  73 

21  89 

17  90 

13  18 

English  average 

7 70 

9 62 

9 92 

7 93 

9 66 

11  62 

8 14 

6 86 

No. 

Sagger-makers. 

Mold-makers. 

Turners. 

8 

*3 

p 

c3 

W 

Printers. 

Totals. 

Average. 

1 

2 

$18  00 

$19  00 
22  00 

$17  00 
18  00 

$15  00 
14  00 

$17  50 
13  50 

$169  50 
232  25 

$16  95 
17  86 

3 

12  71 

17  37 

None  . . . 

14  43 

None  . . . 

184  05 

16  73 

4 

12  00 

18  00 

20  00 

15  00 

None  ... 

224  00 

18  67 

5 

31  26 

24  59 

13  72 

9 60 

None  . . . 

216  85 

21  69 

6 

21  00 

22  25 

15  25 

13  50 

13  50 

205  25 

15  79 

7 

11  30 

19  79 

15  99 

18  37 

None  . . . 

176  15 

17  62 

8 

24  05 

20  16 

17  30 

21  69 

12  00 

244  60 

18  82 

9 

20  00 

15  00 

16  50 

14  50 

None  . . . 

156  50 

15  65 

10 

20  00 

22  50 

16  00 

18  00 

18  00 

230  00 

17  69 

11 

21  23 

30  68 

16  66 

18  30 

12  00 

207  80 

20  78 

12 

15  61 

None  . . . 

21  28 

27  14 

None  . . . 

201  67 

22  41 

13 

20  48 

19  63 

16  44 

20  84 

10  00 

234  28 

21  30 

14 

20  36 

20  00 

17  28 

13  09 

12  00 

202  17 

16  85 

15 

22  64 

22  60 

16  20 

15  91 

13  50 

242  74 

18  67 

Totals 

270  64 

293  57 

237  62 

249  37 

122  00 

3, 127  81 

277  48 

American  average 

English  average 

19  33 
8 46 

20  79 
10  23 

16  97 
8 00 

16  62 
8 39 

13  56 
6 55 

18  50 
8 69 

Note. — About  113  per  cent,  higher  wages  than  English. 


Our  men  earn  no  more  wages  than  other  mechanics  in  other  trades, 
and  not  so  much  as  many  mechanics.  Besides,  the  pptter’s  trade  is  a 
very  difficult  trade  to  learn,  and  quite  unhealthy,  through  the  inhala- 
tion of  silica  and  other  deleterious  matter.  It  will  be  noticed  that  plate- 
makers  in  the  English  manufactories  average  $7.70 ; Americans  average 
$20.30.  English  dish-makers,  $9.62 ; Americans,  $19.43.  English  cup- 
makers,  $9.92  ; Americans,  $19.67.  English  saucer-makers,  $7.93.  The 
general  average  of  all  in  England  was  $8.69  a week,  and  in  Trenton 
$18.50;  American  $18.58,  and  so  on  right  through  the  list  of  branches, 
showing  that  we  are  paying  a little  more  than  113  per  cent,  above  the 
rate  paid  in  England  for  the  same  work.  We  work  good  from  the  hand, 


618 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  BREWER. 


while  in  England  they  work  good  from  the  oven — that  is,  they  do  not 
get  pay  unless  it  comes  good  out  of  the  oven,  and  that  makes  consider- 
able difference  again.  I want  to  say  in  this  connection,  also,  that  for 
the  last  two  or  three  years  the  importations  have  been  increasing,  and 
the  importation  of  1881  was  the  largest  we  ever  had.  It  was  $6,597,939, 
and  in  1882  it  will  be  in  excess  of  that.  During  the  Centennial  several 
English  manufacturers  visited  Trenton,  and  we  showed  them  through 
the  potteries.  They  had  relatives  there  among  our  practical  men,  and 
we  have  always  been  on  the  most  friendly  terms  on  that  account.  They 
made  a threat  in  New  York  before  they  went  home  to  Europe  that  they 
would  unroof  the  American  potteries,  and  the  marked  decline  in  their 
prices  dated  from  that  time,  until  now  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  compete. 
We  are  in  a condition  where  we  cannot  stand  it  long,  and  should  not  be 
left  at  the  mercy  of  foreign  manufacturers. 

Home  competition  lessens  prices — and  this  brings  me  to  the  selling  prices 
to  the  retail  dealers  of  foreign  wares  before  the  advent  of  American  pot- 
teries and  since.  Ilere,  too,  we  are  enabled  to  present  incontestable 
figures,  showing  the  exorbitant  prices  charged  by  foreigners  when  they 
had  a monopoly  of  this  market  under  a low  tariff,  as  also  it  dbes  their 
corresponding  low  prices  when  in  competition  with  home  manufacturers. 

As  a guide,  accurate  and  fair,  I have  taken  an  assorted  crate — a com- 
plete and  regular  assortment,  beginning  in  1852.  The  following  table 
shows  the  prices  to  the  dealers  nearest  the  consumer,  (and  to  bring  the 
producer  and  consumer  nearer  together  is  one  of  the  great  objects  ob- 
tained by  our  home  manufacturers),  and  the  retail  crockery  and  general 
store  prices  at  which  an  assorted  crate  was  sold  at  the  different  periods 
indicated,  same  assortment  of  goods : 


1852.  Crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  1 $95  30 

1864.  Crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  2 210  75 

1872.  Crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  3 143  08 

1875.  Crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  4 129  61 

1877.  Crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  5 110  10 

1882.  Crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  6 (English  or  American) 57  89 


Mr.  Davenport  informs  me  that  his  house  has  the  English  and 
American  samples  spread  out  on  the  same  table  of  late  years,  and  that 
buyers  have  the  option  as  to  which  goods  they  buy— same  price  for 
each — and  that  they  sell  far  more  American  than  English.  This  speaks 
for  the  quality  of  American  goods  quite  as  forcibly  as  the  evidence  of 
the  English  manufacturers  before  quoted. 

The  above  figures  present  a very  alarming,  but  yet  instructive, 
history  and  condition  of  the  pottery  industry  in  this  country.  The 
prices  were  taken  from  the  books  of  Davenport  & Bros.,  jobbers  and 
importers  in  New  York  since  1841,  always  one  of  the  most  reliable  and 
conservative  houses  in  New  York.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  same 
assortment  was  jobbed  in  1852,  65  per  cent,  higher  than  to-day.  Then 
we  had  no  home  competition.  The  prices  in  1864  were  265  per  ceut. 
higher  than  now. 

It  may  be  said  that  processes  have  cheapened  at  home  and  abroad ; 
that  is  true  in  some  industries,  but  notin  pottery  to  any  appreciable 
extent.  The  same  old  processes  obtain.  The  potter’s  wheel  is  sub- 
stantially the  same  to-day  as  it  was  before  the  Christian  era — the  same 
yielding  and  plastic  clay  requires  the  same  yielding  hand  of  human  la- 
bor. The  rigid  precision  of  machinery  never  will  obtain  to  any  great 
extent  in  our  industry.  Bear  in  mind  that  the  low  prices  of  to-day 
cannot  be  excused  or  accounted  for  by  the  cheapening  of  processes, 
whether  from  labor  or  machinery.  They  still  impose  upon  their  work- 


J.  H.  BREWER.] 


POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


619 


men  by  their  “good  from  oven”  system,  thereby  causing  an  imposition 
of  from  5 to  20  per  cent.  One  of  the  English  manufacturers,  and  the 
largest  one,  discounts  his  men  10  per  cent.,  and  pays  good  from  hand 
as  we  do,  showing  another  advantage  they  have  over  us.  There  has 
been  a cheapening  of  labor  in  some  branches  of  the  trade,  but  a corre- 
sponding increase  in  others.  There  can  be  no  reason  given  for  their 
decline  in  prices,  except  that  it  was  made  at  the  expense  or  reduction 
of  the  English  manufacturers’  profits. 

There  can  be  but  one  reason  given  for  these  low  prices  of  foreign  goods, 
and  that  is  the  reason  always  found  in  “ healthy  home  competition.” 
As  a matter  of  fact — and  it  should  for  ever  set  at  rest  the  doubts  of  our 
agricultural  citizens,  North  and  South  alike,  as  to  the  direct  advantage 
they  get  by  a protective  tariff — under  the  protection  created  by  the 
war  premium  on  gold,  along  with  the  resent  tariff,  all  the  protected 
manufactures  are  cheaper  than  during  any  period  of  lower  tariffs, 
while  every  article  raised  by  them  from  the  soil  commands  a higher  price 
than  ever  before,  so  that,  as  a matter  of  fact,  no  fair-minded  and  intel- 
ligent man  will  believe  the  self-interested  statement  of  foreign  agents 
that  “the  consumer  pays  the  tax.” 

The  figures  read  a few  moments  ago  clearly  prove  that  all  of  the  re- 
duction in  pottery  was  wrested  from  England’s  profits,  and  that  it  was 
wholly  induced  by  American  competition. 

The  fact  that  we  are  manufacturing  in  this  country  $5,000,000  of  the 
$12,000,000  of  the  white  and  decorated  wares  consumed,  is  quite  suffi- 
cient to  alarm  the  ever  watchful  English  tradesmen;  and  they  are  but 
following  out  their  usual  custom  when  they  make  cheaper  prices,  or,  to 
put  it  more  forcibly,  quoting  from  English  testimony  before  the  last 
Board  of  Arbitration,  where  they  were  trying  to  reduce  their  labor, 
“To  keep  the  growth  and  the  increase  of  the  make  in  the  States  in 
check.” — (Page  7,  1st  column.) 

This  process  has  been  going  on  for  years,  until  now  we  are  compelled 
to  ask  the  fostering  care  of  the  government,  never  yet  so  zealous  to  de- 
fend and  protect  her  trade  as  our  great  rival  across  the  water.  May 
this  Commission  be  the  beginning  of  an  ever  watchful  and  intelligent 
care  for  all  the  material  interests  of  the  nation. 

We  believe  we  have  the  best  of  reasons  ; we  know,  and  you  gentlemen 
must  have  seen,  that  the  detail  and  intricacies  of  our  business  warrant 
as  much  protection  as  the  most  favored  industry.  The  hazardous  feature 
of  completing  tbe  final  and  most  delicate  processes,  in  the  midst  of  a 
furnace  at  a white  heat,  indicates  a condition  of  risk  not  existing  in  the 
manufacture  of  metals,  glass,  wood,  leather,  liquids  or  any  of  the  tex- 
tiles. A mistake  or  an  accident  in  any  of  our  processes  destroys  the 
value  of  all  the  materials  and  the  labor  expended  upon  them — even  a 
slight  accident  or  lack  of  finish  in  a former  process  cannot  be  cured. 

No  one  at  all  familiar  with  this  subject  will  contradict  us  when  we 
assert  that  we  have  the  most  difficult  of  practical  problems  to  solve, 
the  most  complicated  industry  to  master.  The  developing  and  analyz- 
ing of  raw  materials,  the  complications  of  compounding  and  firing, 
with  the  unavoidable  and  incident  loss,  stamp  it  as  the  most  tender  of 
all  the  arts.  We  find  in  sacred  and  profane  history  that  every  nation, 
in  order  to  develop  it,  has  made  it  the  object  of  its  protecting  care  and 
solicitude.  No  matter  how  rich  or  cultured  the  nation,  this  industry 
has  been  thought  so  expensive  to  master  that  no  individual  could  af- 
ford to  jmrsue  the  devious  courses  of  loss  and  experiment;  so  that  by 
royal  patronage  and  government  protection  has  it  been  nursed  to  life 
and  beauty.  In  1 Chron.  IV,  22,  23,  we  read,  “ Jokim  and  the  men  of 
Chozeba,  and  Joash,  and  Sarapli,  who  had  the  dominion  in  Moab. 


620 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  BREWER. 


* * * These  were  the  potters.  * * * There  they  dwelt  with 

the  king  for  his  work.”  Even  at  thac  early  day  did  this  industry  re- 
ceive royal  patronage. 

So  in  these  modern  days  have  the  governments  of  Europe  thrown 
around  this  art  the  mantle  of  their  protection.  England  first  made 
Wedgwood  potter  to  the  Queen,  and  bestowed  unlimited  royal  favors 
upon  his  works,  protecting  for  years  with  absolute  prohibition  the  in- 
troduction of  pottery  from  other  countries.  But  when,  in  1851,  at  the 
London  Exhibition,  she  found  France  leading  her  in  the  art,  she  came 
to  her  own  relief  by  endowing  art  schools  at  an  annual  expense  of  about 
$500,000.  With  this  encouragement,  when  next  she  compares  her  pro- 
ducts of  art  with  France,  at  the  late  Paris  Exposition,  again  does  she 
excel;  again  has  she  succeeded  in  retaining  her  market;  again  has  she 
increased  her  export  trade. 

The  industry  now  is  of  sufficient  importance.  The  raw  materials  exist 
in  almost  every  State,  and  are  developed  in  Maine,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Delaware,  Ohio,  Illinois, 
Indiana,  Missouri,  Virginia,  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina,  Georgia, 
Tennessee,  and  Texas. 

The  old  argument  that  we  are  insignificant  and  that  our  goods  are 
inferior  cannot  now  be  used,  as  these  points  are  yielded  by  the  English 
manufacturers  themselves,  and  it  cannot  be  presented  with  any  show  of 
truth  or  of  argument  from  their  agents  or  allies  in  this  country,  who 
are  always  ready  to  do  their  bidding. 

Another  reason  why  we  should  be  considered  one  of  the  most  favored 
industries,  we  can  only  yield  an  annual  product  equal  to  the  capital  in- 
vested. A pottery  of  $100,000  capital  could  only  turn  out  a product 
about  equal  to  the  capital  invested,  so  that  the  margin  of  profit  should 
be  of  sufficient  amount  to  compensate  for  all  ordinary  mishaps  and 
losses,  dependent  as  it  is  upon  a single  turn  of  the  capital. 

DECORATED  WARES. 

This  branch  of  our  business  has  grown  wonderfully  since  1876,  our 
decorations  being  confined  to  very  cheap  and  common  patterns,  mainly 
for  toilet  wares.  But  there  seems  to  be  an  irresistible  desire  on  the  part 
of  the  American  people  for  some  sort  of  art.  Of  course,  it  has  been 
impossible  for  us  to  compete  with  the  cultured,  educated,  and  well- 
trained  hands  of  England  or  the  continent,  in  general  decoration,  and 
we  have  had  to  content  ourselves  with  bands  and  lines,  or  some  cheap 
and  special  American  patterns.  Not  that  this  feature  of  our  business 
pays  us  at  all  (for  it  does  not  pay) ; our  competition  iu  this  branch  of  our 
trade  is  the  most  unequal  of  all.  But,  being  potters,  our  people  demand 
that  we  advance.  We  must  advance  or  have  our  whole  market  taken 
away  by  a supersedure  of  decorated  for  plain  wares.  Europe  has  culti- 
vated by  subsidy,  by  schools  of  design,  by  government  potteries , this 
particular  branch,  until  almost  every  household  has  its  decorator.  They 
have  labor  in  this  line  in  great  abundance.  We  must  create,  cultivate, 
and  by  slow  degrees  grow  into  this  branch  of  the  trade.  True,  we  could 
import,  and,  to  a very  great  extent,  must  import  this  labor  ready-made, 
so  to  speak,  but  here  we  meet  the  greatest  obstacle.  This  branch  of  the 
trade  is  the  best  paid  abroad,  and  workmen  must  have  great  induce- 
ments offered  to  induce  them  to  leave  their  present  profitable  employ- 
ment. 

I desire,  just  here,  to  read  an  extract  from  the  London  Pottery  Gazette, 


J h.  brewer.]  POTTERY  MANUFACTURES.  621 

June  1, 1882,  p.  545,  written  by  a country  clergyman  visiting  the  English 
pottery  district: 

Journeying  on  for  a short  distance,  I came  in  sight  of  the  celebrated  works  of  Min- 
ton and  Copeland.  At  the  works  of  Copeland  and  that  of  Minton,  I found  pottery  art 
in  perlectiou,  but  one  of  the  most  noticeable  features  was  the  well-dressed,  gentlemanly 
appearance  of  the  male  work-people,  whose  politeness  and  good  manners  w on  me  over 
immediately.  The  women,  too,  were  smart  and  clean  and  very  lady-like. 

This  branch  of  trade  is  perhaps  more  desirable  than  any  other,  because 
it  ennobles  and  elevates  labor,  and  tends  to  make  the  world  more 
beautiful  and  life  more  endurable,  and,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  if  adequately 
protected,  as  in  white  ware,  these  goods  may  be  made  cheaper  to  the 
consumer. 

Says  the  Fair  Trade  editor  of  the  Pottery  Gazette,  London,  speak- 
ing of  pottery  in  America  : 

Of  the  tariff  of  the  United  States,  under  present  circumstances,  we  have  little  com- 
plaint to  make,  further  than  that  we  should  be  happy  to  see  its  tariff  on  embellished 
goods  reduced  to  the  English  level  of  10s.  per  100  lbs. — July  number. 

They  have  no  fault  to  find  with  duties  on  plain  goods.  We  have  great 
fault  to  find,  and  their  admission  alone  should  be  enough  to  point  out 
Our  policy ; and  as  to  the  embellished  goods,  why  the  very  duty  free 
trade  England  demands,  10s.  per  cwt.,  is  25  per  cent,  higher  than  our 
present  duty  on  a crate  of  printed  decorations. 

In  order  that  you  may  fully  understand  the  difficulties  in  our  way, 
and  the  subterfuges  resorted  to  by  our  foreign  competitors,  I desire  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  following  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  C.  A.  Arthur,  collector,  against  Max 
Jacoby  etal.,  promulgated  for  the  information  of  customs  officers  and 
others  concerned : 

[1881.  Department  No.  33.  Secretary’s  Office.] 

[Circular.] 

Paintings  on  Porcelain,  &c. 

Treasury  Department, 
Washington , D.  C.,  March  29,  1881. 

To  Collectors  and  other  Officers  of  the  Customs  : 

The  following  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  C. 
A.  Arthur,  collector,  plaintiff  in  error,  against  Max  Jacoby  et  al.,  defendants  in  error, 
is  promulgated  for  the  information  of  customs  officers  and  others  concerned,  viz  : 

“ This  was  a suit  to  recover  back  duties  paid  under  protest.  The  bill  of  exceptions 
stated  it  was  proven  at  the  trial  that  all  the  goods  charged  with  the  duties  were  ‘ pic- 
tures painted  by  hand,  and  their  value  depended  on  the  skill  of  the  particular  artist 
who  painted  them,  and  the  porcelain  ground  on  which  they  were  painted  was  only 
used  to  obtain  a good  surface  on  which  to  paint,  and  was  entirely  obscured  from  view 
when  framed  or  set  in  any  manner,  and  formed  no  material  part  of  the  value  of  said 
painting  on  porcelain,  and  did  not  in  itself  constitute  an  article  of  chinaware,  being 
manufactured  simply  as  a ground  for  the  painting,  and  not  for  any  use  independent  of 
the  paintings.’  The  collector  exacted  a duty  of  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem  under 
the  clause  in  Schedule  B,  sec.  2504  Revised  Statutes,  relating  to  ‘ china,  porcelain, 
and  parian  ware,  gilded,  ornamented,  or  decorated  in  any  manner,’  wrhile  the  importer 
claims  they  were  dutiable  at  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem  only,  under  the  clause  in 
Schedule  M,  which  embraces  1 paintings  and  statuary  not  otherwise  provided  for.’  In 
other  words,  the  collector  claimed  they  were  decorated  china  or  porcelain  ware,  and 
the  importer  that  they  were  paintings  on  china  or  porcelain.  The  evidence  seems  to 
have  left  no  doubt  on  this  subject,  for  it  is  expressly  stated  in  the  bill  of  exceptions  to 
have  been  proved  that  the  porcelain  ground  on  which  the  painting  was  done,  ‘ did  not 
in  itself  constitute  an  article  of  chinaware.’  Such  being  the  case,  the  painting  which 
was  done  on  it  did  not  make  it  decorated  chinaware.” 


622 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  BREWER. 


This  particular  piece  in  shape  was  made  like  a plate,  without  a foot, 
however,  and  could  be  called  a ground  for  a painting  in  oil  colors,  but 
not  in  metallic  colors  painted  by  mechanical  artists. 

Confessedly  the  goods  were  paintings  done  by  hand,  and  as  it  is  not  claimed  they 
were  “otherwise  provided  for”  than  as  chinaware  decorated,  it  follows  the  court  was 
right  in  directing  a verdict  in  favor  of  the  importer  for  the  difference  between  10  and 
50  per  cent.  It  is  a matter  of  no  importance  in  this  case  that  the  colors  used  were 
metallic,  and  that  the  pictures  were  baked  to  make  the  colors  more  firm.  If  the  jury 
had  fonnd  a verdict  in  favor  of  the  defendant,  the  court  should  have  set  it  aside  as 
against  what  is  admitted  to  have  been  proved.  Under  such  circumstances  a judgment 
will  not  be  reversed  on  account  of  a positive  instruction  to  find  for  the  plaintiff. 
(Pleasants  v.  Fant,  22  Wall.,  116.) 

As  the  bill  of  exceptions  states  that  the  facts  on  which  the  case  depends  were 
proved,  we  cannot  say  that  the  admission  in  evidence  of  samples  of  “similar”  importa- 
tions on  which  duties  had  been  paid  at  10  per  centum  could  have  perjudiced  the  col- 
lector’s case.  The  question  which  the  court  decided  was,  that  the  goods  were  not 
chinaware,  but  paintings. 

The  articles  embraced  in  this  suit  were  copies  of  well-known  pictures  on  small 
pieces  of  porcelain,  adaptable  to  house  ornaments,  or,  if  small  enough  for  use,  as  per- 
sonal ornaments.  They  were  chiefly  of  medium  size,  and  were  not  framed  or  set  when 
imported.  It  appears  to  have  been  proven  on  the  trial  that  the  pictures  were  painted 
by  hand,  that  their  value  depended  on  the  skill  of  the  particular  artist  who  painted 
them,  and  that  the  porcelain  ground  on  which  they  were  painted  was  only  used  to 
obtain  a good  surface  on  which  to  paint,  and  was  entirely  obscured  from  view  when 
framed  or  set,  and  formed  no  material  part  of  the  value  of  said  painting,  and  did  not 
in  itself  constitute  an  article  of  chinaware,  being  manufactured  simply  as  a ground 
for  the  painting  and  not  for  any  use  independent  of  the  paintings. 

The  court  ruled  that  the  articles  before  it,  before  being  decorated,  were  not,  in  fact, 
china  or  porcelain  ware  within  the  sense  of  the  statute,  and  that  they  did  not  become 
china  or  porcelain  ware  by  the  process  of  decoration.  It  necessa  ily  follows,  from  the 
ruling  of  the  court,  that  articles  which  are  in  fact  chinaware,  although  decorated  by 
paintings,  still  remain  chinaware,  and  dutiable  as  such. 

Officers  of  the  customs  will  hereafter  conlorm  their  actions  to  the  views  thus  laid 
down,  and  in  any  case  where  duties  have  been  exacted  in  excess  of  the  lawful  rate, 
and  the  provisions  of  section  2931  of  the  Revised  Statutes  shall  have  been  complied 
with,  certified  statements  will  be  forwarded  for  refund  of  such  excess,  after  a reclassi- 
fication of  the  merchandise  by  the  appraiser  on  the  invoices. 

Each  statement  should  have  indorsed  thereon  a certificate  from  the  appraiser  to  the 
effect  that  “ the  articles  on  which  the  pictures  are  painted  are  not  china,  porcelain,  or 
parian  ware  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  as  construed  by  the  court  in  Arthur  v. 
Jacoby.” 

Where  suits  have  been  instituted  for  the  recovery  of  the  excess  you  will  require  a 
certificate  of  tbeir  discontinuance,  and  include  in  the  certified  statement  the  proper 
interest  and  accrued  costs. 

H.  F.  FRENCH, 
Assistant  Secretary. 

I will  say  that  plaques  well  painted  and  fired  are  to  some  extent  works 
of  art.  1 shall  not  attempt  to  deny  this;  but  that  a piece  of  crockery, 
either  porcelain  or  earthenware,  is  in  fact  a work  of  art  when  it  is  a 
mechanical  process,  as  in  this  case,  and  passes  through  several  hands, 
some  skilled  and  some  unskilled,  and  all  of  them  simple  mechanics — 
mechanical  artists,  if  you  please — before  it  is  finished,  I do  deny.  In  a 
great  measure  it  is  a work  of  chance  more  than  a work  of  art.  Colors 
vary  very  much,  according  to  the  intensity  of  the  heat  to  which  they 
are  subjected.  A piece  of  ware  passes  through  several  hands  before  it 
is  completed.  The  man  who  puts  the  gold  on  does  not  do  the  firing, 
the  man  who  does  the  tiring  does  not  do  the  burnishing,  and  soon,  so 
that  it  is  wholly  a mechanical  process.  Besides,  no  color  shows  its  real 
shade  till  it  is  fired,  so  that  no  painting  on  earthenware  in  metallic  colors 
can  be  considered  a picture  even  till  it  has  been  through  the  tire  of  the 
enamel  kiln.  Again,  these  imported  plaques  are  brought  in  direct  com- 
petition with  our  Americau  production  of  plaques,  as  well  as  our  table- 
ware. 

I am  informed  that  dessert  plates  are  brought  through  the  custom- 


J.  H.  BREWER.  J 


POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


623 


houses  regularly  as  plaques,  paying  only  10  per  cent,  duty,  and  then 
sold  by  dealers  by  the  dozen  for  table  uses. 

The  men  who  do  this  work  upon  plaques  are  not  considered  artists 
in  any  sense  of  the  word.  They  earn  simply  mechanics’  wages.  The 
same  class  of  workmen  and  workwomen  produce  these  foreign  plaques, 
and  lienee  they  cannot  be  works  of  art,  in  any  sense,  dutiable  only  under 
the  10  per  cent,  clause. 

The  law  reads  as  follows: 

Paintings  and  statuary,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
But  the  term  “ statuary, ” as  used  in  the  laws  now  in  force  imposing  duties  on  foreign 
importations,  shall  be  understood  to  include  professional  productions  of  a statuary  or 
of  a sculptor  only. 

They  should  not  apply  that  to  the  paintings  here,  for  the  same  reason. 
These  paintings  on  the  plaques  imported  are  duplicated  and  redupli- 
cated over  and  over  again — dashed  off  in  the  most  hasty  manner,  and, 
to  the  eye  of  a painter  on  china  or  earthenware,  are  simply  commercial 
decorations,  the  same  as  are  found  on  regular  table  and  toilet  ware,  both 
foreign  and  domestic.  It  is  a little  singular  that  this  discovery  of  the 
art  in  plaque  decoration  should  have  been  made  just  when  the  American 
potter  began  to  compete,  with  fair  and  merchantable  decorations,  with 
the  English  and  French  factories.  It  is  not  denied  that  all  these  deco- 
rations are  made  in  the  factory  by  the  same  workmen  who  make  the 
paintings  upon  table  and  toilet  ware  and  mantel  vases  and  ornaments. 
Such  a construction  of  the  law  as  made  by  the  Supreme  Court  could 
not  be  made,  except  upon  the  theoretical  and  technical  grounds  of  law- 
yers and  judges,  whose  duty  it  may  be  to  construe  the  laws  passed  by 
men  of  fair  business  common  sense  always  against  common  sense  and 
the  government  as  well. 

No  man  posted  in  the  pottery  business,  and  hence  fitted  to  judge, 
would  ever  have  thought  of,  much  less  have  promulgated,  such  an  idea. 
As  there  is  no  limit  to  which  this  decision  may  be  carried,  and  as  it  is 
susceptible  of  great  abuse — as  it  strikes  down  a large  and  growing 
branch  of  our  already  languishing  pottery  industry — I pray  you  to  cor- 
rect the  law  in  this  respect. 


PORCELAIN, 

or  what  has  heretofore  been  known  as  French  china,  as  before  stated, 
is  but  little  made  in  this  couutry,  Thomas  C.  Smith,  of  Greenpoint,  N. 
Y.,  and  theGreenwood  Pottery  Company  of  Trenton  being  the  only  manu- 
facturers of  it  in  considsrable  quantities ; but  numerous  experiments 
have  been  made  by  nearly  all  the  manufacturers  of  pottery  in  the  country, 
and  whenever  conditions  are  favorable,  as  compared  with  the  foreign 
product,  the  finest  grades  can  be  made  successfully.  All  our  materials 
invite  this  branch  of  the  trade. 

French  labor  being  about  one-third  cheaper  than  English  labor,  this 
class  of  goods  should  have  a higher  protection,  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, than  white  earthenware.  Besides,  it  is  more  in  the  nature  of 
a luxury.  If  fairly  dealt  with,  this  branch  of  our  industry  would  astonish 
the  most  fastidious  in  a very  short  time. 

The  following  is  a schedule  of  duties  recommended  to  be  adopted  up- 
on earthen,  stone,  and  china  wares: 

Brown  earthen  and  common  stone  ware,  gas  restorts,  stoneware  not 
ornamented  in  any  manner,  ten  (10)  cents  per  cubic  foot,  and  ten  (10) 
per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Plain  white  or  cream  colored  earthenware,  stone  or  crockery  ware, 


C24 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  BREWER. 


made  of  earthy  or  mineral  substances,  not  ornamented  in  any  manner, 
thirty-five  (35)  cents  per  cubic  foot,  outside  measurement,  including 
packages,  and  thirty- five  (35)  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Earthenware  printed,  edged,  dipped,  gilded,  painted,  tinted,  composed 
of  earthy  or  mineral  substances,  ornamented  or  decorated  in  any  man- 
ner, seventy-five  (75)  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Plain  white  china,  porcelain,  parian  or  bisque  ware,  not  ornamented 
or  decorated  in  any  manner,  thirty-five  (35)  cents  per  cubic  foot,  and 
sixty-five  (65)  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

China,  porcelain,  parian  or  bisque  ware,  including  plaques,  orna- 
ments, charms,  vases,  and  statuettes,  painted,  printed,  gilded,  or  other- 
wise decorated  or  ornamented  in  any  manner,  seventy-five  (75)  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

All  other  earthen,  stone,  china,  porcelain,  parian,  bisque  or  other  ware 
composed  of  earthy  or  mineral  substances,  and  not  otherwise  provided 
for,  seventy-five  (75)  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

In  defense  of  the  ad  valorem  and  compound  duties,  and  as  a reason 
for  the  adoption  of  the  same,  I ask  attention  to  the  statement  made  be- 
fore you,  by  Mr.  E.  P.  Wheeler,  representing  the  New  York  Free  Trade 
Club,  p.  7. 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  have  made  these  duties  partly  ad  valorem  and 
partly  compound.  We  have  studied  this  matter  very  carefully,  and 
have  encountered  some  difficulties,  and  the  figures  presented  here  are 
in  accordance  with  our  best  judgment. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  say,  “including  packages.”  Do  you 
mean  to  measure  the  crate  or  the  box  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Yes. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  would  just  measure  the  box,  and  let 
them  put  in  as  much  or  as  little  ware  as  they  please  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Yes. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Then  if  there  was  one  valuable  plate  in  a 
box,  covered  up  with  wraps  to  protect  it  from  injury,  you  would  have 
that  one  plate  pay  as  much  duty  as  if  there  were  two,  or  a dozen? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Yes;  if  the  goods  came  singly  in  that  way;  but  they 
do  not. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  As  a matter  of  fact  they  do  put  a great 
deal  of  wrapping  about  valuable  ware.  Sometimes  we  have  plates 
worth  fifty-odd  guineas  apiece,  and  on  such  plates  there  would  be  per- 
haps ten  times  as  much  wrapping  as  upon  ordinary  ware. 

Mr.  Laughltn.  Let  me  suggest  that  the  specific  duty  of  thirty-five 
cents  per  cubic  foot  would  be  very  little  on  a box;  it  would  be  a mere 
bagatelle. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  What  is  the  object  of  this  cubic  foot  pro- 
vision ; I do  not  understand  it. 

Mr.  Brewer.  Mr.  Wheeler,  before  referred  to,  says: 

The  only  objection  I know  of  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  as  opposed  to  a specific  duty 
is  the  opportunity  it  offers  for  fraudulent  undervaluations.  But  I would  suggest,  that 
in  regard  to  a staple  article  like  steel  aud  irou  rails,  dealt  in  in  enormous  quantities, 
and  in  regard  to  which  no  disguise  or  concealmeut  is  possible,  there  is  no  reason  for 
specific  duty  at  all.  There  are  some  articles  undoubtedly,  which  it  is  comparatively 
easy  to  undervalue.  Some  gentlemen  may  remember  the  litigation  iu  regard  to  the 
value  of  champagne.  It  was  shown  that  there  were  some  brands  of  that  wine  made 
in  France  for  the  American  market,  which  were  not  sold  in  France  at  all,  and,  there- 
fore, the  producers  put  their  own  vahie  on  them,  and  it  was  thought  that  fraud  had 
arisen,  and  juries  found  verdicts  against  them. 

Our  case  is  precisely  the  same.  The  government  quite  recently 
field  an  examination,  botfi  in  New  York  and  Pfiiladelpfiia,  as  to  tfie 


J.  H.  BREWER. 1 


POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


G25 


classification  of  imported  crockery.  . The  experts  selected  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  decided  that  the  classification  was  incorrect  and  un- 
fair— firsts  being  called  finselected,  and  unselected,  thirds,  &c.  But 
the  appraiser  decided,  after  a partial  examination,  that  nothing  could 
be  done,  inasmuch  as  the  value  at  the  port  of  shipment  could  not  be 
shown  to  be  different  from  those  at  which  the  goods  were  billed.  And 
further,  to  show  the  necessity  for  specific  duties,  I quote  from  Colonel 
Moore’s  report  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

That  all  earthenware  is  more  or  less  imperfect,  and  as  all  manufacturers  make  arbi- 
trary standards  for  their  own  mako  of  unselected  or  run-of-kiln-goods,  no  standard 
can  be  suggested  that  would  secure  uniformity  of  practice  in  the  customs  service, 

showing,  conclusively,  that  a specific  duty,  or  a compound  duty,  is  the 
only  remedy  to  reach  a uniform  and  fair  valuation  of  such  goods. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  This  specific  duty  which  you  undertake  to 
arrange  here,  because  of  the  manner  in  which  the  goods  are  packed, 
and  the  way  in  which  the  business  is  carried  on,  would  it  have  any 
general  equal  effect  ; what  would  be  its  effect  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  It  would  have  the  effect  of  making  them  pay  proper 
duties. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  But  the  question  is,  whether  there  is  unifor- 
mity in  the  size  of  the  packages  and  in  the  number  of  pieces  contained 
in  them  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Oh,  yes;  they  always  fill  the  packages  very  solidly. 
They  could  not  carry  them  unless  they  were  packed  solidly,  and  it  is 
easier  to  measure  such  packages  than  to  weigh  them. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  This  cubic  foot  duty,  that  you  recommend, 
what  percentage  would  it  be  on  the  average  package? 

Mr.  Brewer.  The  average  duty  that  we  ask  for  is  about  75  per  cent. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  This  is  a new  industry  here — less  than  twenty 
years  old,  I understand? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Yes. 

Commissioner  xAmbler.  Do  you  know  when  the  first  of  the  recent 
attempts  were  made  to  produce  white  ware  of  this  kind  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  About  1852. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Where  were  those  attempts  made? 

Mr.  Brewer.  In  Jersey  City,  Trenton,  and  East  Liverpool,  Ohio. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  But,  as  I understand  you,  there  was  little 
success  until  18(33? 

Mr.  Brewer.  The  early  attempts  were  not  a commercial  success. 
The  ware  could  be  successfully  made,  but  it  was  made  mainly  from  for- 
eign material,  and  the  enterprise  was  not  successful,  commercially. 

Mr.  Willets.  There  was  a pottery  established  in  New  Jersey  some 
forty  years  ago ; but  the  work  done  was  confined  to  some  special  articles. 
There  was  no  full  line  of  goods  made. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Do  you  desire  to  make  any  statement  in  re- 
gard to  the  duties  on  your  material ; as  to  whether  it  would  be  advan- 
tageous to  the  trade  to  produce  the  material  here,  or  to  import  it? 

Mr.  Brewer.  I do  not  think  the  duty  on  the  raw  material  should  be 
more  than  on  the  manufactured  goods.  I want  to  be  consistent  in  re- 
gard to  the  matter.  The  duty  on  china  clay  is  twice  as  great  as  it  is  on 
foreign  ware,  still,  I don't  think  wTe  should  use  foreigu  materials  in  any 
event,  because  we  wish  to  develop  our  own. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Is  the  clay  imported  as  a raw  material  at 
all?  Do  you  use  any  imported  clay  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  We  do  not  at  Trenton,  but  I understand  that  the  East 
Liverpool  people  got  a cargo  of  it  last  year. 

H.  Mis.  G 40 


626 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  BREWER. 


Mr.  Lauohlin.  It  was  not  absolutely  raw:  it  was  what  is  known  as 
washed  kaolin.  Sixteen  shillings  is  the  lowest  price  of  that  material, 
and  the  very  finest  costs  twenty  seven  shillings.  The  duty  on  that  is 
$5  a ton,  making  it  on  the  kind  of  material  we  imported  last  year,  about 
100  per  cent. 

Commissioner  Porter.  Was  there  any  real  necessity  for  your  im- 
porting that  clay? 

Mr.  Lauohlin.  None;  except  that  it  was  cheaper  at  that  time  than 
the  home  product.  Our  own  materials  are  much  better  than  the  Eng- 
lish, but  we  were  crowded  in  the  selling  prices  of  our  goods,  and  we  were 
compelled  to  make  them  as  cheaply  as  we  could. 

Commissioner  Porter.  Would  it  not  be  still  better  to  remove  the 
duty  from  that  raw  material  altogether  ? 

Mr.  Laugiilin.  It  would.  The  English  clays  are  inferior  to  our  own, 
though. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I understand  that  you  substantially  agree 
that  it  will  be  for  the  eventual  benefit  of  the  trade  to  develop  the  home 
clays  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Yes,  we  agree  upon  that. 

Commissioner  Porter.  If  our  clay  is  better  than  the  English  how  is 
it  that  the  English  make  better  pottery  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  I have  just  been  saying  here  that  they  do  not  make 
better  pottery. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  have  referred  to  an  alleged  fact,  that 
in  every  household  abroad  (I  do  not  know  whether  you  referred  to 
England  or  to  Germany,  or  to  both)  there  is  some  one  who  practices 
decoration  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  I referred  especially  to  Germany  and  France.  But 
the  same  is  true  of  England  to  a certain  extent. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  What  point  do  you  make  on  that? 

Mr.  Brewer.  That  those  people  are.  more  cultivated  in  this  direction 
than  our  own  people,  and  that  labor  of  this  kind  is  more  abundant  there 
than  here. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Do  you  remember  the  hair -flower  epidemic 
that  went  through  the  households  of  this  country  some  years  ago,  and 
subsequently  the  wax-flower  epidemic,  and,  later,  the  crocheting  pes- 
tilence, and  do  you  recognize  the  fact  of  the  presence  now  in  nearly 
every  household  of  the  aesthetic  mug,  and  so  on;  and,  in  view  of  these 
facts,  have  you  the  moral  courage  to  state  here  that  our  people,  as  a 
t body,  are  exceeded  in  taste  and  culture  by  any  people  on  the  other  side 
of  the  water  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  I do  not  know  that  I would  go  to  that  extent,  but 
those  people  in  Europe  are  able  to  earn  a great  deal  of  money  in  this 
way,  and  that  is  the  most  practical  consideration  with  them.  Further, 
I do  say  that  it  certainly  would  not  depreciate  or  deteriorate  our  people 
in  the  scale  of  existence  if  they  should  practice  these  arts. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  does  not  that  kind  of  labor  exist  here 
now  in  superabundance  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Yes  ; but  our  people  do  not  understand  how  to  do  the 
work  in  the  best  manner. 

Mr.  Laughlin.  There  are  technical  details  in  the  combining  of  colors 
and  in  firing  and  other  jmocesses,  which  have  to  be  taught  by  skilled 
teachers,  aud  it  will  be  necessary  to  imx>ort  foreign  workmen  to  teach 
these  details. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  a great  benefit 


J.  H.  BREWER.] 


POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


627 


to  your  manufacturers  of  pottery  aud  to  the  community  to  have  con- 
nected with  the  normal  school  of  your  State  an  art  department,  to  teach 
such  things  ? 

Mr.  Laughlin.  It  certainly  would. 

Mr.  Brewer.  That  would  be  only  following  the  lead  of  England  and 
France  in  this  respect.  The  managers  of  our  decorative  departments 
have  graduated  from  some  of  the  art  schools  in  England,  and  have  after- 
wards learned  the  art  of  decorating. 

Mr.  Laughlin.  We  have  to  take  the  conditions  as  they  exist.  We 
have  not  got  those  art  schools,  so  we  have  to  offer  foreign  artists  ex- 
traordinary inducements  in  order  to  persuade  them  to  come  here. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Whatis  the  ordinary  raw  material — the  clay — 
worth  in  its  crude  state  when  it  reaches  your  factory? 

Mr.  Brewer.  The  china  clay  is  washed  before  it  comes  to  us.  It  is 
worth  from  $15  to  $17  a ton. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  What  is  the  royalty  that  is  paid  for  it  in  the 
ground  ? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Fifty  cents. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Then  the  difference  between  50  cents  and 
$17  is  for  labor  and  transportation? 

Mr.  Brewer.  Yes,  and  profit.  Our  commoner  New  Jersey  clay  costs 
$0  to  $8. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  let  me  impress  finally  upon  you  the  necessity  of 
protecting  the  pottery  industry  as  much  as  tbe  most  favored  industry. 
No  person  at  all  familiar  with  the  process  of  making  pottery  wares  will 
say  that  this  request  is  unfair  or  unreasonable.  Having  then,  as  we 
believe,  a better  case  than  any  other  American  industry,  we  ask  a duty 
equal  to  the  most  favored. 

Having  reduced,  by  our  competition,  the  prices  of  English  wares  65 
per  cent,  to  consumers ; having  millions  of  capital  invested  and  thou- 
sands of  operatives  employed,  as  before  mentioned  in  detail;  having  all 
the  materials  and  advantages  necessary  to  the  development  of  this 
great  industry,  if  adequately  protected ; having  an  industry  where  90 
per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  production  consists  of  labor ; having  labor  over 
100  per  cent,  higher  than  those  competing  for  this  market;  having  an 
industry  overlooked  in  the  formation  of  the  tariff*  of  1861,  because  of  its 
insignificance  at  that  time ; having  au  industry  created  wholly  by  the 
gold  premium  of  former  years;  let  us  make  the  conditions  of  this 
industry  in  the  United  States  equal  to  the  conditions  abroad;  let  us 
place  this  industry  in  the  class  of  American  industries  requiring  the 
highest  rate  of  duty. 

This  done,  and  we  will  manufacture,  in  ten  years,  $20,000,000  of  pot- 
tery, both  china  and  earthenware,  plain  and  decorated,  cheaper  than 
we  would  otherwise  obtain  them,  and  that,  too,  by  American  workmen, 
on  American  soil,  from  American  material. 

Exhibit  1. 

Regular  Assorted  Crate  W.  G. 

sold  in  1852. 

4 4 6 4 6 

24  dozen  W.  G.  plates,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8, $19  20 

$0.55  $0.65  $0.80  $0.90  $1.00 

i i 1 i i 1 i 

2£  dozen  W.  G.  dishes,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14,  16,  10  75 

$2.25  $3.00  $3.75  $4.50  $6.00  $7.50  $10.50 


628 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J,  H.  BREWER. 


£ £ £ £ £ 

2£  dozen  W.  G.  bakers,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  $10  12 

$2.25  $3,00  $4.00  $5.00  $6.00 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  W.  G.  covered  dishes,  8,  9,  10, 9 00 

$7.50  $9.00  $10.50 

£ dozen  W.  G.  sauce  tureens,  complete,  at  $10.50 1 75 

£ dozen  W.  G.  sauce  boats,  at  $2.50 1 25 

£ dozen  W.  G.  pickles,  at  $2.25 1 13 

£ dozen  W.  G.  covered  butters  and  drainers,  at  $7.50  2 50 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  W.  G.  teapots,  sugars,  creams, 3 48 

$0.40  $0.30  $0.17 

1 gross  W.  G.  teas,  unhandled . 5 00 

£ gross  W.  G.  teas,  handled,  at  $6.50  3 25 

£ gross  W.  G.  coffees,  handled,  at  $9.00 4 50 

£ gross  W.  G.  coffees,  unhandled,  at  $6.50  3 25 

£ £ £ 

2 dozen  W.  G.  jugs,  30,  24,  12,  6,  8 62 

$2.50  $3.50  $4.50  $6.75 

£ dozen  W.  G.  ewers  and  basins,  9\s  at  $10.50 „ 3 50 

£ dozen  W.  G.  covered  chambers,  9’s,  at  $10.50 3 50 

£ 1 £ 

2 dozen  W.  G.  bowls,  24,  30,  36,  2 50 

$1.50  $1.25  $1 

2 2 

£ dozen  W.  G.  covered  soaps,  covered  trays 2 00 

$0.50  $0.50 

95  30 

Exhibit  2. 

Regular  Assorted  Crate  W.  G. 
sold  in  1864. 

4 4 6 4 6 

24  dozen  plates,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  $43  75 

$1.25  $1.50  $1.87  $2.00  $2.25 

£££££££ 

2£  dozen  dishes,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14,  16,  24  50 

$4.50  $6.00  $7.50  $12.00  $13.50  $18.00  $24.00 

£ £ £ £ £ 

2£  dozen  bakers,  6,  7,  8,  9 10,  19  50 

$4.50  $6.00  $7.50  $9.00  $12.00 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  covered  dishes,  8,  9,  10,  19  50 

$16.50  $18.00  $24.00 

£ dozen  sauce  tureens,  complete,  at  $21.00 3 50 

£ dozen  sauce  boats,  at  $7.50 3 75 

£ dozen  pickles,  at  $4.50  2 25 

£ dozen  covered  butters,  at  $15.00 5 00 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  teapots,  sugars,  creams ._ 9 00 

$1.00  $0.87  $0.38 

1 gross  teas,  unhandled 12  00 

£ gross  teas,  handled,  at  $13.50 6 75 

£ gross  coffees,  handled,  at  $21.00 10  50 

£ gross  coffees,  unbundled,  at  $18.00 9 00 


J.  H.  bkeweb.]  POTTERY  MANUFACTURES.  629 

£ £ £ £ 

2 dozen  jugs,  30,  24,  12,  6 - $15  75 

$4.50  $6.00  $9.00  $12.00 

£ dozen  ewers  and  basins,  9’s,  at  $30.00 10  50 

£ 1 £ 

2 dozen  bowls,  24,  30,  36,  6 00 

$4.00  $3.00  $2.00 

2 2 

£ dozen  covered  soaps,  covered  trays 4 00 

$1.00  $1.00 

£ dozen  oovered  chambers,  9’s,  at  $18.00 * 6 00 


210  75 

Exhibit  3. 

Regular  Assorted  Crate  W.  G. 
sold  in  1872. 


4 4 6 4 6 

24  dozen  plates,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  $27  80 

$0.90  $1.05  $1.15  $1.25  $1.35 

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ 

2£  dozen  dishes,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14,  16,  17  66 

$4.50  $5.50  $6.50  $7.80  $9.00  $12.00  $16.00 

£ £ £ £ £ 

2£  dozen  bakers,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  15  30 

$4.00  $5.00  $6.00  $7.20  $8.40 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  covered  dishes,  8,  9,  10,  16  13 

$14.40  $16.00  $18.00 

£ dozen  sauce  tureens,  complete,  at  $16.20 2 70 

£ dozen  sauce  boats,  at  $4. 50 v 2 25 

£ dozen  pickles,  at  $3.00 - 1 50 

£ dozen  covered  butters,  at  $9. 00 3 00 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  teapots,  sugars,  creams,  5 64 

$0.60  $0.56  $0.25 

1 gross  teas,  unhand  led,  at  $7.00 7 00 

£ gross  teas,  handled,  at  $9.00  4 50 

£ gross  coffees,  handled,  at  $11.00  5 50 

£ gross  coffees,  unhandled,  at  $9.00 4 50 

£ £ £ £ 

2 dozen  jugs,  30,  24,  12,  6,  12  50 

$3.75  $5.25  $7.00  $9.00 

£ dozen  ewers  and  basins,  9’s,  at  $16.80  5 60 

* £ l £ 

2 dozen  bowls,  24,  30,  36,  4 50 

$2.75  $2.25  $1.75 

2 2 

£ dozen  covered  soaps,  covered  trays,  3 00 

$0.75  $0.75 


£ dozen  covered  chambers,  9’s,  at  $12.00 


4 00 


630 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  BREWER. 


Exhibit  4. 

Regular  Assorted  Crate  W.  G. 
sold  in  1875. 


4 4 6 4 6 

24  dozen  plates,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  $26  20 

|0.85  $0.95  $1.10  $1.15  $1.30 

£ £ £ £ £ £ l 

2%  dozen  dishes,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14,  16 15  21 

$3.00  $3.50  $4.50  $6.75  $9.00  $12.00  $14.00 

' £ £ £ £ £ 

2£  dozen  bakers,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  13  25 

$2.50  $4.00  $5.50  $9.50  $8.00 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  covered  dishes,  8,  9,  10,  13  83 

$12.00  $13.50  $16.00 

£ dozen  sance  tureens,  complete,  at  $13.50  2 25 

£ dozen  sance  boats,  at  $4.00  2 00 

£ dozen  pickles,  at  $2.50 1 25 

£ dozen  covered  butters,  at  $8.40 2 80 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  teapots,  sugars,  creams - 5 00 

$0.55  $0.50  $0.20 

1 gross  teas,  unhandled 7 20 

£ gross  teas,  handled,  at  $8.40 4 20 

£ gross  coffees,  handled,  at  $10.50  5 25 

£ gross  coffees,  unhandled,  at  $8.40 4 20 

£ £ £ £ 

2 dozen  jugs,  30,  24,  12,  6,  12  50 

$3.75  $5.25  $7.00  $9.00 

£ dozen  ewers  and  basins,  9’s,  at  $15.00 5 00 

£ 1 £ 

2 dozen  bowls,  24,  30,  36,  3 87 

$2.25  $2.00  $1.50 

£ dozen  covered  chambers,  9’s,  at  $9.60  3 20 

2 2 

£ dozen  covered  soaps,  covered  trays 2 40 

$0.60  $0.60 


129  61 


Exhibit  5. 

Regular  Assorted  Crate  W.  G. 
sold  in  1877. 

$110  10. 

Exhibit  6. 

Regular  Assorted  Crate,  either  English  or  American,  W.  G. 
sold  in  1882. 

$27  60 
11  78 


24  dozen  plates, 


2£  dozen  dishes, 


4 4 6 4 6 

4,  5,  6,  7,  8, 

).80  $0.90  $1.10  $1.30  $1.50 

£ £ £ £ £ 

8,  9,  10,  11,  12, 


£ 

14, 


£ 

16, 


$2.00  $2.50  $3.60  $4.75  $6.30  $9.00  $14.40 


j.  h.  brewer.]  POTTERY  MANUFACTURES.  631 

£ £ £ £ £ 

2£  dozen  bakers,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  $9  02 

$1.75  $2.40  $3.50  $4.00  $5.80 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  covered  dishes,  8,  9,  10, 6 67 

$9.00  $10.00  $11.00 

£ dozen  sauce  tureens,  complete,  at  $13.50 2 25 

£ dozen  sauce  boats,  at  $3.20 1 GO 

£ dozen  pickles,  No.  2,  at  $3.00 1 50 

£ dozen  covered  butters,  at  $7.00  2 33 

£ £ £ 

1 dozen  teapots,  sugars,  creams 5 09 

$0.58£  $0.48  $0.21 

1 gross  teas,  unhandled 8 50 

£ gross  teas,  handled,  at  $10.00  5 00 

£ gross  coffees,  handled,  at  $12.00  6 00 

£ gross  coffees,  unhandled,  at  $10 5 00 

£ £ £ £ 

2 dozen  jugs,  30,  24,  12,  6,  9 30 

$2.50  $3.00  $5.10  $8.00 

£ dozen  ewers  and  basins,  9’s,  at  $16.50  5 50 

£ dozen  covered  chambers,  9’s,  at  $10.25 3 42 

£ 1 £ 

2 dozen  bowls,  24,  30,  36 3 05 

$1.85  $1.50  $1.25 
2 2 

£ dozen  covered  soaps,  covered  trays 2 16 

$0.54  $0.54  

115  77 

Less  50  per  cent,  (regular  discount) 57  88 


57  89 


632 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE. 


JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE. 

Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  August  22, 1882. 

Mr.  James  M.  Constable,  of  New  York,  importer  and  dealer  in  dry 
goods,  appeared  before  the  committee  and  made  the  following  statement : 

I wish  to  speak  for  the  manufacturer,  the  importer,  and  the  poorer 
classes  of  this  country.  For  the  manufacturer  1 want  wool  and  raw 
material  of  every  kind  free  of  duty.  Our  trouble  in  this  country  to-day 
is  that  we  can  manufacture  more  than  we  can  wear,  and  until  we  have 
freer  raw  materials  we  can  never  be  exporters.  We  are  eating  each 
other  up.  We  require  access  to  foreign  markets.  My  impression  is 
that  for  the  last  twentv  years  the  wool  growers  have  not  been  bene- 
fited by  the  tax  on  foreign  wools.  I think  that  if  an  accurate  estimate 
be  made  of  the  gold  value  of  wool  for  the  last  twenty  years  and  its  gold 
value  prior  to  the  war,  it  will  be  found  that  wools  have  been  cheaper 
for  the  last  twenty  years  than  before  that  time.  One  of  the  largest 
manufacturers  in  this  country  told  me,  not  long  since,  that  with  free 
wool  and  free  raw  materials  generally  he  did  not  want  any  tariff  at  all. 
I wish  to  speak  also  for  the  merchants.  They  want  a lower  tariff,  simple 
and  plain.  Under  the  present  system,  when  a merchant  sees  a sample 
of  goods  he  does  not  know  what  the  duty  is  to  be.  In  cotton  goods, 
particularly,  even  the  experts  at  the  custom  house  are  often  puzzled. 

I waut  to  speak,  too,  lor  the  poorer  classes  of  the  country,  these  fifty 
millions  of  people  who  have  been  taxed  for  the  last  ten  years  20  or  JO 
or  40  per  cent,  more  than  they  ought  to  have  been  taxed.  If  I had  my 
way,  I would  abandon  the  present  tariff  altogether,  which  is  filled  with 
inconsistencies  and  absurdities  of  every  kind.  The  tariff  of  1844,  made 
by  Kobert  J.  Walker,  was  the  best  and  fairest  tariff  ever  made  jn  this 
country.  I have  brought  with  me  here  a statement  of  the  tariff  which 
I would  recommend  on  dry  goods,  which  I will  read  to  the  Commission, 
and  afterward  I shall  be  glad  to  answer  any  questions  that  may  be  put, 
as  well  as  I can.  1 begin  with  cotton  goods,  of  which  we  are  large  im- 
porters. The  average  duty  on  cotton  goods  to  day  is  from  33}  to  some- 
thing like  40  per  cent.,  the  majority  of  cotton  goods  paying  about  35 
per  cent.  Some  four  years  ago  10  per  cent,  was  taken  off  tbe  entire 
tariff,  and  none  of  the  cotton  manufacturers  objected.  They  found  they 
could  get  along  very  well  with  such  a tariff.  What  1 propose  is  that 
the  tariff'  on  every  description  of  cotton  goods,  including  clothing  in 
whole  or  in  part  made  up,  should  be  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  linens  the  present  duty  is  from  35  to  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I 
would  advocate  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  all  manufactures  of  linen,  flax, 
jute,  hemp,  or  when  mixed  with  cotton,  including  clothing  in  part  or 
wholly  made  up.  That  would  bring  the  duty  only  a trifle  less  than  it 
was  four  years  ago. 

On  dress  goods  for  women  and  children,  and  flannels  composed  wholly 
or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals, 
or  silk,  costing  15  cents  or  under  per  square  yard,  0 eeuts  per  square 
yard  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  On  such  goods  costing  over  25  cents 
per  square  yard,  8 cents  per  square  yard  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
I here  advocate  a double  duty,  because  I think  it  is  more  just  to  the 


JAMES  M.  CONSTAHLE.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


633 


poor  man;  and  a custom-house  examiner  told  me  not  long  since  that  if 
it  were  not  for  the  square-yard  duty  on  German  goods  the  government 
would  not  have  got  any  duty  on  them  at  all.  There  is  also  another 
clause  in  the  present  tariff  which  is  very  objectionable,  that  if  the  fabric 
weighs  over  four  ounces  to  the  square  yard  it  shall  pay  a pound  weight 
duty  in  addition  to  the  35  per  cent.  That  provision  shuts  out  a great 
many  coarse,  comfortable,  warm  articles  with  which  women  and  children 
might  be  clothed. 

Upon  all  other  dress  goods  of  whatever  description,  not  otherwise 
provided  for,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of 
the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  such  as  braid,  bindings,  fringes,  cords, 
tassels,  embroideries,  wools  and  worsteds,  laces,  inser tings,  shirts,  draw- 
ers, hosiery,  clothing  in  whole  or  in  part  made  up,  and  all  articles 
known  as  small  wares,  I should  recommend  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  These  small  articles  cannot  be  covered  in  any  other  way; 
but,  under  the  present  tariff,  to  collect  an  ad  valorem  duty  honestly  is 
impossible.  Under-invoicing  is  carried  on  to  such  a great  extent  that 
the  honest  American  importer  has  no  chance  against  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturer. I come  now  to  wool  and  worsted  fabrics. 

In  the  present  tariff,  the  discrimination  between  wool  and  worsted, 
as  to  where  one  begins  and  the  other  ends,  is  very  difficult  to  make, 
and  therefore  I think  they  should  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty.  The 
attempt  to  distinguish  between  them  leads  to  great  complications,  and 
the  most  expert  examiners  are  frequently  puzzled  to  know  which  class 
to  put  certain  goods  in.  Upon  such  goods,  consisting  of  cloths,  cassi- 
meres,  shawls,  table  covers,  and  all  other  articles  that  can  be  measured, 
not  otherwise  provided  for,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool  or 
worsted,  or  when  mixed  with  materials  of  less  value,  I should  levy  a 
duty  of  *50  cents  per  square  yard  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The 
present  duty  is  35  per  cent,  and  50  cents  per  pound.  Now  the  pound- 
weight  duty  is  very  objectionable,  because  the  heavy  woolens  of  the 
winter  have  to  pay  a heavier  proportionate  duty  than  the  woolens  of 
the  spring,  although  the  latter  may  cost  precisely  the  same.  For  this 
reason  the  square-yard  duty  is  more  equitable. 

I come  now  to  blankets.  Under  the  present  tariff,  not  a pair  of  blank- 
ets nor  a yard  of  llannel  is  imported.  Why  should  these  fifty  millions 
of  people,  composed  chiefly,  of  course,  of  the  poorer  classes,  be  deprived 
of  the  opportunity  of  buying  these  articles  in  the  lowest  market  merely 
to  support  some  twenty  or  thirty  manufacturers'?  I should  propose  a 
tariff*  upon  blankets  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool  or  worsted,  or 
when  mixed  with  a material  of  less  value — valued  at  50  cents  per  pound 
or  uuder — 25  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  valued  at 
over  50  cents  per  pound,  35  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

In  this  suggested  tariff  I have  made  a small  ad  valorem  duty  almost 
throughout.  Compound  duties  are  generally  very  objectionable,  but 
the  10  per  cent,  is  evenly  collected  by  the  government,  and  there  can- 
not be  much  cheating  in  it,  while  if  the  duty  was  60  per  cent,  there 
would  be  a great  deal  of  cheating. 

On  silks,  satins,  and  velvets  the  present  duty  is  about  60  per  cent., 
but  the  appraisers  calculate  that  they  do  not  get  much  over  40  per  cent. 
I noticed  that  Mr.  Kent,  one  of  the  examiners,  stated  the  other  day 
that  he  thought  they  did  collect  more  thaii  that  at  present,  and  I think 
the  custom-house  is  better  managed  now  than  ever  before;  but  you 
know  that  only  one  case  of  goods  in  ten  goes  to  the  custom-house,  and 
the  other  nine  may  be  greatly  under-invoiced.  The  duty  that  1 should 
propose  on  *uch  goods  is,  on  all  piece  silks,  satins,  and  velvets,  of  which 


634 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE. 


silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  weighing  one  ounce  or 
over  per  square  yard,  $3.50  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem; 
and  on  all  piece  silks,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  of  chief  value, 
weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  such  as  marcelines, 
gauzes,  crapes,  and  such  like  articles,  a duty  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

I have  said  “one  ounce”  because  that  is  about  as  low  as  a dress  silk, 
or  silk  by  the  yard,  can  be  worn;  and  I have  put  in  another  10  per 
cent,  for  this  reason:  a silk  costing  5 francs,  with  an  ad  valorem  duty 
of  10  per  cent.,  would  be  half  a franc  additional.  A silk  costing  15  or 
20  francs  will  not  weigh  much  more  than  a silk  costing  5 francs,  but  if 
it  is  a 20-franc  silk,  then,  under  this  proposed  duty,  instead  of  half  a 
franc  the  government  gets  2 francs  upon  it,  so  that  the  rich  pay  a larger 
proportion  of  duty  than  they  otherwise  would  do. 

I want  to  keep  all  these  goods  in  one  class,  to  have  all  silks,  as  far 
as  possible,  pay  one  duty;  and  the  same  with  all  woolens,  all  linens, 
and  all  cottons,  so  as  to  simplify  the  tariff. 

On  all  manufactures  made  of  silk  commercially  known  as  waste  I 
propose  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  This  waste  silk  is  not  really 
more  valuable  than  cotton,  but  it  goes  into  a great  many  articles, 
being  used  for  filling,  as  it  were. 

On  mixed  fabrics  the  warp  or  weft  being  all  silk,  or  nearly  so,  the 
other  portions  of  the  fabric  being  of  less  value,  as  wool,  worsted,  or 
cotton,  if  commercially  known  as  silks,  I would  levy  a duty  $3.50  per 
pound. 

There  are  a great  many  silks  with  cotton  mixed  in  that  are  not  in- 
tended to  wear  long;  so  I add  that  if  commercially  known  as  dress- 
goods  they  shall  pay  a duty  of  8 cents  per  square  yard  and  20  per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  I prefer  to  put  on  an  ad  valorem  duty  here  rather  than  to 
increase  the  specific  duty.  There  are  a great  many  bombazines,  henri- 
etta  cloths,  &c.,  imported,  having  the  weft  usually  silk  and  the  warp 
wool  or  some  other  material,  and  these  being  more  costly  than  all-wool 
goods  I have  put  a larger  rate  of  duty  upon  them. 

I come  now  to  gloves.  This  is  an  article  which,  perhaps,  causes 
more  controversy  at  the  custom  house  than  any  other.  Gloves  are 
made  of  so  many  different  materials,  kid,  lamb,  goat,  some  being  short 
and  some  long,  some  being  lined  and  some  nnlined,  that  there  is 
great  difficulty  in  collecting  the  present  duty.  My  firm,  who  have  been 
large  importers  of  gloves,  have  been  driven  out  *of  the  trade;  we  cannot 
import  kid  gloves  any  longer.  A great  many  systems  have  been  pro- 
posed, some  suggesting  a small  ad  valorem  and  others  a specific  duty 
up  to  a certain  size  of  glove,  a certain  specific  duty  for  sizes  suitable  for 
men,  and  another  specific  duty  for  sizes  suitable  for  women,  because  the 
sizes  suitable  for  men  are  more  costly.  That,  however,  would  lead  to 
difficulty.  I think  the  easiest  way  is  to  levy  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  25 
per  cent,  on  all  kinds  of  gloves,  and  1 think  that  duty  could  be  col- 
lected. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Why  would  it  not  be  better  to  have  a duty  of  so  much  per 
pair? — Answer.  Well,  you  see  some  gloves  come  of  different  lengths. 
1 have  considered  the  matter  a good  deal,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  an 
ad  valorem  duty  would  be  the  more  just  of  the  two. 

Q.  Is  there  no  way  that  you  would  recommend  of  imposing  a duty 
by  the  dozen  t — A.  There  is  no  way.  I have  thought  the  matter  over 
as  well  as  I could,  and  I should  be  very  glad  indeed  to  have  some  way 
devised  of  meeting  the  present  difficulty,  because  we  wish  to  import 
kid  gloves  again. 


JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE  ] 


DRY  GOODS. 


635 


I pass  now  to  carpets.  Under  the  present  tariff  Axminster  carpets, 
the  most  expensive  imported,  cost  from  seven  shillings  to  eight  shillings 
a yard,  and  pay  50  per  cent.  duty.  A Wilton  carpet,  worth  in  the  English 
market  20  per  cent,  less,  pays  90  per  cent.  duty.  The  reason  of  that 
inconsistency  is  this : When  the  present  tariff  was  instituted  there  were 
no  Axminster  carpets  made  in  this  country,  but  there  were  Wiltons,  so 
the  manufacturers  got  this  enormous  duty  imposed  upon  Wiltons  in  their 
own  interest.  Now  that  is  a case  where  a specific  duty  would  come  in 
very  well.  I should  propose  on  Wilton  and  Axminster  carpets  a duty 
of  70  cents  per  square  yard ; on  Brussels  and  velvets  60  cents  per  square 
yard;  on  tapestry  Brussels,  30  cents  per  square  yard;  ingrains,  20 
cents  per  square  yard;  druggets,  printed  or  colored,  20  cents  per  square 
yard ; oil-cloths  and  linoleum,  25  cents  per  square  yard ; whole  'carpets 
made  in  one  piece,  rugs  and  mats  of  whatever  size,  30  per  cent. 

The  duty  on  rugs  and  mats  now  under  100  square  feet  is  45  per  cent., 
and  above  that  50  per  cent.  I should  recommend  a duty  on  the  whole 
of  them  of  30  per  cent.  Then,  with  free  wool  and  free  dye-stuffs  we 
can  sell  carpets  to  Canada,  a market  which  is  now  wholly  in  English 
hands. 

Duties  should  not  be  charged  on  commissions,  shipping  charges,  or 
packing  cases.  All  petty  charges  at  the  custom-house  for  oaths,  per- 
mits, &c.,  should  be  abolished. 

Consular  certificates  and  the  furnishing  of  samples  to  the  consul 
should  be  done  away  with,  as  he  generally  knows  nothing  about  goods, 
and  it  puts  the  importer  to  a great  deal  of  trouble,  expense,  and  delay. 
Samples  of  value  should  be  assessed,  and  duty  paid  on  them  at  the 
appraiser’s  store.  Entries  should  be  passed  the  same  day  they  are  left 
at  the  custom-house,  and  should  be  liquidated  in  thirty  days;  which 
liquidation  should  be  final  unless  for  clerical  error  or  fraud.  It  takes 
us  now  four  months  to  have  our  entries  liquidated.  We  may  enter  our 
goods  at  a certain  rate,  and,  in  consequence  of  the  complications  of  the 
tariff,  it  may  be  found  that  they  should  pay  some  other  rate  of  duty, 
and  although  we  may  have  sold  our  goods  at  a price  based  upon  the 
rate  at  which  we  entered  them,  yet  we  find  ourselves  mulcted  for  10  or 
15  per  cent,  more,  so  that  we  sell  the  goods  at  a loss. 

The  place  of  business  of  my  firm  is  now  three  miles  from  the  custom- 
house, and  we  are  obliged  to  go  down  there  almost  every  business 
day  in  the  year,  and  you  gentlemen  are  perhaps  aware  how  much 
time  is  consumed  in  traveling  six  miles  by  stage  in  the  city  of  New 
York.  We  must  be  at  the  custom-house  two  or  three  hours  a day,  and 
the  presence  of  one  of  the  firm  is  necessary ; a clerk  will  not  do.  There- 
fore I think  there  ought  to  be  notaries  public  stationed  at  convenient 
points  where  merchants  could  go  and  have  their  invoices  sworn  to. 

Finally,  I would  provide  that  all  articles  known  as  dry  goods  should 
not  pay  a duty  of  over  40  per  cent.  I spoke  awhile  ago  of  ladies’ 
dress  goods  and  the  objection  to  a weight  duty.  My  firm  imported  some 
dress  goods  which  cost  seven  pence,  that  is,  14  cents,  a yard.  The 
agreement  with  the  manufacturer  was  that  they  should  weigh  less  than 
4 ounces  a square  yard,  but  they  did  weigh  a little  more;  so  instead  of 
the  duty  being  65  or  66  per  cent.,  it  was  119  per  cent.  That  is,  a duty 
of  119  per  cent,  was  levied  on  goods  suitable  for  the  wives  and  children 
of  mechanics  and  the  laboring  classes.  Again,  we  imported  some 
woolens ; the  government  said  that  tbey  were  woolens,  but  we  did  not 
believe  it,  and  they  took  a microscope  and  inspected  the  goods  to  find 
whether  there  was  any  wool  in  them.  Those  goods  cost  46  cents  a 
yard,  and,  by  using  the  microscope,  the  government  became  satisfied 


636 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE. 


that  there  was  some  wool  in  them,  and  the  duty  was  220  per  cent,  on 
that  common  article,  suitable  for  poor  men’s  wear. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  You  have  emphasized  t he  disadvantages  under  which  yon  labor, 
resulting  from  the  practice  of  undervaluation ; what  do  you  suggest  as 
a remedy  for  that  ? — A.  Nothing  but  lower  duties. 

Q.  No  penalty? — A.  Yes;  I would  recommend  seizure.  The  penalty 
now  is  20  per  cent.,  I believe,  where  the  under-invoicing  amounts  to  30 
per  cent.;  but  under-invoicing  cannot  be  stopped,  in  my  opinion,  unless 
by  seizure. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  think,  then,  that  confiscation  is  the  only  thing  that  will  stop 
it? — A.  I do. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  estimating  the  percentage  of  under-in- 
voices that  are  detected? — A.  None  at  all. 

Q.  From  a remark  which  you  made  awhile  ago  I infer  that  very  few 
such  cases  are  detected? — A.  1 presume  that  a great  many  of  them  are 
not  detected.  Out  of  ten  cases  of  goods,  you  know  only  one  goes  to  the 
custom-house  for  examination.  The  other  nine  go  unexamined. 

Q.  Yet  is  it  not  the  fact  that  if  the  tenth  case  is  found  to  be  under- 
valued, the  other  nine  cases  are  recalled  ?— A.  Yes,  if  they  are  all  of 
the  same  kind ; but  we  frequently  get  fifty  or  seventy  or  one  hundred 
cases  of  goods  by  one  vessel;  and  our  business  is  such  that  there  may 
be  perhaps  only  two  duplicates  in  the  whole  lot,  because  we  are  general 
dealers  and  general  importers  of  everything  we  sell. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  But  are  not  the  custom-house  officers  just  as  likely  to  happen  upon 
a case  in  which  fraud  is  attempted  as  upon  any  other? — A.  Undoubt- 
edly. 

Q.  And  on  an  average,  would  not  that  matter  be  likely  to  equalize 
itself? — A.  It  is  a well-known  fact  that  consigned  goods  are  all  under- 
invoiced to  some  extent. 

Q.  If  that  is  a well-known  fact,  why  is  it  not  rectified  at  the  custom- 
house?— A.  There  comes  in  the  difficulty.  An  invoice  is  put  up  by  the 
appraiser.  The  importer  demands  a reappraisement,  and  a merchant 
is  called  in  as  judge;  I am  frequently  called  to  act  in  that  capacity  my- 
self. Testimony  is  produced  by  the  government  and  also  by  the  im- 
porter, but  the  importer’s  friends  are  usually  in  attendance,  and,  under- 
invoicing themselves,  they  naturally  value  the  goods  at  somewhat  less 
than  their  proper  value,  and  the  government  as  a rule  is  defeated. 

Q.  As  1 understand  you,  the  main  trouble  as  to  under-invoicing  is  on 
consigned  goods  ? — A.  Yes.  I do  not  believe  that  a case  of  goods  actu- 
ally owned  was  ever  under-invoiced. 

Q.  That  difficulty,  then,  might  perhaps  be  overcome  by  making  con- 
signees ineligible  as  appraisers  ? — A.  Where  would  you  go  for  apprais- 
ers, then  ? 

Q.  Why  not  take  actual  importers  ? — A.  Oh,  they  can  be  counted  on 
your  fingers.  Nearly  all  the  goods  imported  into  this  country  are  im- 
ported by  foreign  houses. 

Q.  That  is  to  say  foreign  houses  have  found  it  profi table  to  establish 
branches  in  New  York,  to  whom  their  goods  are  consigned,  because  in 
that  way  they  can  usually  get  them  in  on  a lower  invoice  ? — A.  Yes. 


JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


637 


The  majority  of  the  importers  are  foreigners,  cousins  or  brothers  or 
nephews  of  the  European  manufacturer ; they  come  here  and  set  up  as 
importers;  they  do  no  duty  as  citizens;  they  do  not  become  citizens; 
but  they  get  rich  and  they  take  their  money  away  with  them.  I don’t 
know  a single  foreign  importer  who  has  remained  a citizen  of  this 
country. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Citizens  alone  are  eligible  as  merchant 
appraisers. 

The  Witness.  The  only  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  a lower  tariff. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver.  Do  all  these  troubles  in  regard  to  under- 
valuation arise  upon  goods  dutied  under  the  ad  valorem  rate? — A.  Not 
entirely.  When  you  come  to  dress  goods  there  is  a mixed  duty. 

Q.  You  say  that  these  difficulties  nearly  all  arise  from  the  ad  valorem 
duty,  but  nevertheless  you  recommend  ad  valorem  duties  only? — A.  No; 
I recommend  in  nearly  every  instance  a compound  duty,  but  if  I had  the 
making  of  the  tariff*  I would  make  it  in  two  lines — I would  make  all 
raw  materials  free,  and  I would  impose  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  all  im- 
ported manufactured  articles. 

Q.  But  would  you  not  say  that  where  it  is  possible,  specific  duties 
should  be  levied,  in  order  to  avoid  the  trouble  you  have  described? — 
A.  Yes,  where  that  is  possible  I would  favor  it,  but  a specified  duty 
would  be  very  unfair  towards  the  poorer  classes.  The  rich  people  would 
be  the  gainers  by  it.  Take  silks,  for  example. 

Q.  Do  the  poor  people  wear  silks  ? — A.  Yes,  they  do  wear  cheap  silks, 
and  where  the  duty  is  only  specific,  as  I said  before,  a 5-franc  silk  would 
pay  as  much  duty  as  a 20-franc  silk. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  several  times  of  the  interests  of  the  poor  in  connec- 
tion with  this  part  of  the  tariff;  now,  is  it  not  a fact  that  the  goods  which 
cover  the  majority  and  nearly  all  of  the  poorer  people  of  this  country  are 
made  in  this  country? — A.  We,  with  some  half  dozen  other  houses  in 
New  York,  and  others  in  all  the  large  cities,  have  been  importing  these 
low-priced  dress  goods  for  poor  people’s  wear. 

Q.  I do  not  speak  of  dress  goods.  I am  not  certain  that  I understand 
exactly  what  you  mean  by  u poor  people”  in  this  connection,  because  it 
is  pretty  difficult  to  associate  the  idea  of  poverty  with  silks;  but  is  it  not 
true  that  nearly  all  the  really  poor  people  throughout  this  country  wear 
American  goods? — A.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it. 

Q.  A person  is  not  very  poor,  generally,  who  can  wear  Lyons  silks, 
even  at  5 francs  a yard? — A.  But  they  do. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  given  any  thought  to  the  plan  of  putting  a home 
valuation  upon  these  importations  so  as  to  avoid  the  evils  of  under- 
invoicing?— A.  That  would  be  almost  impossible.  The  home  valua- 
tion to-day  may  be  one  thing  and  to-morrow  it  may  be  entirely  different. 
To  give  you  an  exemplification  of  that,  some  seven  or  eight  years  ago 
there  was  a large  printed  fabric,  called  the  Dolly  Yarden,  which  was  quite 
popularfor  a time.  We  imported  some  of  those  goods  that  cost  us  $1.35 
in  gold.  We  kept  them  about  three  months,  and  we  sold  them — two 
cases — at  25  cents,  and  the  man  returned  one  of  them,  saying  that  he 
had  bought  only  one.  That,  of  course,  was  au  extreme  case  of  fluctua- 
tion ; but  it  shows  how  difficult  it  would  be  to  carry  out  the  plan  of 
home  valuation. 

Q.  But  that  change  occurred  three  months  after  you  had  received  the 
goods? — A.  Yes;  but  still  it  shows  how  quick  those  changes  are.  We 
paid  full  duty  on  those  goods,  and  we  did  not  get  half  the  duty  back. 


638 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE. 


Q.  What  were  those  goods  worth  when  they  arrived  ? — A.  There  was 
a turn  in  the  market  while  they  were  on  the  way,  so  that  we  could  not 
sell  them  at  anything  like  cost. 

Q.  In  that  case  home  valuation  would  have  been  an  advantage  to 
you  ? — A.  No ; because,  although  the  merchant  would  know  the  fact  of 
the  change  in  the  market,  the  appraisers  would  not  have  accepted  it. 
The  present  tariff  calls  for  the  value  at  the  place  of  export.  Now,  the 
chief  port  of  export  for  French  goods  is  Havre,  and  the  people  in  Havre 
know  little  or  nothing  about  the  value  of  the  goods  that  are  shipped 
there. 

Q.  But  I understood  you  to  say  awhile  ago  that  the  foreign  values 
are  certified  to  by  our  consuls,  who  also  know  nothing  about  them. — A. 
Yes ; that  is  the  fact. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  just  as  well,  then,  if  the  values  were  certified  to  by 
somebody  on  this  side  ? — A.  The  government  would  be  just  as  well  off 
if  they  were  not  certified  to  at  all. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Undoubtedly  great  inconvenience  may  result,  as  in  the  case  which 
you  have  given  us  as  an  illustration ; but  I would  like  to  know  whether 
the  plan  of  home  valuation  would  not  be  practicable,  at  least  as  to 
staples? — A.  The  home  valuation  depends  very  much  upon  supply  and 
demand. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Does  not  the  foreign  value  also  depend  upon  supply  and  demand  ? — 
A.  The  foreign  markets  are  more  stable  than  ours.  Goods  are  made 
more  to  order  there.  We  have  to  order  our  goods  six  months  ahead, 
but  the  home  merchant  can  keep  along  with  the  home  market.  Then, 
too,  there  is  not  the  same  sudden  changing  of  fashions  there  that  we 
have  here.  An  article  may  be  merchantable  there  for  three  or  four  or 
five  years,  while  here  it  may  hold  the  market  for  only  a month  or  two. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  We  recognize  the  fact  that  in  regard  to  French  goods,  for  instance, 
there  is  no  foreign  market  value  fixed,  except  that  of  Havre;  but,  tak- 
ing staple  goods  generally,  I suppose  there  is  a well-recognized  market 
value  for  those? — A.  Yes;  certain  staple  cottons,  linens,  hosiery,  and 
black  silks.  Black  silks  are  staples,  but  fancy  and  colored  silks  are 
not.  A piece  of  colored  silk  may  be  in  great  demand  to-day,  and  in  a 
month  there  may  be  no  demand  for  it  at  all. 

Q.  But,  as  a merchant  you  are  compelled  to  fix  a home  value  when 
you  put  the  goods  on  your  shelves? — A.  Of  course. 

Q.  And  is  not  that  the  real  home  value? — A.  To  us  it  is. 

Q.  And  would  not  the  aggregate  of  transactions  of  that  kind  make 
the  home  value? — A.  It  would,  to  some  extent. 

Q.  As  to  staples,  then,  would  it  be  a particle  more  difficult  to  ascer- 
tain the  home  value  on  the  day  of  the  arrival  than  to  find  the  value  at 
Havre  f — A.  Of  course,  as  between  the  two  valuations — one  at  the  port 
of  entry  and  the  other  at  Havre — it  would  be  very  much  better  to  have 
the  valuation  at  the  port  of  entry,  New  York,  for  instance,  for  goods 
coming  in  there;  but  still,  as  I have  already  said,  the  rapid  changes  that 
take  place  in  our  markets  make  that  a very  difficult  matter  to  deal  with. 

Q.  That  is  quite  true ; but  would  it  not  be  safer  for  a merchant  to  pay 
his  duty  on  imported  goods  at  the  home  valuation  on  the  day  of  their 
arrival?— A.  That  is  a very  difficult  question  to  answer.  The  matter  is 
a difficult  one  to  arrange  satisfactorily. 


JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


639 


Q.  You  buy  goods  perhaps  three  mouths  before  you  get  them,  and 
you  take  the  risk  of  the  market  changes.  From  the  time  of  shipment 
to  the  time  of  arrival  there  is  a risk  of  the  goods  going  out  of  fashion ; 
but  on  the  day  when  they  reach  New  York  they  either  have  or  have 
not  a market,  and  if  they  have  a market  they  have  a market  value? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  would  it  not  place  you  in  a safer  and  more  business-like  po- 
sition if  you  could  pay  the  duty  upon  the  home  value  on  that  day  ? — A. 
I think  it  would. 

%Q.  I jet  us  go  a step  farther.  The  importer  usually  knows  the  value 
of  the  goods  that  he  imports,  does  he  not  ? — A.  If  he  owns  them  he  does. 

Q.  Now,  would  you  not  be  safer  in  having  an  invoice  of  the  home 
value  filed  in  the  custom-house  on  the  day  of  the  arrival,  and  would 
not  that  also  afford  a greater  protection  to  the  government  than  an  in- 
voice made  some  time  before  on  the  valuation  at  Havre,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  such  foreign  valuation  is  certified  by  a consul  who  usually 
knows  nothing  about  the  matter? — A.  Well,  I hardly  think  it  would. 

Q.  The  day  you  get  these  goods  you  put  them  on  your  shelves  and 
mark  a price  upon  them? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is,  for  all  your  purposes,  the  market  price  of  those 
goods? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  being  so,  what  is  to  hinder  you  from  invoicing  your  goods 
when  received  at  the  custom  house  just  the  same  as  you  invoice  them 
for  yourself  a few  days  later  when  you  put  them  on  your  shelves?— A. 
Well,  we  must  have  our  invoices  from  the  other  side,  and  they  must 
show  the  actual  foreign  market  value  of  the  goods.  If  the  home  val- 
uation plan  were  adopted  and  we  thought  the  goods  were  not  worth 
what  they  cost,  we  should  then  have  the  privilege  of  reducing  our 
invoice. 

Q.  Yes;  but  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  goods  had  increased  in  value 
in  the  mean  time.,  you  would  be  bound  to  increase  your  invoices? — A. 
Yes;  a great  many  importers  do  raise  their  invoices  now,  because  they 
are  satisfied  they  are  too  low. 

Q.  That  is  because  of  the  time  that  has  elapsed  between  giving  the 
order  and  the  shipment? — A.  No;  but  because  the  importer  thinks  the 
goods  have  been  consigned  too  low. 

Q.  But  if  he  is  the  actual  purchaser  of  the  goods,  they  are  consigned 
at  the  price  he  pays,  are  they  not? — A.  Yes;  if  he  is  the  actual  pur- 
chaser. 

Q.  Now,  assuming  that  the  importer  has  an  opportunity  to  look  at 
his  foreign  invoices  and  to  get  all  the  information  he  can  on  the  subject, 
don’t  you  think  that  with  a system  requiring  him  to  invoice  his  goods 
according  to  his  judgment  of  their  value  here  on  the  day  of  their  ar- 
rival, we  could  ordinarily  obtain  a more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  real 
value  of  the  goods  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  the  duty,  than  under 
the  present  system? — A.  But  here  is  the  difficulty.  Our  goods  come 
along  fifty  or  sixty  cases  by  a ship;  we  have  not  seen  the  goods,  and  we 
don’t  know  what  they  are,  so  that  we  would  be  unable  to  put  any  value 
on  them. 

Q.  You  could  at  least  put  the  foreign  valuation  upon  them,  subject  to 
revision  ? — A.  That  would  be  the  original  invoice  value. 

Q.  Yes;  but  if  you  knew  that  that  class  of  goods  had  in  the  mean 
time  advanced  or  receded  in  value  in  the  market,  you  could  correct  the 
invoice  accordingly? — A.  But  we  rarely  see  the  same  goods  twice.  We 
cater  for  the  popular  demand;  we  try  to  get  the  newest  things,  and  we 
very  rarely  want  the  same  goods  two  seasons  in  succession. 


640 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE. 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  import  large  quantities  of  made-up  goods,  do  you  not? — A. 
Very  few  of  those. 

Q.  I mean  different  styles  of  fabrics,  changing  from  year  to  year? — 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Abroad  the  invoice  is  made  out  at  about  the  cost  and  the  profit  ? — 
A.  Yes;  we  buy  the  goods  from  the  manufacturers,  and  we  suppose  they 
make  a profit. 

Q.  Those  goods  are  expected  to  arrive  here  on  the  eve  of  the  opening 
season  for  that  line  of  goods;  now,  generally,  would  not  their  value  ^)e 
increased  ten  or  twenty  per  cent,  if  you  had  them  here  at  just  the  right 
time? — A.  Yo;  there  would  be  no  such  difference  as  that. 

Q.  Well,  there  would  be  a great  difference? — A.  Yo;  because  every- 
thing that  we  import  we  propose  to  have  at  the  proper  season. 

Q.  But  my  point  is  this : you  may  have  an  invoice  of  twenty  thousand 
dollars’  worth  of  goods  for  which  there  is  a demand,  and  if  they  should 
arrive  at  the  right  moment  when  there  are  not  many  others  in  the  market, 
would  not  an  honest  appraisement,  upon  the  home  valuation  plan,  bring 
those  goods  up  perhaps  20  or  40  per  cent? — A.  Yo. 

Q.  You  gave  us  an  illustration  of  a change  in  the  market  in  the  other 
direction,  in  the  case  of  the  Dolly  Vardens  that  you  spoke  of? — A.  Yes; 
but  even  when  those  goods  were  in  the  market  there  was  only  a small 
profit  on  them,  and  they  had  to  be  sold  quickly,  because  it  was  supposed 
that  the  market  would  not  last  long,  and  it  did  not.  At  the  time  those 
goods  first  came,  however,  they  did  sell  quickly  and  at  rather  better 
than  the  ordinary  profit. 

Q.  Then  you  think  there  would  be  a difference  of  only  ten,  fifteen,  or 
twenty  per  cent,  between  a valuation  made  abroad  and  one  made  here? — 
A.  There  would  not  be  that  difference. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  I do  not  think  that  home  valuation  could  be  adopted  in  every 
case,  but  I certainly  do  think  that  it  might  be  in  many  instances.  Take 
gloves,  for  example.  You  say  you  have  been  driven  out  of  the  market 
as  importers  of  kid  gloves  by  the  frauds  that  are  perpetrated  in  that 
business.  Yow,  as  to  an  article  of  standard  value  like  kid  gloves, 
would  there  be  any  trouble  in  imposing  a home  valuation? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  the  examiners,  and  they  are  the  peo- 
ple to  establish  the  home  valuation. 

Q.  But  the  examiner  would  have  precisely  the  same  facilities  that 
he  has  now,  if  the  importer  was  required  to  furnish  a sworn  statement 
as  to  the  value  of  the  goods  on  the  day  of  their  arrival,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  furnish  the  invoice  and  all  the  information  he  could  on  the 
subject.  With  such  a rule  as  that,  what  difficulty  would  there  be  in 
providing  for  the  home  valuation  of  such  goods  as  kid  gloves,  for  in- 
stance ? — A.  It  would  then  depend  wholly  upon  how  competent  the 
examiner  was  to  fix  a value  upon  the  article. 

Q.  It  depends  now  upon  that,  does  it  not? — A.  Kid  gloves  are  ex- 
tremely deceptive  as  to  their  quality,  and  you  could  hardly  get  two 
men  to  agree  upon  the  value  of  a lot  of  them. 

Q.  But  does  not  precisely  the  same  difficulty  arise  whether  the  valu- 
ation is  a foreign  or  a domestic  one? — A.  Yes,  I suppose  it  does. 

Q.  Then  your  suggestion  does  not  seem  to  furnish  a reason  for  oppos- 
ing the  change  in  that  case.  It  seems  to  me  that  with  a staple  article 
like  kid  gloves,  the  invoice  being  furnished,  a statement  ot  the  home 
value  being  furnished,  an  opportunity  given  for  examination,  and  } ou 


JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


641 


gentlemen  who  do  import  watching  each  other  closely  and  watching 
those  whom  yon  might  think  disposed  to  act  dishonestly — it  seems  to 
me  that  with  all  these  means  of  getting  at  the  value,  a more  just  and 
equitable  home  valuation  might  be  made  than  under  the  present  sys- 
tem1?— A.  Well,  I think  the  home  valuation  would  be  probably  quite  as 
just  as  the  foreign  valuation  in  a majority  of  cases. 

Q . And  as  to  the  articles  upon  which  it  could  be  properly  made  ? — 
A.  Yes,  of  course. 

The  following  is  the  proposed  tariff  on  dry  goods  submitted  by  Mr. 
Constable: 

COTTON  GOODS. 

On  all  manufactures  of  cotton  of  every  description,  including  cloth- 
ing in  whole  or  part  made  up,  a duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

LINEN  GOODS. 

On  all  manufactures  of  whatever  description,  composed  of  flax,  hemp, 
or  jute,  or  when  mixed  with  cotton,  including  clothing,  in  whole  or 
part  made  up,  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

DRESS  GOODS. 

Women’s  and  children’s  dress  goods  and  flannels,  composed  wholly 
or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
animals,  or  silk,  costing  twenty-five  cents  or  under  per  square  yard,  six 
cents  per  square  yard  and  ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Costing  over  twenty-five  cents  per  square  yard,  eight  cents  per 
square  yard  and  ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

All  other  goods  of  whatever  description,  not  otherwise  provided  for, 
composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca, 
goat,  or  other  animals,  such  as  braids,  bindings,  fringes,  cords,  tassels, 
embroideries,  wools  and  worsteds,  laces,  insertings,  shirts,  drawers, 
hosiery,  clothing  in  whole  or  part  made  up,  and  all  articles  known  as 
small  wares,  a duty  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

WOOL  AND  WORSTED  FABRICS. 

Cloths,  cassimeres,  shawls,  table  covers,  and  all  other  articles  that 
can  be  measured,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  composed  wholly  or  in 
part  of  wool  or  worsted,  or  when  mixed  with  materials  of  less  value,  a 
duty  of  fifty  cents  per  square  yard  and  ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

BLANKETS. 

Composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool  or  worsted,  or  when  mixed  with 
a material  of  less  value,  valued  at  fifty  cents  per  pound  or  under,  twenty- 
five  cents  per  pound  and  ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Valued  over  fifty  cents  per  pound,  thirty-five  cents  per  pound  and 
ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

SILKS,  SATINS,  AND  VELVETS. 

On  all  piece  silks,  satins,  and  velvets,  of  which  silk  is  the  component 
material  of  chief  value,  weighing  one  ounce  or  over  per  square  yard, 
shall  pay  a duty  of  three  dollars  and  a half  per  pound  and  ten  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 


H.  Mis.  6 41 


642 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  M.  CONSTABLE. 


On  all  piece  silks,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  of  chief  value,  weigh- 
ing less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  such  as  marcelines,  gauzes, 
crapes,  and  such  like  articles,  shall  pay  a duty  of  thirty-five  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

Kibbons,  ribbon  velvets,  clothing  in  whole  or  part  made  up,  trim- 
mings, bindings,  braids,  galoons,  gloves,  mitts,  hosiery,  drawers,  shirts, 
laces,  and  all  other  articles  of  silk  not  otherwise  provided  for,  or  of 
which  silk  is  the  component  of  chief  value,  a duty  of  thirty- five  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

All  manufactures  made  of  silk,  commercially  known  as  waste,  shall 
pay  a duty  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Mixed  fabrics,  the  warp  or  weft  being  all  silk  or  nearly  so,  the  other 
portions  of  the  fabric  being  of  less  value,  as  wool,  worsted,  or  cotton, 
if  commercially  known  as  silks,  to  pay  a duty  of  three  dollars  and  a half 
per  pound. 

If  commercially  known  as  dress  goods,  to  pay  a duty  of  eight  cents 
per  square  yard  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

GLOVES. 

Gloves  made  of  kid,  leather,  lined  or  unlined,  of  whatever  size  or 
description,  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

CARPETINGS. 

Wilton  and  Axminster  carpets,  seventy  cents  per  square  yard. 

Brussels  and  velvets,  fifty  cents  per  square  yard. 

Tapestry  Brussels,  thirty  cents  per  square  yard. 

Ingrains,  twenty  cents  per  square  yard. 

Druggets,  printed  or  colored,  twenty  cents  per  square  yard. 

Oil  cloths  and  linoleum,  twenty-five  cents  per  square  yard. 

Whole  carpets  made  in  one  piece,  rugs  aud  mats  of  whatever  size, 
thirty  per  cent. 

Duties  should  not  be  charged  on  commissions,  shipping  charges,  pack- 
ing cases;  all  petty  charges  at  custom-house  for  oaths,  permits,  &c., 
should  be  abolished. 

Consular  certificates  and  the  furnishing  of  samples  to  him  should  be 
done  away  with,  as  the  consul  knows  nothing  about  goods,  and  it  puts 
the  importer  to  a great  deal  of  expense,  trouble,  and  delay. 

Samples  of  value  should  be  assessed  and  duty  paid  on  same  at  the 
appraiser’s  store;  entries  should  be  passed  the  same  day  they  are  left 
at  the  custom-house,  and  should  be  liquidated  in  thirty  days,  which 
liquidation  should  be  final,  unless  for  clerical  error  or  fraud. 

Public  notaries  qualified  to  take  oaths  should  be  appointed  in  different 
parts  of  the  large  cities,  where  merchants  might  swear  to  invoices. 

Articles  known  as  dry  goods  should  not  pay  a duty  of  over  40  per 
cent. 


ROBERT  K.  darrah.]  APPRAISERS  DEPARTMENT,  BOSTON. 


643 


ROBERT  K.  DARRAH. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24,  1882. 

Mr.  Robert  K.  Darrah,  principal  appraiser,  Boston  custom-house, 
appeared  before  the  Commission  and  was  interrogated  as  follows: 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  an  appraiser  in  the  custom- 
house?— Answer.  I have  been  in  that  office  twenty  years. 

Q.  What  division  do  you  have  charge  of? — A.  Of  dry  goods. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  considered  or  formed  any  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
subject  of  home  valuation?-- A.  I never  had  the  matter  brought  to  my 
attention  until  I saw  a statement  in  some  of  the  newspapers.  My  im- 
pression is  that  home  valuation  would  not  be  practicable.  I think  we 
can  get  at  the  foreign  values  of  merchandize  much  better.  We  can  take 
the  invoices  of  the  importers  and  the  certificates  of  the  consuls,  and 
arrive  at  a pretty  correct  determination  of  the  value  of  the  goods.  But 
I think  an  attempt  to  ascertain  the  home  valuation  would  not  be  so 
successful.  It  would  have  to  be  made  up  from  the  opinions  of  an  infi- 
nite number  of  dealers,  and  I believe  there  would  be  no  uniformity  what- 
ever as  a result.  There  would  be  no  two  cities  where  the  home  valua- 
tion would  be  the  same,  and  the  values  would  vary  at  different  ports. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  considered  the  subject  of  the  creation  of  a customs 
tribunal  to  decide  the  different  subjects  that  are  now  forwarded  to  the 
department  at  Washington  for  decision? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  made  any  communication  in  regard  to  that  sub- 
ect? — A.  Yes,  sir;  at  the  request  of  the  Treasury  Department  I wrote 
them  a communication  about  a year  and  a half  ago. 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  the  substance  of  that  communication  and 
give  us  your  present  views  of  the  matter? — A.  I think  it  would  be  a 
very  great  advantage  to  have  such  a tribunal.  The  only  objection  1 
can  see  to  it  would  be  that  the  appointments  of  the  judges  might  be 
made  for  political  reasons,  and  the  best  men  might  not  be  selected.  I 
think  the  members  of  the  court  should  receive  appointments  for  life 
like  judges  on  the  Supreme  bench,  and  if  the  appointments  are  made 
with  care  such  a tribunal  would  be  of  the  greatest  possible  value.  There 
should  be  such  a salary  also  attached  to  the  office  as  would  allow  the 
government  to  select  persons  of  the  highest  character  and  greatest  ex- 
perience. 

Q.  Would  you  provide  for  any  appeal  from  that  tribunal? — A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  What  has  been  the  class  of  questions  causing  the  most  difficulty 
in  the  custom-house  here;  have  they  not  been  questions  in  regard  to 
the  classification  of  goods  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; almost  entirely,  and  those 
questions  are  continually  arising  under  the  present  tariff',  which  is  now 
nearly  twenty  years  old.  Sometimes  I have  been  compelled  to  write  a 
report  on  these  questions  nearly  every  day  in  the  week,  whenever  new 
articles  are  imported  for  the  first  time. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  such  a tribunal  as  the  one  spoken  of  could  take 
up  these  questions  of  classification  and  settle  them  satisfactorily  to  all 
parties? — A.  I think  so.  A judge  who  could  give  his  sole  attention  to 
these  questions  would  be  apt  to  be  very  competent,  and  ought  to  be 
able  to  give  a proper  decision.  These  questions  come  up  incidentally 


644 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROBERT  K.  DARRAH. 


in  other  courts,  in  regard  to  an  infinite  variety  of  subjects.  I have  a 
man  in  mind,  who  lives  in  New  York,  who  has  been  connected  with  the 
custom-house  service  a long  time,  whose  judgment  would  be  almost  ab- 
solute on  all  these  questions,  and  if  such  a man  could  be  selected,  and 
appointed  for  life,  having  an  independent  position,  his  decisions  would 
be  very  reliable. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  location  of  such  a tribunal;  must 
it  necessarily  be  located  at  one  point,  or  travel  to  the  different  ports? — 
A.  I think  it  should  be  located  at  one  point,  at  New  York,  for  instance, 
for  that  is  the  greatest  port  of  entry  in  the  country. 

Q.  You  think  appeals  could  be  conveniently  heard  and  determined 
there  without  much  loss  of  time? — A.  Yes,  sir;  with  less  loss  of  time 
than  anywhere  else.  New  York  receives  seven  times  the  amount  of  im- 
portations that  Boston  receives.  I believe  New  York  comes  first,  Bos- 
ton second,  and  Philadelphia  third,  then  Baltimore,  in  the  order  of  the 
amount  of  importations. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  As  an  appraiser  of  dry  goods  you  have  had  occasion  to  deal  with 
textile  goods  on  which  there  is  a compound  duty.  Can  you  tell  me 
whether  there  is  any  practical  or  inherent  difficulty  in  the  administra- 
tion of  a compound  duty  ? — A.  It  would  be  much  preferable,  I think,  to 
have  specific  duties  on  everything  where  the  domestic  interests  of  the 
country  would  allow  it,  but  I do  not  think  it  is  possible  to  get  an  act  of 
that  kind  passed.  I think  it  would  be  of  the  greatest  importance  if  we 
could  have  a specific  duty  on  silk.  That  is  an  article  on  which  there 
has  been  the  greatest  frauds.  Ninety-nine  one  hundredths  of  all  the 
silk  consumed  in  this  country  is  imported  into  the  port  of  New  York 
for  the  reason  that  it  is  consigned  there  to  agents  of  the  manufacturers. 
The  manufacturer  at  Lyons  sends  them  to  liis  agent  for  very  obvious 
reasons.  Messrs.  C.  M.  Hovey  & Co  , of  this  city,  a large  importing 
firm  of  experience,  have  told  me  that  they  could  not  go  to  Lyons  with 
the  gold  in  their  hands  and  buy  these  goods  as  cheaply  as  they  could  to 
get  them  of  the  importer’s  agent  in  this  country.  As  soon  as  they- found 
out  that  they  were  from  Boston  they  would  tell  them  that  they  must 
buy  from  their  agents  in  New  York.  This  is  done  so  as  to  prevent  two 
kinds  of  invoices  from  appearing.  The  department  made  a strenuous 
effort,  which  was  successful  to  a large  degree,  to  ferret  out  these  decep- 
tions and  frauds.  But  I know  the  frauds  exist  to-day,  and  have  ex- 
isted for  years,  and  that  these  goods  are  undervalued  from  30  to  40  per 
cent.  Another  advantage  which  would  arise  from  having  a specific 
duty;  it  would  throw  out  these  dreadfully  poisonous  substances  which 
they  put  into  silks  to  make  them  weigh.  Silk  in  its  pure  state  is  one  of 
the  longest-lived  fabrics  in  the  world;  it  has  been  found  in  the  Pyra 
mids.  But  these  compounds  that  they  put  in  to  make  them  weigh  are 
very  poisonous,  and  where  the  silk  is  rubbed  at  all  it  will  turn  to  a 
lighter  color,  and  the  silk  also  breaks  and  falls  to  pieces ; whereas  with- 
out these  added  substances  silks  would  last  for  years.  If  there  was  a 
pound-duty  it  would  be  largely  equal  to  the  present  ad  valorem  duty. 
They  would  not  pay  for  that  weight,  so  that  our  wives  and  daughters 
could  get  pure  silks  and  the  goods  would  also  come  into  the  country  at 
their  proper  values. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  If  we  were  to  make  the  entire  duty  a pound-duty,  would  it  not 
operate  very  severely  upon  the  low  grades  of  silks? — A.  Perhaps  on 


robert  k.  darkah.1  APPRAISER’S  DEPARTMENT,  BOSTON. 


645 


certain  kinds  of  silk  yon  would  have  to  put  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty 
to  try  to  equalize  it.  If  I liad  the  supreme  power  I would  put  a specific 
duty  on  silks  of  so  much  a pound,  and  I think  it  would  be  of  benefit  to 
the  consumers.  The  immense  bulk  of  the  importations  of  silk  into  the 
country  consists  of  dress  silks  ; these  thin  gossamer  silks  form  a very 
inconsiderable  quantity. 

Q.  You  think  such  a duty  would  greatly  improve  the  quality  of  the 
goods'? — A.  Yes,  sir;  immensely.  I do  not  know  of  but  one  quality  of 
black  silk  (and  that  is  of  the  highest  grade,  and  very  few  people  can  pay 
the  price  that  is  asked  for  it)  that  is  not  weighted  ; only  one.  The  prac- 
tice of  weighting  silks  is  almost  universal,  and  the  silks  really  are  not 
worth  half  so  much  with  these  poisonous  compounds  added  to  them. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that  silks  coming  into  this  country  are  weighted  more 
particularly  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I am  told  that  the  silks  imported  for  Amer- 
ican use  are  especially  weighted. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  What  is  the  material  used  to  weight  them  ? — A.  I do  not  know 
what  it  is,  but  it  is  very  poisonous. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Are  there  any  further  points  on  which  you  desire  to  speak? — A. 
I have  had  no  list  of  subjects  on  which  to  speak,  but  I am  ready  to 
answer  any  interrogatories  that  may  be  put  to  me. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  appear  to  be  very  conversant  with  the  question  of  appraise- 
ments and  foreign  values,  and  you  have  expressed  a very  positive  opin- 
ion against  the  suggestion  to  ascertain  the  domestic  or  home  valuatiou. 
As  I understand,  the  foreign  valuation  as  ascertained  at  the  Boston 
custom-house  is  based  upon  the  invoices  sent  with  the  goods  and  the 
consular  certificates  attached. — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  that  is  not  final;  that 
is  ouly  one  of  the  elements. 

Q.  The  freights  and  charges  on  the  goods  are  also  included,  and  on 
this  basis,  as  I understand  it,  the  foreign  valuation  is  ascertained  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  rely  upon  the  consular  certificate  to  some  extent  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir  ; but  we  do  not  rely  ujion  it  wholly. 

Q.  You  then  virtually  have  nothing  but  the  invoices,  the  charges, 
and  the  inland  freight.  Could  you  not  obtain  that  information  in  this 
country  as  to  the  value  of  the  goods  better  than  you  can  get  it  from 
abroad? — A.  Ko,  sir;  I think  not.  We  never  accept  the  representa- 
tions of  the  invoices  as  being  conclusive  or  final  in  regard  to  a matter  with 
which  we  are  unacquainted.  When  a new  article  comes  in  for  appraise- 
ment we  suspend  examination  and  do  not  report  upon  it  until  we  have 
availed  ourselves  of  all  the  means  at  our  command  by  conversing 
with  people  better  informed  than  ourselves  to  ascertain  the  value.  In 
regard  to  articles  of  current  importation  we  have  the  means  of  com- 
paring one  invoice  with  another,  and  in  that  way  we  can  arrive  at  a 
pretty  correct  determination  of  the  value  of  the  goods.  If  an  article  is 
largely  imported  we  know  at  once  the  value  of  the  goods  because  we 
have  had  so  many  invoices  to  examine.  We  also  have  the  prices-cur- 
rent  and  can  see  any  variation  in  the  prices  of  goods  of  these  staple 
articles  of  importation  in  Manchester,  Bradford,  Liverpool,  &c.  By 
consulting  these  prices-current  and  making  a comparison  of  a large 


646 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROBERT  K.  DARRAH. 


number  of  invokes  we  ascertain  the  value  very  accurately.  If  we  had 
to  depend  on  the  opinions  of  merchants  at  home  here  I do  not  think  we 
could  arrive  at  a satisfactory  conclusion,  or  feel  sure  that  we  had  ascer- 
tained the  true  value  in  the  sense  that  we  feel  that  we  have  ascertained 
the  foreign  value. 

Q.  From  your  long  service  in  the  custom-house,  and  your  marked  ex- 
perience in  estimating  imported  goods,  do  you  not  think  that  you  could 
obtain  that  information  from  the  buyer  as  well  as  from  the  seller  of  these 
goods?  The  seller  lives  two  or  three  thousand  miles  away  and  you  do 
not  know  the  character  of  the  man,  and  you  have  admitted  that  there 
is  a system  adopted  by  manufacturers  of  sending  their  goods  to  agents 
in  this  country  for  disposal.  Taking  all  these  things  into  consideration, 
do  you  not  think  you  could  ascertain  the  value  of  the  goods  as  well  on 
this  side  of  the  water  as  you  can,  at  present,  their  value  abroad? — A.  I 
do  not  think  we  could.  Whenever  an  article  comes  into  the  custom- 
house with  which  we  are  wholly  unacquainted,  we  inquire  of  parties  who 
have  had  experience  in  that  line  of  goods,  and,  as  we  are  in  constant 
consultation  with  buyers  and  on  intimate  terms  with  large  importers, 
necessarily,  we  have  the  benefit  of  their  experience,  and  (without  open- 
ing up  the  business  of  one  merchant  to  another)  we  are  able  to  arrive 
at  a very  accurate  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  value. 

Q.  I do  not  think  I made  myself  understood.  Can  you  not  get  that 
same  information  from  home  dealers  that  you  now  get  from  the  im- 
porters ? Why  could  you  not  get  that  same  information  from  the  resi- 
dent dealer  in  this  country  that  you  now  get  from  the  importer  and 
purchaser  of  the  article? — A.  My  experience  is  that  the  appraisers 
know  more  about  the  value  of  these  articles  by  reason  of  their  compari- 
sons of  invoices  and  their  other  means  of  information  than  anybody,  ex- 
cept the  largest  importers  themselves,  and  as  we  meet  them  constantly 
in  our  business  we  have  the  benefit  of  their  advice  also  as  to  the  foreign 
values  of  these  goods. 

Q.  Would  not  that  same  thing  occur  if  you  were  brought  into  the 
same  relations  with  the  dealers  in  those  articles  at  home? — A.  I do  not 
think  so.  If  the  dutiable  value  was  based  upon  the  home  valuation  we 
should  have  to  confer  with  an  infinite  number  of  people  to  ascertain 
the  home  value  of  the  goods,  and  I think  it  would  be  a very  confusing 
proceeding;  I do  not  think  it  would  be  so  safe  or  practicable  a method 
of  arriving  at  the  value  as  under  the  present  system. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  As  I understand,  your  principal  source  of  information  in  regard 
to  the  values  of  goods  is  derived  from  these  different  foreign  invoices  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Suppose  that  each  importer  was  required  to  value  his  goods  on  a 
home  basis.  Would  not  this  large  number  of  valuations  of  the  goods 
afford  you  the  same  means  of  determining  what  the  value  was  as  the 
present  foreign  valuation  ? — A.  I do  not  think  it  would. 

Q.  It  would  become  a business  necessity  on  the  part  of  these  gentle- 
men to  give  you  that  information  ? — A.  Still,  I do  not  think  there  would 
be  any  uniformity  of  values.  Prices  change  considerably,  and  there  is 
a variation  of  8 or  10  per  cent,  in  prices  between  Chicago  and  Boston 
in  one  line  of  goods.  I suppose  we  should  be  compelled  to  assess  the 
value  of  the  articles  at  the  time  of  their  arrival  in  this  country ; and 
on  that  very  day  there  might  be  a great  demand  at  Cincinnati,  Omaha, 
or  other  parts  of  the  country  for  certain  classes  of  goods,  and  it  would 
cause  a large  per  cent,  of  difference  in  price  at  those  different  places. 


647 


ROBERT  K.  darrah.J  APPRAISER’S  DEPARTMENT,  BOSTON. 

Q.  As  I understand  you,  one  great  difficulty  you  experience  in  ascer- 
taining the  relative  value  is  on  account  of  the  fraudulent  invoices  ac- 
companying these  importations.  As  to  those  invoices  you  have  no 
means  of  determining  just  the  value  except  such  as  you  have  suggested, 
which  is  by  consultation  with  the  importers.  Why  would  you  not  be 
able  to  arrive  at  a valuation  of  all  goods  by  the  same  method  of  consul- 
tation with  the  buyers  of  the  goods  in  this  country  ?-—. A.  We  could  not 
rely  wholly  upon  that;  we  should  have  to  go  to  a hundred  people 
here  and  there,  and  to  me  it  would  seem  to  cause  a babel  of  confusion. 
We  have  one  great  advantage  at  present  in  regard  to  ascertaining  the 
true  value  of  goods,  by  being  able  to  send  to  New  York  and  compare 
the  prices  with  invoices  received  there  from  different  ports  on  the  same 
article. 

Q.  And  in  the  case  I put,  you  could  compare  the  same  values  on  dif- 
ferent articles  put  on  them  by  the  importer,  instead  of  relying  upon 
the  value  put  upon  them  by  the  exporter,  could  you  not? — A.  I say 
yes  to  your  question,  but  I do  not  think  it  would  have  the  same  value 
to  us.  At  present  we  have  before  us  transactions  done  on  a large 
scale  between  large  sellers  in  France  and  England  and  importers  in 
this  country,  and  by  comparing  the  invoices  we  arrive  at  a satisfactory 
result.  But,  as  you  suggest,  we  should  have  to  go  about  and  get  the 
opinions  of  a large  number  of  dealers  from  the  retailers  up. 

Q.  I understand  that  these  invoices  do  not  always  represent  actual 
business  transactions ; that  a large  portion  of  the  goods  are  consigned. 
— A.  I have  been  in  the  appraiser’s  office  here  twenty  years,  and  ac- 
cording to  my  experience  there  are  few  instances  of  fraudulent  valua- 
tions in  cases  where  the  goods  are  really  purchased.  The  frauds  have 
been  very  large  in  New  York  in  regard  to  silks,  and  they  are  all  con- 
signed. Whenever  a new  invoice  turns  up — a consigned  invoice — it 
generally  arrests  our  attention  and  we  scan  it  very  carefully.  In  my 
long  experience  I have  never  known  but  few  invoices  that  were  fraud- 
ulent when  the  goods  were  actually  purchased. 

Q.  But  in  regard  to  the  other  class  of  invoices,  where  goods  are  sent 
on  consignment,  you  admit  that  they  are  largely  fraudulent,  and  that 
there  is  considerable  undervaluation? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  I understand 
that  those  cases  are  very  small,  proportionately,  to  the  whole  importa- 
tion of  goods  at  the  port  of  New  York. 

Q.  After  all,  you  are  compelled  to  depend  on  your  own  opinion ; you 
cannot  take  the  invoice,  and  you  are  compelled  to  rely  upon  your  own 
opinion  as  to  the  value.  Do  you  think  you  have  better  means  of  get- 
ting the  correct  value  at  the  point  of  exportation  than  at  the  point 
where  the  goods  are  received  ? — A.  I think  so  ; because  we  can  have 
communication  with  the  importers  of  that  class  of  goods,  and  the  result 
leads  to  uniformity  at  all  the  ports. 

Q.  But  under  a system  of  home  valuation  would  you  not  acquire  in 
your  business  the  same  facility  in  determining  the  value  from  the  in- 
formation you  obtain  here  as  you  have  now  in  ascertaining  the  foreign 
valuation  ? — A.  I have  no  doubt  that  we  could  adopt  measures  that 
would  enable  us  to  get  along  under  such  a system ; but  I think  the 
present  system  is  the  best. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Of  course  you  are  aware  that  there  are  a number  of  inland  ports 
of  entry  scattered  throughout  the  United  States,  established  by  act  of 
Congress? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A witness  before  us  has  testified  to  a fact  of  this  kind : that  he 


648 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROBERT  K.  DARRAH. 


and  another  party  had  imported  goods,  I think  dry  goods,  and  he 
shipped  his  goods  to  New  York,  while  the  other  party  shipped  his  to 
Chicago.  He  stated  that  the  party  who  shipped  the  goods  to  Chicago 
was  enabled,  by  the  difference  in  the  Chicago  appraisement  from  the 
New  York  appraisement,  to  pay  so  much  less  duty  that  he  reshipped 
the  goods  to  New  York,  and  was  able  to  undersell  the  party  who  had 
received  the  goods  at  New  York.  I can  understand  that  you,  with  your 
long  familiarity  with  the  subject,  can  make  a correct  estimate  or  ap- 
praisement of  goods  coming  from  Europe  ; but  the  appraiser  at  Chicago 
perhaps  knows  but  little  of  the  value  of  these  goods,  and  would  put  a 
different  value  on  them.  Do  you  not  think  the  foreign  appraisement 
or  valuation  in  a case  like  that  comes  in  very  unfavorably  i — A.  1 do 
not  know  why  it  would  more  than  any  other.  If  the  appraiser  at  Chi- 
cago is  an  incompetent  person  he  might  be  just  as  incompetent  in  en- 
deavoring to  ascertain  the  home  value  as  he  is  in  ascertaining  the  for- 
eign value. 

Q.  The  appraiser  at  Chicago,  not  having  so  much  experience,  is  nat- 
urally apt  to  be  more  incompetent,  and  the  importer  will  ship  his  goods 
to  Chicago  in  preference  to  New  York  or  Boston  for  that  reason.  In 
the  seaports  where  these  goods  are  constantly  arriving  the  appraiser  is 
more  competent  to  determine  their  value  than  an  appraiser  who  lives  in 
the  interior,  is  he  not  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


B.  C.  CLARK.] 


OAKUM. 


G49 


B.  C.  CLARK. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24,  1882. 

Mr.  B.  C.  Clark,  of  Boston,  treasurer  of  the  Pearson  Cordage  Com- 
pany, and  agent  of  the  Boston  Oakum  Company,  made  the  following 
statement : 

I have  the  honor  to  present  to  the  Commission,  in  behalf  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  oakum  of  the  United  States,  a petition  signed  by  90  per 
cent,  of  interest  of  the  manufacturers,  and  I will  state  that  all  the  rest 
of  them  would  probably  have  signed  the  petition  had  there  been  time 
to  send  it  to  them  for  their  signature. 

We  have  the  honor  to  request  that  a duty  of  one  cent  per  pound  may 
be  imposed  upon  foreign  oakum,  for  the  following  reasons: 

Pirst.  That  the  wages  paid  in  the  United  States  are  from  50  to  70 
per  cent,  higher  than  are  paid  to  the  same  class  of  laborers  in  England 
and  other  foreign  countries.  Second.  That  it  is  therefore  impossible 
for  us  to  compete  with  the  foreign  oakum,  and  our  business  is  rapidly 
being  destroyed  and  rendered  unprofitable.  Third.  That  the  cordage 
manufacturers  are  protected  by  a duty  on  rope,  and  the  same  reason 
exists  why  our  industry,  which  is  of  a smaller  nature,  should  be  en- 
couraged. Fourth.  The  foreign  manufacturers  can  now  take  American 
machinery,  brand  their  goods  as  American  oakum,  and  send  them  here 
in  foreign  vessels  at  a nominal  freight,  and  undersell  us.  Fifth.  Upon 
the  good  quality  of  oakum  depends  valuable  lives  and  large  amounts  of 
property,  and  unless  the  industry  is  encouraged,  the  quality  will  deteri- 
orate and  poor  oakum  be  used. 

I will  now  read  the  petition  to  which  I have  referred  in  my  statement. 
It  is  as  follows : 

u To  the  honorable  Tariff  Commission  : 

“ The  undersigned,  manufacturers  of  oakum  in  the  United  States,  beg 
most  respectfully  to  request  that  a duty  of  one  cent  per  pound  may  be  im- 
posed upon  foreign  oakum,  and  that  the  raw  material,  viz,  the  junk  from 
which  it  is  manufactured,  may  continue  to  be  admitted  free  of  duty. 

“We  have  a large  amount  of  capital  invested  in  the  business,  and  a 
large  number  of  operatives,  to  whom  we  pay  from  50  per  cent,  to  70  per 
cent,  more  wages  than  are  paid  to  the  same  class  of  laborers  in  England 
and  other  foreign  countries.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  compete  with  the  foreign  goods,  and  our  business  is  rapidly  being- 
destroyed  and  rendered  unprofitable.  We  think  we  can  rightfully  claim 
the  same  protection  as  is  accorded  to  the  cordage  manufacturers,  who  are 
and  have  always  been  protected  by  a duty  on  rope.  The  result  has 
been  that  the  cordage  manufactured  in  this  country  is  universally  con- 
ceded to  be  the  best  in  the  world.  If  the  foreign  manufacturers  can  take 
our  machinery  from  this  country  and  brand  their  goods  as  American 
oakum  and  send  them  here  in  foreign  vessels  at  a nominal  freight,  and 
undersell  us  in  our  own  market,  we  submit  that  our  case  is  clearly  enti- 
tled to  consideration.  As  conclusive  proof  that  this  is  not  imaginary 
on  our  part,  we  quote  from  a recent  printed  circular  of  the  Anglo-Amer- 


650 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[B.  C.  CLARK. 


ican  Rope  & Oakum  Company,  12  Hop  wood  street,  Liverpool,  England, 
wliicli  lias  been  sent  broadcast  over  this  country.  ‘ American  manufac- 
turers cannot  continue  selling  at  the  reduced  prices,  whilst  we  can  do  so 
right  along.  Advantages : first,  England  is  the  cheapest  market  for  raw 
material  and  labor ; second,  our  machinery  is  American,  and  process  of 
manufacture  the  same ; third,  we  lay  ourselves  out  specially  for  manu- 
facturing American  oakum.’  We  use  their  exact  words,  and  it  seems  to 
us  that  they  support  our  case  in  the  strongest  manner. 

On  the  score  of  humanity,  we  feel  that  our  vessels  on  the  sea  and  on 
the  lakes  should  have  the  oakum  which  is  best,  for  valuable  lives  and 
large  amounts  of  property  may  and  often  do  depend  for  safety  upon  the 
quality  of  the  article  we  manufacture. 

“Sewall,  Day  & Co. 

“Boston  Oakum  Co., 
by  B.  C.  Clark,  Trustee. 

“H.  L.  Alden. 

“Geo.  Stratford, 
by  A.  J.  Stratford 

“B.  Mills  Sons. 

“W.  O.  Davey  & Sons.” 


CHARLES  L.  HIGGINS.] 


CAUSTIC  SODA. 


651 


CHARLES  L.  HIGGINS. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24, 1882. 

The  following  comm  imication  from  Mr.  Charles  L.  Higgins,  of  New 
York,  in  regard  to  the  duty  on  caustic  soda,  was  read  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

The  attention  of  the  Commission  is  called  to  the  following  facts  re- 
lating to  the  duty  on  caustic  soda  : 

Under  the  act  of  July  30,  1846  (see  U.  S.  S tat.' at  L.,  p.  42),  “ caustic 
soda  ” was  not  mentioned  by  name  (eo  nomine );  “ soda  ash  ” was  so  men- 
tioned in  Schedule  G of  that  act,  and  was  dutiable  at  10  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  As  “ caustic  soda  ” more  nearly  resembled  soda  ash  than 
any  other  article  mentioned  in  the  tariff  act,  either  in  material,  quality, 
texture  or  the  use  to  which  it  was  put  or  might  be  put,  it  was  legally 
dutiable  at  the  same  duty  as  “ soda  ash,”  viz,  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
The  reason  for  this  I will  state  under  the  observations  here  to  be  made 
concerning  the  act  of  1857.  The  act  of  1846  was  passed  to  relieve  the 
country  from  the  debt  incurred  by  the  Mexican  war,  and  duties  were 
made  very  high.  Mouey  flowed  very  freely  into  the  Treasury ; in  fact 
there  was  so  much,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  debates  in  Congress  from 
1856-’57,  that  many  feared  that  all  the  money  of  the  country  would  find 
its  way  into  the  United  States  Treasury,  and  the  country  at  large  be- 
come bankrupt.  To  avert  such  apprehended  evil,  the  act  of  1846  was 
amended  by  that  of  1857,  and  duties  were  largely  reduced  on  fully  90 
per  cent,  of  articles  mentioned  in  the  act  of  1846.  Articles  in  Schedules 
A and  B,  by  act  of  1846,  100  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  respectively, 
were  reduced  to  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; those  in  Schedule  C,  by  act 
1846,  30  per  cent.;  by  act  1857,  to  24  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  those  in 
Schedule  I (1846),  25  per  cent.,  in  1857,  to  19  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; those 
in  Schedule  E (1846),  20  per  cent.,  in  1857  to  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; 
those  in  Schedule  F (1846),  15  tier  cent.,  in  1857  to  12  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem; those  in  Schedule  G (1846),  10  per  cent.,  in  1857  to  8 percent,  ad 
valorem ; those  in  Schedule  H (1846),  5 per  cent.,  in  1857  to  4 per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  Very  many  articles  were  made  free. 

Under  the  act  of  March  3,  3857,  amending  the  act  of  1846  (see  11  U. 
S.  Stat.  at  L.,  p.  192),  “ caustic  soda  ” was  not  mentioned  by  name  (eo 
nomine );  “ soda  ash”  was  transferred  to  Schedule  H,  and  was  dutiable  at 
4 per  cent,  ad  valorem.  “ Caustic  soda  ” was  held,  in  the  case  of  Gam- 
ble vs.  Mason  (7  American  Law  Register,  p.  178),  to  assimilate  by  virtue 
of  the  similitude  act  of  1842,  in  use,  &c.,  to  “ soda  ash,”  and  was  there- 
fore dutiable  at  4 per  cent,  ad  valorem.  As  the  phraseology  in  the  act 
of  1846,  was  in  the  act  of  1846  as  amended  by  the  act  of  1857,  the  rea- 
soning in  Gamble  vs.  Mason  applies  to  the  act  of  1846,  and  the  legal  duty 
on  “ caustic  soda  ” under  the  act  of  1846  was  therefore  the  same  as  “soda 
ash”  as  stated  above.  From  1857  to  March,  1861,  the  duty  on  “ caustic 
soda”  was  4 per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

March  2,  1861,  a new  tariff  was  passed.  “ Caustic  soda  ” was  not 
mentioned  by  name.  “Soda  ash”  was  free  of  duty.  In  my  opinion 
“ caustic  soda  ” was  dutiable  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  Treasury 
Department,  I understand,  have  held  that  under  this  act  it  was  still 
dutiable  at  4 per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Be  this  as  it  may,  this  act  con- 
tinued in  force  until  August  5,  1861,  only. 


652 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| CHARLES  L.  HIGGINS. 


August  5,  1861  (see  U.  S.  Stat.  at  L.,  p.  292),  was  passed  a tariff  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  war  against  the  rebellious  States  of  the 
South.  In  this  act  “ caustic  soda  ” was  specifically  named  ( eo  nomine ), 
and  by  section  1 thereof  was  made  dutiable  at  1 cent  per  pound. 

July  14,  1862  (see  12  Stat.  at  L.,  p.  543),  the  duty  on  u caustic  soda  ” 
was  by  the  seventh  section  thereof  increased  one-half  cent  per  pound, 
making  it  in  all  1J  cents  per  pound — the  government  needing,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  great  war  expenses,  still  further  income  than  it  derived 
from  the  act  of  1861  and  other  sources. 

This  duty  of  1J  cents  per  pound  on  u caustic  soda”  (war  duty)  is  still 
continued  (see  Schedule  M,  U.  S.  Eevised  Statutes,  approved  June  22, 
1874). 

The  foregoing  facts  show  that  the  excessive  duty  on  u caustic  soda” 
was  devised  as  a war  measure,  and  as  the  amount  of  American  “ caus- 
tic soda”  used  in  the  manufacture  of  soap  is  very  small,  it  actually  pre- 
vents the  American  manufacturer  of  soaps  competing  with  those  of  for- 
eign countries,  where  there  is  no  duty  on  “ caustic  soda.”  I take  the 
liberty  of  sending  you  one  of  these  circulars  that  you  may  be  prepared 
to  make  such  a statement  of  facts  before  the  commission  that  they  will 
be  convinced  of  the  injustice  of  the  present  tariff  on  u caustic  soda  ” 
and  the  advantages  that  would  be  derived  by  the  public  generally  by 
having  u caustic  soda  ” at  least  placed  on  the  free  list  when  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  soap. 

Yours  respectfully, 


New  York,  August  23, 1882. 


Chas.  L.  Higgins. 


ELISHA  P.  WHITEHEAD.] 


AMERICAN  WATCHES. 


653 


ELISHA  P.  WHITEHEAD. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24,  1882. 

Mr.  Elisha  P.  Whitehead,  secretary  of  the  Elgin  National  Watch 
Company,  made  the  following  statement: 

I desire  to  say  a word  in  regard  to  the  inequality  existing  in  the  duty  on 
crude  material  and  manufactured  goods.  Take  this  crude  enamel  used  by 
watchmakers,  and  it  is  listed  at  40  per  cent.  duty.  Take  sheet  copper,  and 
it  is  listed  at  45  per  cent.  Take  glass,  which  figures  in  a watch.  The 
glass  itself  is  rated  at  40  per  cent.,  and  yet  coming  through  on  a watch 
it  is  listed  at  25  per  cent.,  so  that  the  foreign  manufacturer  has  an  ad- 
vantage over  the  American  manufacturer  on  these  articles.  The  foreign 
watches  coming  through  at  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  leaves  a difference  of 
15  or  20  per  cent,  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  paying  more  than 
the  foreign  manufacturer  on  the  same  articles,  making  a tax  of  over  10 
cents  on  each  watch.  We  have  buildings  already  under  construction, 
where  the  roof  is  now  being  put  on,  which  will  give  us  a capacity  of 
making  between  2,000  and  2,500  watches  a day.  Mr.  Robbins  informs 
me  that  the  capacity  of  his  company  is  about  1,000  watches  a day,  at 
present,  and  with  the  additional  buildings  that  are  being  erected  it  will 
be  much  more.  So  that  taking  this  10  cent  tax  on  each  watch  that  the 
Americans  are  paying  it  amounts  to  $300  or  $400  a day  tax  that  we 
have  to  pay  before  we  get  on  an  equality  with  the  foreign  manufacturer. 
If  the  tax  on  watches  and  watch  cases  was  increased  to  40  per  cent,  it 
would  put  us  on  a footing  with  the  foreign  manufacturer  and  give  us  a 
better  chance  for  competition. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  What  proportion  of  the  labor  performed  in  your  establish- 
ment is  hand  labor? — Answer.  Scarcely  any  hand  labor  is  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  a watch. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Are  you  not  now  selling  American  watches  abroad?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  If  the  duty  which  you  ask  for  was  recommended,  are  you  sure  that 
the  prices  of  watches  would  be  correspondingly  reduced  ? — A.  No,  sir ; 
because  the  taking  off  of  10  percent,  on  jewels  alone  is  a small  reduction. 

Q.  But  would  it  not  cheapen  the  making  of  a wTatch  to  that  extent ; 
would  you  not  be  able  to  sell  the  watch  that  much  cheaper  to  the  pur- 
chaser?— A.  No,  sir  5 it  would  have  no  perceptible  effect  upon  the  price. 

Q.  If  you  got  your  materials  that  much  cheaper  I should  think  it 
would  enable  you  to  sell  watches  cheaper  than  you  do  now  ? — A.  The 
reduction  is  so  small  that  it  would  hardly  figure  any  in  the  retail  price 
of  a watch.  The  principal  cost,  of  course,  is  in  the  labor.  The  Walt- 
ham Company  employs  about  2,000  men,  and  we  employ  about  1,600 
men  at  present. 

Q.  You  can  now  compete  successfully  with  the  European  makers  of 
watches,  can  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir ; in  certain  grades  of  watches  we  can. 

Q.  In  the  ordinary  grades  of  watches  you  can  compete.  The  repre- 
sentative of  the  Swiss  Government  at  the  Centennial  Exhibition,  I 


654 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ELISHA  P.  WHITEHEAD. 


believe,  made  a report  to  bis  government  that  there  would  have  to  be  a 
very  severe  competition  for  the  market  with  the  American  watch  makers. 
— A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  true.  At  that  time,  however,  they  had  but  little 
machinery  employed  in  Switzerland  in  the  manufacture  of  watches.  It 
has  been  their  boast,  heretofore,  that  watches  could  not  be  made  by 
machinery.  But  since  the  Centennial  Exposition  they  seem  to  have 
changed  their  ideas,  and  now  they  claim  to  have  the  best  machinery  in 
the  world.  I know  from  observation  made  during  a recent  visit  to 
Switzerland  that  they  are  making  a desperate  effort  to  regain  their 
trade. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Has  not  the  successful  manufacture  of  American  watches  been 
largely  caused  by  the  introduction  of  interchangeable  parts  in  watches  ? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  a peculiarity  of  the  American  system  of  manufacture"? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  that  system  been  introduced  abroad  ? — A.  It  has  only  recently 
been  put  in  operation  to  any  extent. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  What  class  of  watches  do  you  export? — A.  They  are  all  of  a low 
grade  at  present. 

Q.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  exportation  ? — A.  Mr.  Bobbins  has  a 
much  larger  export  trade  than  we  have.  Our  trade  is  mostly  confined 
to  the  United  States. 


GKNEGE  B.  CLARK.] 


OPTICAL  GLASS. 


655 


GEORGE  B.  CLARK. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24,  1882. 

Mr.  George  B.  Clark,  of  Cainbridgeport,  Mass.,  of  the  firm  of 
Alvan  Clark  & Sons,  optical-glass  manufacturers,  addressed  the  Com- 
mission as  follows: 

I desire  to  present  to  the  Commission  some  reasons  why  the  duty  on 
optical  glass  should  be  taken  off.  Schools,  colleges,  and  scientific  in- 
stitutions import  instruments  and  material  of  almost  every  kind,  free 
of  duty  5 whereas,  when  they  desire  us  to  import  a large  piece  of  glass 
and  manufacture  it  for  them  for  optical  purposes,  we  have  to  pay  a duty 
of  10  per  cent.;  that  is,  if  we  import  it  ourselves.  These  institutions, 
however,  can  import  it  free  of  duty.  So  that  we  make  arrangements 
with  them  to  import  glass  in  the  rough,  and  they  turn  it  over  to  us 
and  we  work  it  up  for  them.  The  result  is  that  the  government  is 
getting  but  little  revenue  from  that  10  per  cent,  duty,  and  such  glass 
really  comes  in  free;  but  it  subjects  these  institutions  and  ourselves, 
as  well  as  the  custom-house  officers,  to  considerable  annoyance.  The 
chief  cost  of  this  optical  glass  is  in  the  labor  put  upon  the  raw  material. 
If  we  paid  duty  on  all  the  glass  we  import  for  these  institutions  the 
government  would  not  derive  more  than  $100  a year  in  the  way  of 
revenue  from  it,  and  we  are  doing  more  probably  of  this  kind  of  work 
than  is  done  by  all  the  rest  of  the  manufacturers  of  optical  glasses  in 
this  country.  I do  not  suppose  the  government  would  get,  all  told,  from 
all  the  glass  imported  for  this  purpose  into  the  LTnited  States,  a revenue 
of  over  $400  or  $500  a year. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  To  whom  are  the  glasses  you  manufacture  sold? — Answer. 
To  schools  and  colleges  all  over  the  country,  and  we  also  send  some  of 
them  to  Europe.  We  are  making  at  present  a large  30-inch  glass  for 
the  Russian  Government.  The  value  of  a glass  of  that  kind  would  be 
about  $32,000.  When  we  contracted  to  make  that  glass  we  thought 
we  could  get  the  material  in  under  the  clause  providing  for  its  free  im- 
portation for  the  use  of  schools  and  colleges,  but  afterwards  we  found 
that  the  law  was  so  worded  that  it  included  only  schools  and  colleges 
in  the  United  States,  and  the  custom-house  officers  could  not  admit  it 
free  of  duty.  We  finally  wrote  to  the  Russian  minister,  and  a few  days 
afterwards  there  came  an  order  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ad- 
mitting it  free.  Several  times  we  have  had  little  delays  of  that  kind, 
but  in  almost  every  case  we  get  the  glass  in  free.  Still  we  have  difficulty 
at  the  custom-house  oftentimes,  because  some  of  the  customs  officers 
take  one  view  of  the  matter  and  some  another. 

Q.  What  would  be,  the  value  of  the  raw  material  out  of  which  you 
manufactured  this  optical  glass  you  spoke  of  for  the  use  of  the  Rus- 
sian Government  ? — A.  When  we  got  it,  it  would  hardly  come  under 
the  designation  of  raw  material.  It  was  worth  about  $6,000  in  the  form 
we  got  it.  Such  glass  has  to  go  through  a different  form  of  manufact- 
ure from  the  ordinary  glass,  and  there  is  a great  deal  of  work  put  upon 
it.  This  optical  glass  is  prepared  especially  for  the  purpose.  When 
we  get  it  we  do  not  know  its  actual  value.  It  occasionally  happens  that 
such  glass  is  defective,  and  then  we  return  it  and  they  furnish  another 


656 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  B.  CLARK. 


piece.  Half  of  the  value  is  paying  for  the  guarantee.  The  most  of 
the  glass  that  we  use  is  sent  to  us  unwarranted,  and  a great  deal  of  it 
is  not  lit  for  use  except  the  small  pieces  we  get  out  of  it,  and  we  lay  it 
aside  until  we  have  a call  for  work  to  which  it  is  suitable.  Perhaps 
these  small  pieces  are  selected  out  of  a 25-pound  box  of  glass,  costing 
a dollar  a pound,  making  the  cost,  in  Paris,  $25,  and  then  there  is  50 
per  cent,  to  be  added  for  insurance  and  freight,  making  the  total  cost 
about  $35.  If  such  a piece  of  glass  was  sent  to  us  guaranteed  it  would 
cost  us  probably  two  or  three  hundred  dollars.  The  sum  of  the  whole 
matter  is,  that  the  government  is  getting  no  revenue  from  this  article, 
or  at  least  only  a very  few  hundred  dollars  annually,  and  the  law  as  it 
exists  at  present  subjects  ourselves  and  the  custom-house  officers  to  a 
great  deal  of  annoyance. 


KOYAL  E.  BOBBINS.] 


AMERICAN  WATCHES. 


657 


EOYAL  E.  ROBBINS. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24,  1882. 

Mr.  Royal  E.  Robbins,  treasurer  of  the  American  Watch  Company 
of  Waltham,  Mass.,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

I have  prepared  a statement  setting  forth  our  views  on  the  subject  of 
the  duty  on  watches,  which  has  been  signed  by  Mr.  Elisha  P.  White- 
head,  secretary  of  the  Elgin  National  Watch  Company,  and  myself, 
which  I will  read. 

As  manufacturers  of  watches  we  beg  leave  to  represent: 

1.  That  the  duty  on  watches,  watch  movements,  and  gold  and  silver 
and  other  cases,  namely,  25  per  cent.,  is  too  small.  Little  argument  is 
needed  to  enforce  this  statement.  Watches  are  articles  of  luxury  as 
well  as  of  use,  and  as  such  should  pay  at  least  the  average  charge  on 
articles  of  personal  use  or  ornament,  which  it  is  obvious  they  do  not 
pay.  The  reason  no  higher  rate  has  heretofore  been  imposed  is  that 
being  small  and  valuable  they  are  liable  to  be  smuggled,  and  it  has 
been  asserted  that  on  this  account  as  much  revenue  can  be  collected  at 
the  present  rate  as  at  any  higher  one.  This,  we  believe,  is  untrue  at 
the  present  time,  however  it  might  have  been  twenty  years  ago,  when 
watches  were  twice  their  present  price  and  the  custom-house  officials  less 
vigilant.  It  will  be  asserted  that  the  watch  companies  have  thriven  in 
spite  of  a low  tariff.  We  reply  that  more  companies  have  failed  than 
have  succeeded,  and  that  the  others  have  had  no  exceptionally  prosper- 
ous history.  Dividends  for  the  last  ten  years  will  not  average  8 per 
cent,  in  any  of  the  companies,  and  these  are  earned  only  by  the  unstinted 
use  of  capital  and  labor-saving  machinery.  It  is  notorious  that  foreign 
labor  in  watchmaking  is  paid  at  less  than  half  our  rates,  and  that  their 
supplies  and  materials  are  proportionately  cheap.  We  submit  that  the 
articles  above  enumerated  should  be  assessed  at  40  per  cent. 

2.  We  ask  that  watch  jewels,  now  rated  at  10  per  cent.,  be  made  free. 
Watch  jewels  are  made  of  precious  stones  and  imported,  generally,  in 
an  unfinished  state,  by  all  the  watch  companies,  to  supply  deficiences 
in  their  own  jewel  shops,  and  as  such  are  raw  material,  entitled,  on  prin- 
ciple, to  favor.  The  chief  claim,  however,  for  abolition  of  these  duties 
is  that  being  so  very  diminutive  and  so  costly  they  are  extremely  liable 
to  be  smuggled,  and,  in  fact,  are  smuggled  in  a finished  state  by  the 
irresponsible  trade.  Investigation  would  probably  reveal  the  fact  that 
but  few  jewels  are  entered  at  the  customs  except  by  the  large  watch 
companies.  And  yet  a very  considerable  trade  is  done  in  these  goods 
of  foreign  make.  A thousand  dollars’  worth  of  jewels  could  easily  be 
carried  in  a vest  pocket  or  inclosed  in  a letter.  We  would  like  to  show 
samples  of  these  goods. 

3.  White  and  colored  enamel,  we  submit,  should  also  be  put  on  the  free 
list.  This  article,  the  composition  of  which  is  not  accurately  known  in 
this  country,  is  an  opaque,  vitreous  substance,  ueither  porcelain  nor  glass, 
but  partaking  of  the  qualities  of  both,  as  it  is  made  of  similar  minerals 
and  chemicals,  and  is  used  solely  in  the  manufacture  of  watch  dials. 
Specimens  are  herewith  shown.  You  will  see  that  the  article  cannot 
be  used  in  any  other  way  than  as  a material  in  other  manufacture.  The 

H.  Mis.  6 42 


658 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROYAL  E.  ROBBINS. 


duty  at  present  exacted  is  40  per  cent.,  under  a Treasury  decision 
which,  in  the  absence  of  specific  classification  in  the  tariff,  orders  it  to 
pay  that  rate  under  paragraph  stated  at  954,  page  161,  “HeyPs  United 
States  Import  Duties.”  This  is  a case  where  raw  materials  are  charged 
15  per  cent,  more  than  the  articles  into  which  they  are  to  be  converted. 
The  Treasury  decision  seems  to  us  to  be  a strained  and  improper  con- 
struction. 

We  suppose  the  value  of  jewels  annually  imported  by  the  watch  com- 
panies only  to  be  $100,000,  and  the  value  of  enamel  about  $15,000. 
There  is  no  industry  established  in  this  country  to  object  to  the  aboli- 
tion of  these  duties. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Question.  What  proportion  of  the  watches  made  by  your  establish- 
ment are  exported? — Answer.  We  think  we  sell  about  one-third  of  our 
product  in  foreign  countries.  Our  largest  customer  is  Great  Britain, 
and  through  Great  Britain,  the  English  colonies,  although  we  have  a 
great  deal  of  direct  trade  with  Australia,  New  Zealand,  Japan,  and 
South  America,  and  we  are  beginning  to  trade  with  Mexico  and  the 
West  Indies,  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  the  East  Indies.  We  sell  in 
London  alone  about  £10,000  worth  a month,  either  for  consumption  in 
Great  Britain  or  for  distribution  to  some  of  her  colonies  whose  trade  she 
controls. 

Q.  Substantially,  yours  is  the  only  American  watch  company  that 
does  an  export  trade? — A.  The  Elgin  Watch  Company  has  an  export 
trade  to  a certain  extent,  but  I believe  our  company  does  the  largest 
business  abroad. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  Your  export  does  not  consist  of  the  very  lowest  grade  of 
watches? — Answer.  Oh,  no,  sir. 

Q.  The  lowest  grade  of  watches  are  made  in  Switzerland,  I believe? 
— A.  Yes,  sir.  We  do  not  make  any  watches  which  are  as  cheap  as  the 
lowest  Swiss  grades.  The  average  grade  of  our  sales  in  England  would 
be  about  as  high,  perhaps,  as  in  this  country.  They  do  not  take  the 
very  highest  grades,  because  their  insular  prejudices  are  in  favor  of  their 
own  manufactures  when  it  comes  to  that  class  of  goods.  But  it  is  sur- 
prising how  many  watches  of  American  manufacture  are  sold  in  the 
large  towns  in  the  north  of  England. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  exporting  watches  to  England? — A. 
About  eight  years. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  What  portion  of  the  material  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
your  watches  is  imported? — A.  Not  two  per  cent.  We  import  nothing 
but  a certain  proportion  of  our  jewels,  in  an  unfinished  state.  We  have 
a large  jewelry  shop,  employing  more  than  100  people,  finishing  jewels, 
but  we  cannot  make  enough,  because  we  have  not  room  for  that  purpose, 
and  the  deficiency  we  import  in  a certain  stage  of  manufacture  and  fin- 
ish them  in  this  country  to  put  into  our  watches.  Apart  from  jewels 
there  is  no  other  imported  article,  except  a few  main-springs  and  this 
article  of  enamel,  which  some  companies  import,  which  enters  into  the 
manufacture  of  our  watches. 

Q.  Do  you  not  get  a rebate  on  some  of  these  articles  when  you  export 
your  watches? — A.  No,  sir;  we  do  not.  They  are  so  thoroughly  incor- 
porated into  the  watches  that  it  is  impossible  to  indicate  them. 


ROYAL  E.  ROEDINS.] 


AMERICAN  WATCHES. 


059 


By  the  President  : 

Q.  Are  there  any  jewels  made  in  this  country  ? — A.  Not  a thousand 
dollars’  worth,  except  at  these  large  establishments.  There  is  nothing 
we  import  in  a finished  condition  for  use  in  our  factories  5 not  one  article. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Do  you  make  the  highest  grade  of  watches? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  make  chronometers? — A.  No,  sir;  we  do  not.  We  do  not 
believe  in  the  chronometer  escapement  for  a pocket  watch,  so  that  we 
have  not  made  them. 


660 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


{CHARLES  P.  LAUEIAT. 


CHARLES  P.  LAUEIAT. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24,  1882. 

Mr.  Charles  P.  Lauriat,  of  Boston,  manufacturer  of  gold  leaf, 
made  the  following  statement: 

The  tariff  on  gold  leaf  at  the  present  time  is  such  that  persons  em- 
ployed in  the  business,  at  the  present  wages  paid,  are  barely  able  to 
earn  a decent  living.  A few  years  ago  the  tariff  on  gold  leaf  was  re- 
duced and  most  of  the  workmen  were  thrown  out  of  business,  and  the 
industry  was  nearly  destroyed.  At  present  the  wages  paid  are  small, 
and  if  the  tariff  on  gold  leaf  was  reduced  the  business  would  be  entirely 
broken  up.  That  is  all  I care  to  say.  I just  wanted  to  make  a short 
statement  to  that  effect. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  You  think  the  duty  is  high  enough  now ; you  would  not 
advocate  the  making  of  it  any  higher? — Answer.  As  I say,  our  work- 
men are  able  at  present  to  make  just  a fair  living,  but  if  the  duty  is  re- 
duced they  cannot  do  even  that.  The  gold-leaf  trade  in  this  country  is 
a very  small  one,  and  the  rate  of  duty  would  not  make  a great  deal  of 
difference  to  the  government,  but  it  would  affect  us  very  badly. 

Q.  About  how  many  men  are  employed  in  the  business? — A.  In  Mas- 
sachusetts about  25  men  only,  and  in  !New  York  a little  over  100  men. 
There  are  not  over  300  in  the  whole  country. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  are  the  average  wages  paid  ? — A.  From  $12  to  $18  a week. 
The  best  workmen  make  $18  a week,  on  the  average,  and  the  poorest 
about  $12.  They  work  by  the  piece  altogether. 


HENRY  A.  GOULD.  J 


CAMPHOR  AND  ANILINE  DYES. 


GGL 


HENRY  A.  GOULD. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24,  1882. 

Mr.  Henry  A.  Gould,  of  Boston,  refiner  of  camphor  and  manu- 
facturer of  aniline  dyes,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

As  a refiner  of  crude  camphor,  representing  two  refineries,  which  have 
been  in  existence  respectively  fifty-eight  and  twenty-two  years,  I re- 
spectfully protest  against  any  reduction  of  the  existing  small  duty  of  3 
cents  per  pound  on  refined  camphor,  which  acts  as  a protection  to  the 
American  refiners  without  in  any  way  being  a burden  to  the  consumer. 

My  reasons  are  these : The  capital  required  to  be  invested  is  large, 
being  obliged  to  purchase  the  crude  article  by  the  cargo  in  China  or 
Japan,  in  order  to  enable  us  to  purchase  it  at  a price  that  will  enable 
us  to  refine  without  loss,  a single  invoice  being  an  investment  of  from 
$40,000  to  $50,000,  and  the  profit  rarely  exceeds  5 per  cent.,  except  in  those 
rare  contingencies  of  short  supplies,  epidemics,  &c.  We  are  only  en- 
abled to  make  even  this  profit  by  handling  the  article  with  most  minute 
care  in  subdivision  of  labor,  and  economy  in  labor-saving  appliances. 
We  pay  for  labor  in  this  country  double  the  price  that  is  required  in 
Europe,  and  other  elements  which  enter  into  the  manufacture  are  of  in- 
creased cost,  and,  as  before  said,  the  very  moderate  protective  duty  of 
3 cents  per  pound  simply  protects  the  American  refiner  against  being- 
overpowered  by  the  imports  from  Europe  until  such  time  as  the  country 
grows  to  such  a point  as  the  labor  and  other  charges  in  this  country 
shall  be  equal  to  those  in  Europe. 

There  are  about  some  15,000  packages  imported  each  year  of  about 
the  import  value  of  $300,000,  and  there  are  seven  or  eight  refiners  in 
the  United  States,  it  being  a business  requiring  long  apprenticeship  to 
do  the  refining  properly.  It  is  rarely  that  an  employe  after  being  in 
this  business  leaves  his  avocation,  and  some  in  our  employ  have  been 
with  us  from  30  to  40  years. 

This  is  one  of  the  industries  in  which  the  duty  is  not  a heavy  charge, 
which  oppresses  the  consumer  and  goes  into  the  pocket  of  the  manufac- 
turer, but  is  simply  a safeguard  to  protect  the  industry  from  extinguish- 
ment. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  What  is  the  percentage  ? — Answer.  Three  cents  per  pound 
is  about  10  per  cent,  of  the  cost  price.  I have  no  personal  ownership 
of  these  refineries ; but  the  parties  engaged  in  this  business  have  been 
in  it  for  a long  time,  and  if  the  tariff  was  taken  off  they  would  have  to 
abandon  the  industry  which  they  have  been  for  many  years  building  up. 

I hope  that  the  Commission  will  be  able  to  recommend  a reduction  of 
the  duty  upon  aniline  colors.  The  duty  now,  as  you  well  know,  is  50 
cents  a pound,  specific  duty,  and  35  cents  a pound  ad  valorem.  I repre- 
rent a house  in  Germany,  with  a capital  of  $10,000,000  or  $12,000,000, 
and  we  sell  the  goods  in  the  original  package  in  this  country.  I have 
reason  to  know  that  the  duty  is  so  high  that  it  leads,  in  the  first  place, 
to  corruption  and  misrepresentation  of  goods  brought  into  this  country. 
Without  desiring  to  make  any  definite  statement,  I may  say  that  I feel 
that  goods  are,  owing  to  this  high  duty,  often  brought  in  on  a wrong- 
valuation  in  many  respects.  The  argument  on  this  question  has  been 


662 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HEXBY  A.  GOULD. 


gone  over  before  you  very  fully  by  Mr.  Campbell,  but  I may  say,  in  brief, 
that  a duty  of  20  or  25  per  cent,  would  answer  all  the  purposes  of  pro- 
tection, as  I have  instanced  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  camphor,  and 
would  help  the  manufacturer,  without  being  a burden  on  the  manufact- 
urer of  textile  articles.  I paid  a visit  to  South  America  last  summer, 
and  while  there  could  see  the  reason  why  they  imported  their  goods  from 
England  rather  than  from  this  country.  The  3 or  4 per  cent,  which  is 
added  on  to  the  cost  of  American  goods  by  reason  of  this  heavy  duty 
on  the  raw  materials  used  in  their  manufacture  is  the  cause  of  it.  Our 
house  in  South  America  imports  hundreds  of  packages  of  goods  from 
Manchester  and  other  sections  of  England  that  we  should  import  from 
this  country  if  the  prices  were  lower.  Of  course^  every  tax  of  this  kind 
that  is  added  to  the  original  cost  ot  the  goods  acts  as  a prohibition  upon 
trade  from  this  country.  We  have  a house  in  South  America  for  which 
we  import  largely  from  England.  The  freights  on  goods  exported  from 
this  country  to  South  America  are  much  larger  than  they  are  on  goods 
exported  from  England,  and,  of  course,  the  percentage  of  cost  for  these 
pigments  and  colors  add  very  largely  to  the  cost  of  the  print  or  the  man- 
ufactured article.  I think  a moderate  duty  would  do  away  with  the 
tendency  to  undervalue  these  colors  when  they  are  imported.  At  the 
present  rate  of  duty  it  is  certainly  a very  great  temptation  to  fraud. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  much  does  the  duty  on  aniline  colors  affect  the  price  of  the 
ordinary  American  prints,  for  instance  ? — A.  I am  not  prepared  to  an- 
swer that  question  exactly ; but  I know  that  we  have  very  carefully 
prepared  tables  showing  the  cost  of  prints  imported  from  Manchester 
and  the  cost  of  prints  and  other  colored  goods  made  in  this  country,  and 
the  difference  is  considerable ; and,  of  course,  as  you  can  see,  every 
additional  tax  on  the  manufacturer  adds  to  the  cost  of  the  manufactured 
article.  A duty  of  25  per  cent,  would  answer  all  the  purposes  of  pro- 
tecting the  American  manufacture  of  aniline  colors,  as  I have  instanced 
in  the  case  of  camphor,  without  adding  as  heavy  a tax  to  the  user  of 
aniline  colors.  As  Mr.  Campbell  has  said,  there  are  from  one  to  two 
million  pounds  of  colors,  representing  millions  of  dollars  in  value,  im- 
ported annually  into  the  country,  but  yet  the  business  is  in  its  infancy. 
I imported  in  1866  the  first  aniline  colors  ever  brought  into  this  country. 

Q.  What  colors  were  they  ? — A.  They  were  blues  and  reds.  I had 
very  hard  work  to  dispose  of  my  first  consignment  of  1,000  pounds ; it 
took  me  nearly  six  months  to  do  it  But  in  the  next  six  months  I sold 
from  850,000  to  $75,000  worth,  and  the  business  has  increased  very  rapidly 
ever  since.  I am  satisfied  we  cannot  manufacture  these  dies  in  this 
country  as  well  as  they  can  abroad,  unless  there  is  a change  in  the  prices 
of  labor  and  in  other  particulars.  In  Germany  laborers  are  paid  from  60 
cents  to  $1.12  a day,  while  the  same  laborers  in  this  country  receive  from 
$1.50  to  $2.50  a day.  Alcohol  is  very  cheap  in  Germany,  while  here  it 
is  loaded  down  with  taxes.  Nitric  acid  there  is  cheap,  while  here  it  com- 
mands a very  high  price  per  ton.  And  so  I might  go  through  the  whole 
catalogue  and  name  the  elements  that  enter  into  the  production  of  these 
colors.  I should  be  very  glad  to  see  them  made  in  this  country,  and 
even  as  an  importer  would  readily  submit  to  a fair  rate  of  protection  in 
order  to  develop  that  industry.  There  are  only  three  or  four  companies 
in  this  country  manufacturing  these  colors,  and  with  every  advantage 
of  protection  they  have  kept  the  price  up  as  high  as  the  tariff  would 
allow  them  to,  and  made  the  manufacturers  pay  a royal  price  for  their 
colors,  and  the  textile  manufacture  has  not  been  benefited  by  it,  and 


HENRY  A.  GOULD.] 


CAMPHOR  AND  ANILINE  DYES. 


G63 


they  never  have  been  able  to  mate  one  or  two  of  the  last  colors.  My 
house,  in  Germany,  manufactures  some  two  hundred  colors,  while  such 
concerns  as  the  one  in  Albany,  the  one  at  Buffalo,  and  one  or  two  in 
Philadelphia  only  manufacture  one  or  two  colors.  There  are  a dozen 
companies  in  Europe  having  a capital  of  from  $12,000,000  to  $15,000,000, 
some  of  them  ; even  the  smallest  of  them  have  at  least  a million  dollars 
capital,  and  in  that  way  they  can  manufacture  to  very  great  advantage. 
I am  speaking  now  of  aniline  colors,  without  referring  to  alizarine,  for 
that  is  a monopoly  under  a patent. 

Q.  Is  the  price  of  alizarine  due  to  the  high  tariff? — A,  Ho,  sir;  it  is 
a free  article;  it  is  due  to  the  control  by  one  house  of  the  patent  under 
which  it  is  made;  it  is  a monopoly.  We  represent  a manufacturing 
house  in  Austria  which  makes  it,  but  we  are  prohibited  selling  it  in  this 
country,  under  a decision  given  by  Judge  Lowell.  The  decision  is  re- 
garded in  Europe  as  unsound,  but  nevertheless  we  have  to  abide  by  it. 

Q.  How  much  lower  are  the  European  users  able  to  buy  this  alizarine 
than  American  users  are? — A.  I could  not  answer  that  question,  be- 
cause since  we  were  enjoined  from  selling  the  article  I have  not  followed 
the  price  of  it.  I only  know  that  after  the  decision  of  Judge  Lowell  the 
manufacturers  here  raised  their  price  over  100  per  cent,  in  a very  few 
months. 

The  President.  I wanted  to  bring  out  the  fact  that  the  high  price 
of  alizarine,  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  aniline  colors,  is  not  due 
to  the  tariff. 

The  Witness.  A specific  duty  in  one  sense  would  be  an  unjust  one 
because  of  the  fact  that  the  colors  are  valued  at  different  prices.  A low 
ad  valorem  duty  of  20  or  25  per  cent.,  it  seems  to  me,  would  answer 
every  purpose  and  protect  the  American  manufacturer.  As  it  is  now 
the  profits  all  go  into  the  pockets  of  these  few  manufacturers.  A re- 
duction of  the  duty  would  reduce  the  price  to  the  consumer,  and  enable 
him  to  procure  the  better  article  which  is  made  abroad.  I suppose 
there  are  some  things  that  we  cannot  make  in  this  country,  which  we 
shall  have  to  let  other  people  in  other  countries  make  for  us. 


664 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  G.  BROWN. 


JOHN  G.  BROWN. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24, 1882. 

Mr.  John  G.  Brown,,  of  Boston,  importer  of  iron  and  steel,  addressed 
the  Commission  as  follows  : 

The  present  duty  on  bar  iron  is,  in  my  opinion,  unjust  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  classification.  While  the  cost  of  different  classes  of  iron  and 
the  cost  of  importation  is  the  same,  the  duty  on  certain  classes  is  very 
excessive.  For  instance,  on  bar  iron,  rolled  or  hammered,  comprising 
flats  not  less  than  one  inch  or  more  than  six  inches  wide,  nor  less  than 
three-eighths  of  an  inch  or  more  than  two  inches  thick,  on  rounds  not 
less  than  three  fourths  of  an  inch  nor  more  than  two  inches  in  diame- 
ter, and  on  squares  not  less  than  three-fourths  of  an  inch  nor  more  than 
two  inches  square,  the  duty  is  one  cent  a pound ; while  on  bar-iron, 
rolled  or  hammered,  comprising  flats  less  than  three-eighths  of  an  inch 
or  more  than  two  inches  thick,  or  less  than  one  inch  or  more  than  six 
inches  wide,  and  on  rounds  less  than  three-fourths  of  an  inch  or  more 
than  two  inches  in  diameter,  and  on  squares  less  than  three-fourths  of 
an  inch  or  more  than  two  inches  square,  the  duty  is  one  cent  and  a half 
per  pound. 

I think  that  is  excessive  and  unjust  to  the  importer.  I would  recom- 
mend one  uniform  rate  of  duty  for  all  manufactured  iron,  like  bar,  band, 
loop,  scroll,  oval,  half-oval,  beveled,  &c.,  &c.,  to  come  under  the  head 
of  bar  iron,  naming  all  the  different  kinds  and  putting  them  in  at  one 
uniform  rate  of  duty  instead  of  having  so  many  of  these  classifications. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Are  you  a manufacturer  of  iron? — Answer.  No,  sir;  I am 
an  importer. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  rate  of  duty  would  you  recommend  % — A.  A uniform  rate 
of  three  fourths  of  a cent  a pound  by  weight.  I think  one  uniform  rate 
would  do  away  with  all  the  conflict  that  arises  on  account  of  the  rates 
of  these  different  sizes.  We  have  to  be  very  particular  at  the  custom- 
house in  regard  to  the  size. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  It  would  also  remove  many  of  the  difficulties  which  have  been 
presented  to  us  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I think  a specific  rate  is  better  than  an 
ad  valorem  rate,  and  I would  recommend  one  specific  rate  to  be  placed 
on  all  sizes  of  iron  which  come  under  the  head  of  scroll  iron  or  that 
description  of  iron. 


8.  F.  GATES.] 


SHIP-BUILDING. 


665 


S.  F.  GATES. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  24, 1882. 

Mr.  S.  F.  Gates,  of  Cambridg'eport,  Mass.,  appeared  before  the  Com- 
mission, and  made  the  following  statement : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  1 desire  to  say  a few 
words  in  regard  to  the  effect  of  the  tariff  upon  ship-building.  The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  section  0,  declares,  among  other  things, 
that  “No  tax  or  duty  shall  be  laid  on  articles  exported  from  any  S.tate.” 
This,  you  may  say,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  tariff,  or  your  duty  as 
commissioners.  But  I shall  endeavor  to  show  you  that  the  tariff*  has  a 
very  great  influence  on  the  cost  of  the  material  used  for  building  ships, 
particularly  iron  steamships,  if  built  and  owned  by  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  engaged  m foreign  trade. 

The  duty  on  iron,  forgings,  paint,  copper,  &c.,  adds  to  the  price  of 
the  material  if  produced  within  the  United  States.  Pig  iron  pays  a 
duty  of  $7  per  ton.  In  Montreal,  Canada,  several  years  ago,  and  per- 
haps now,  there  was  but  little  difference  in  price  between  Scotch  pig 
iron  and  American  pig  iron;  that  is  to  say,  American  pig  iron  has  been 
sold  in  Canada  in  competition  for  about  the  same  price.  If  so,  it  must 
have  been  exported  from  this  country  less  the  duty.  If  this  same  pig 
iron,  plates,  angle  iron,  rivets,  &c.,  is  put  into  a ship  owned  by  a citi- 
zen of  the  United  States,  she  must  be  built  at  an  increased  cost,  and 
when  this  American-built  ship  goes  to  Liverpool  she  is  valued  no  higher 
than  if  made  of  the  same  kind  of  material  produced  in  England.  After 
she  leaves  tlie  shores  of  the  United  States  and  comes  in  competition 
with  the  foreign-built  ship,  she  shrinks  in  value,  probably  10  or  15  per 
cent,  in  comparison  with  the  prices  paid  elsewhere  outside  of  the  United 
States.  With  this  condition  of  the  tariff  it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to 
build  ships  or  steamships  of  iron  for  our  foreign  trade. 

What  is  wanted  is  an  opportunity  to  purchase  our  own  American  ma- 
terial as  cheaply  as  the  English  can  purchase  their  material.  We  pay 
the  maker  his  price,  and  our  government  pays  or  returns  to  the  ship- 
builder just  the  amount  of  duty  that  is  paid  on  every  article  that  enters 
into  the  building  of  a ship. 

With  the  exception  of  the  increased  cost  of  labor  in  ship  building  in 
this  country,  the  American  ship  owner  can  then  build  a ship  at  pretty 
nearly  the  same  cost  as  his  foreign  rival.  The  fact  is,  we  cannot  build 
an  iron  steamship  in  competition  with  foreign  builders  unless  the  gov- 
ernment in  some  way  equalizes  the  cost  of  the  material  used  in  the 
building. 

Free  trade  for  the  United  States  is  entirely  out  of  the  question;  a 
tariff  more  or  less  protective  must  be  maintained.  When  our  present 
tariff  system  was  adopted  nothing  but  wooden  ships  were  built;  there 
was  no  expectation  that  iron  would  be  made  use  of  as  it  is  for  steam- 
ships. A tariff  system  encouraging  exports  of  manufacturers  is  deserv- 
ing the  attention  of  the  Commission. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  What  did  you  say  was  the  difference  in  the 
cost  of  building  a vessel  here  and  abroad? — Answer.  It  costs  about  10  to 
15  per  cent,  more  in  this  country,  I think. 


666 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


#[CIIARLES  TORREY. 


CHARLES  TORREY. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25, 1882. 

Mr.  Charles  Torrey,  of  Boston,  importer  of  marble,  appeared  be- 
fore tbe  Commission  and  made  the  following  statement: 

I have  a short  statement  to  make  in  regard  to  the  duty  upon  im- 
ported marble  and  the  manner  in  which  the  existing  law  is  executed. 

The  duty  on  ordinary  Italian  marble  is  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and 
50  cents  per  cubic  foot.  This  mixed  duty  we  find  a continual  source  of 
controversy  between  the  importers  and  the  government.  It  is  de- 
manded that  ordinary  Italian  marble  shall  be  classed  as  first,  second, 
and  third  qualities,  and  that  the  value  of  each  quality  shall  not  be  be- 
low the  sum  fixed  by  the  appraisers,  no  matter  at  what  price  it  may  be 
bought,  which  we  consider  unjust  and  unlawful. 

The  classification  of  quality,  as  invoiced,  is  also  frequently  ques- 
tioned, although  it  is  admitted  by  the  appraisers  that  it  is  not  possible 
to  judge  of  qualities  correctly,  and  that  no  two  persons  will  classify  a 
cargo  alike.  We  contend  that  it  is  not  possible  to  fix  the  true  quality 
of  block  marble  after  it  is  pointed  and  prepared  for  shipment.  The 
only  persons  who  can  fix  the  quality  with  any  degree  of  accuracy 
are  those  who  see  the  blocks  before  they  are  pointed,  just  as  they  are 
thrown  from  the  quarry.  Under  the  present  method  of  assessing  the 
ad  valorem  duty  the  importer  is  never  safe  and  cannot  tell  to  what  ex- 
pense he  may  be  subjected  by  the  government,  though  he  try  never  so 
hard  to  comply  with  the  regulations  and  demands  of  the  officers,  the 
law  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

To  avoid  this  contention  and  to  simplify  the  whole  matter,  we  recom- 
mend that  the  duty  on  all  marble  be  made  wholly  specific.  The  import- 
ers will  then  understand  their  position  and  no  injustice  will  be  done  to 
any  party.  We  believe  that  all  the  appraisers  who  have  had  any  ex- 
perience in  this  matter  will  join  us  in  this  recommendation.  The  duty 
under  the  existing  tariff  as  assessed  and  collected  on  white  ordinary 
Italian  marble  in  blocks  amounts  to  about  75  cents  per  cubic  foot,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  this  is  an  immense  duty  and  much  higher  than 
it  should  be  for  the  general  welfare  and  protection  of  our  native  pro- 
ductions. 

Should  the  duty  be  fixed  at  50  cents  per  cubic  foot,  it  would  undoubt- 
edly benefit  the  marble  business  generally,  afford  ample  protection  to 
our  native  productions,  while  the  aggregate  amount  of  revenue  would 
fully  equal  the  sum  now  collected.  I have  had  this  statement  signed 
by  Messrs.  Bouker  Torrey  & Co. ; Torreys  & Co. ; A.  Wentworth  Roberts 
& Co.;  and  Chas.  E.  Hall  & Co.,  importers  of  marble,  doing  business  in 
Boston.  As  I have  said,  if  the  duty  can  be  changed  to  a wholly  spe- 
cific duty,  it  will  obviate  all  this  trouble  of  which  we  complain,  and  settle 
these  difficult  questions  which  are  continually  arising. 


N.  P.  HAMLIN.] 


SUGAR  REFINING. 


66  7 


N.  P.  HAMLIN. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

Mr.  N.  P.  Hamlin,  president  of  the  Boston  Sugar  Refining  Company, 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows  : 

Gentlemen  : The  undersigned,  importers  and  refiners  of  sugar, 
strongly  recommend  such  revision  of  the  present  duty  on  sugar  as  will 
prevent  the  discrimination  now  operative  in  favor  of  certain  grades. 

The  existing  tariff  has  given  a stimulus  to  foreign  planters  to  produce 
a sugar  which  shall  have  a high  saccharine  strength  and  low  color,  and, 
as  the  law  now  provides  for  collection  of  duty  by  color  only,  such  sugars 
(which  are  in  reality  semi  refined;  are  being  imported  in  constantly  in- 
creasing quantities. 

It  is  for  the  interest  of  the  importer  aud  the  consumer  alike  that  this 
discrimination  should  not  exist,  and  of  the  several  remedies  which  have 
been  proposed  for  overcoming  the  difficulty,  we  recommend  that  known 
as  the  11  Boston  plan.”  Briefly,  this  provides  for  the  collection  of  duty 
on  all  raw  sugars  up  to  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  on  a basis  of  polar- 
iscope  test,  each  degree  of  advance  above  a standard,  say  75°,  being  ac- 
companied by  5 cents  per  100  pounds  increased  duty.  Raw  sugars  above  13 
Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  not  above  10  Dutch  standard,  should  pay  3£ 
cents  per  pound,  and  those  above  16  Dutch  standard,  and  not  above  20 
Dutch  standard,  4 cents  per  pound,  while  refined  sugars  should  pay  4J 
cents  per  pound. 

We  further  strongly  recommend  such  reduction  of  the  present  duty 
as  will  materially  reduce  the  price  of  the  manufactured  article  to  the 
consumer,  and  also  prevent  the  adulteration,  which  is  sure  to  increase 
under  a high  rate  of  duty. 

Boston  Sugar  Refining  Company, 
By  N.  P.  Hamlin, 

President. 

Bay  State  Sugar  Refining  Company, 
By  E.  F.  Atkins, 

President . 


By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  The  plan  adopted  in  Boston  to  test  the  value  of  sugars  is 
based  upon  the  jmlariscopic  test  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Therefore  you  recommend  that  the  government  shall  use  the  polar- 
iscope  as  the  method  best  known  to  you  of  testing  the  value  of  sugars 
in  order  to  fix  the  rate  of  duty  ? — A..  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  you  consider  the  basis  of  the  Boston  plan  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  all  the  Boston  refiners  agree  to  your  recommendations'? — A.  I 
speak  only  for  the  refinery^  I represent  and  one  other.  But  the  Boston 
refiners  do  not  object  to  the  polariscopic  test  as  I understand  it.  Some 
prefer  an  ad  valorem  syTstem,  but  my  preference  is  for  the  polariscopic 
test. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  in  regard  to  the  effects  of  the  Hawaiian 
treaty'? — A.  No,  sir;  only  what  I have  heard  and  read.  I had  a con- 
versation with  Mr.  Carter,  the  prime  minister  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
and  he  confirmed  the  statement  made  a short  time  ago  by  Mr.  Have- 


668 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


(N.  P.  HAMLIN. 


meyer,  that  the  amount  of  goods  imported  from  the  United  States  was 
very  small  as  compared  with  those  imported  from  other  places ; that  the 
amount  of  machinery  purchased  in  the  United  States  was  small,  and 
that  the  most  of  their  orders  went  to  England. 

Q.  He  stated  that  the  Hawaiian  sugar-planters  generally  used  Eng- 
lish machinery  instead  of  American  machinery  I — A.  Yes,  sir  ; so  he 
informed  me. 

Q„  And  that  notwithstanding  the  advantages  we  supposed  we  were 
giving  them  by  allowing  them  to  import  their  sugars  free  of  duty  into 
this  country  1 — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  So  that,  practically,  the  Hawaiian  treaty  is  not  a reciprocity  treaty  ? 
—A.  No,  sir;  it  is  not. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  The  “reciprocity”  is  all  on  the  one  side  A.  Yes,  sir;  so  he  ad- 
mitted to  me. 


t.  w. brown.]  BUILDERS7  HARDWARE.  669 


T.  W.  BROWN. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

Mr.  T.  W.  Brown,  president  of  tlie  Standard  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany of  Boston,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

Five  years  ago,  in  1877,  when  the  hardware  business  was  much  de- 
pressed, I went  to  England  almost  on  purpose  to  see  why  it  was  that  we 
could  ship  hardware  to  England.  Mr.  J.  B.  Sargent,  who  is  one  of  the 
largest  manufacturers  of  hardware  in  the  world,  and  who  employs  a 
large  number  of  men,  ships  a great  many  goods  to  all  parts  of  the  world 
as  well  as  to  England.  I have  been  shipping  goods  for  the  last  five 
years  right  into  the  center  of  the  hardware  manufacturing  industry  of 
England.  There  is  nothing  on  our  list  of  manufacturers  of  hardware 
except  pocket  cutlery  and  table  cutlery  that  the  English  can  ship  here 
in  competition  with  our  own  manufactures;  they  will  continue  to  ship 
those  articles  here  under  any  rate  of  duty.  Therefore  I do  not  see  why 
everything  in  the  nature  of  builders7  hardware  should  not  be  put  on  the 
free  list,  because  we  shall  always  be  able  to  ship  those  goods  abroad. 
Even  the  commonest  kinds  of  goods  are  shipped  there  in  large  quanti- 
ties; goods  in  which  the  principal  labor  is  molding.  The  laborers  in 
England  are  all  controlled  by  their  “unions,”  and  cannot  do  a full  day’s 
work,  as  they  can  here.  I went  there  in  1878  with  the  intention  of  com- 
mencing business  in  Birmingham,  but  I found  so  many  obstacles  in  the 
way  that  I abandoned  the  attempt.  I found  even  with  the  best  ma- 
chinery we  could  not  get  men  to  operate  it;  they  would  not  under  the 
rules  of  the  union  work  on  piece-work  or  with  machinery.  The  mold- 
ing machines  which  are  used  all  through  this  country  they  will  not  use 
there.  Birmingham,  a city  of  nearly  400,000  inhabitants,  does  not  pro- 
duce as  many  goods  in  the  line  of  builders’  hardware  as  smaller  places 
in  the  country  do,  because  the  men  there  will  not  work  more  than  five 
days  in  a week,  and  therefore  do  not  accomplish  what  they  do  here. 
Horseshoe  nails  are  being  daily  shipped  to  England  now.  The  iron  of 
which  they  are  made  comes  from  Sweden.  Whether  or  not  these  ship- 
ments are  made  at  a profit,  I do  not  know.  I know  that  common  board- 
nails  are  shipped  there  in  large  quantities.  At  first  they  were  sent 
there  as  an  experiment,  but  our  nails  made  by  machinery  are  so  much 
superior  that  we  continue  to  sell  them  there  at  a profit.  All  the  iron- 
mongers’ gazettes  published  in  England  favor  the  use  of  American  ma- 
chinery, and  they  are  adopting  it  gradually,  and  copying  us.  We  do  not 
copy  any  of  the  English  goods,  but  they  copy  our  axes  and  shovels  and 
all  our  farming  tools,  which  are  made  largely  in  Michigan,  at  the  Ohio 
State  prison,  and  in  Jackson,  and  shipped  even  to  Bussia.  Many 
mowing-machines  are  shipped  to  France,  paying  2 cents  a pound  duty 
on  the  case  and  its  contents. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  Are  they  still  shipping  abroad  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Our 
hay-forks,  shovels,  and  farming  tools,  generally  made  in  the  West,  are 
far  superior  to  anything  made  elsewhere.  I visited  all  these  interests 
in  Birmingham  and  Sheffield,  and  spent  considerable  time  in  investiga- 
ting the  reason  why  it  was  that  we  could  compete  with  the  world  in 
these  goods.  I found  they  were  trying  to  copy  our  axes,  but  they  have 
not  doue  it  yet,  and  it  is  my  opinion  that  they  will  not  be  able  to  do  it 
so  long  as  their  labor  remains  as  it  does.  Many  of  their  workers  live  in 
attics.  They  take  in  their  work  each  day  to  be  examined.  Saturday 


670 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[T  W.  BROYfN. 


they  get  their  pay,  and  they  make  a holiday  of  Sunday  and  Monday. 
Very  few  work  on  Monday.  They  are  far  behind  our  own  laboring 
classes,  and  do  not  aspire  to  anything  beyond  managing  to  live  along 
from  one  week’s  end  to  another.  I do  not  see  any  reason  for  putting  a 
protective  duty  upon  builders’  hardware,  and  I think  if  the  duty  on  pig 
iron  was  taken  off  it  would  make  a difference  of  one-half  on  our  ship- 
ments. The  pig  iron  they  use  there  is  not  of  as  good  quality  as  that  we 
use  here.  We  formerly  used  one-third  Scotch  and  two-thirds  American 
iron,  now  we  use  all  American  iron  for  fine  work,  and  of  the  large 
amount  of  iron  brought  to  this  country  two  years  ago,  when  prices  were 
up  so  high,  there  are  many  thousand  tons  still  on  hand  to-day.  It  was 
of  so  poor  a quality  that  it  was  not  used,  and  it  was  sold  at  a loss.  If 
pig  iron  is  brought  in  here  free  it  would  help  the  Western  people  in  get- 
ting cheaper  mowing-machines  and  cheaper  wire  fences.  There  is  no 
reason  why  iron  in  Pennsylvania  should  not  be  as  cheap  or  cheaper 
than  it  is  in  England.  The  same  conditions  in  Pennsylvania  and  in 
Connecticut  would  make  it  as  cheap.  But  monopolists  govern  that  mat- 
ter, and  they  allow  the  men  to  work  only  a portion  of  the  year.  The  coal 
interests  combine  with  the  iron  interests  on  these  points. 

England  is  not,  as  is  generally  supposed,  a free-trade  country.  Noth- 
ing goes  in  there  that  does  not  pay  a specific  duty.  A box  of  clothes- 
pins that  can  be  bought  in  this  market  at  from  35  to  50  cents  has  to 
pay  town  dues  amounting  to  9 cents,  and  wharfage  dues,  amounting  to 
4J  cents.  That  duty  amounts  to  a great  many  millions  of  dollars  a year ; 
it  is  a town  duty,  and  the  tax  goes  towards  keeping  the  streets  in  repair. 
I think  something  of  the  kind  ought  to  be  adopted  in  this  country.  It 
would  greatly  help  the  city  of  New  York  in  the  paving  of  its  streets. 
We  might  establish  a system  of  town  dues  to  be  assessed  on  Euglish 
goods.  Everything  going  across  to  England  from  Ireland  pays  a town 
duty  as  well  as  a wharfage  fee.  I have  with  me  a book  on  the  subject 
of  town  duties,  which  I brought  from  England,  showing  the  duties  levied 
in  the  city  of  Liverpool,  and  I suppose  it  is  the  same  in  other  towns  and 
cities.  The  city  corporations  receive  an  immense  amount  of  money  in 
this  way,  and  their  docks  and  wharves  are  kept  in  first  class  condition. 
I think  a barrel  of  apples  that  only  costs  a dollar  here  has  to  pay  a town 
duty  of  80  per  cent,  before  it  goes  to  the  store. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  The  manufacture  of  builders’  hardware  in  England,  then,  is  sub- 
stantially a manufacture  employing  hand  labor? — A.  Yes,  sir;  there 
are  no  large  manufacturers,  as  in  this  country,  except  the  cutlery  man- 
ufacturers at  Sheffield. 

A.  The  people  work  there  by  the  piece? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  bring 
their  goods  down  in  a basket  and  take  their  money,  and  if  the  goods 
are  not  accepted  they  take  them  home  again.  The  laboring  man  there 
is  kept  down  to  a certain  grade,  and  hardly  ever  rises  above  it. 

Q.  You  say  the  trades-unions  limit  the  amount  of  work  which  the 
laborers  are  allowed  to  perform  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  controlled  prac- 
tically by  these  organizations.  The  man  generally  follows  the  same  busi- 
ness that  his  father  and  his  grandfather  followed,  and  as  a result  he  has 
not  much  desire  to  change  his  condition. 

Q.  When  you  state  that  there  are  but  few  large  manufacturers  there, 
of  course  you  refer  to  manufacturers  of  the  particular  line  of  goods  of 
which  you  are  speaking? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Of  course,  the  iron  interest  has 
large  rolling-mills,  but  as  a rule  they  have  not  the  large  factories  devoted 
to  special  industries  that  we  have  in  this  country. 


OSCAE  C.  MLLEB.] 


BORDER  DUTIES. 


671 


OSCAR  C.  MILLER. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

Mr.  Oscar  C.  Miller,  of  the  firm  of  Prouty  & Miller,  of  Newport, 
Vt.,  addressed  the  Commission  as  tollows : 

I represent  a firm  in  Newport,  Vt.,  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
lumber  from  spruce  and  hemlock  timber.  We  get  our  production  from 
Vermont  and  Canada.  We  also  have  mills  in  Canada.  Our  interests 
are  on  both  sides  of  the  line.  If  the  duty  on  lumber  is  allowed  to  re- 
main as  it  is,  our  interests  on  this  side  of  the  line  will  be  protected,  and 
if  the  duty  is  taken  off  our  business  in  Canada  will  be  benefited,  so 
that,  I think,  under  the  circumstances  we  can  claim  to  speak  without 
prejudice.  It  is  my  conviction,  however,  that  the  principle  of  placing 
a duty  on  lumber  is  wrong,  for  this  reason : Our  government  (as  well 
as  private  individuals  and  corporations)  is  doing  all  it  can  to  protect 
our  forests  and  to  encourage  the  growth  of  timber.  The  government, 
I understand,  gives  sections  of  land  in  the  West  to  persons  who  will 
set  out  a given  number  of  trees  under  what  is  called,  I believe,  the  tim- 
ber-culture act.  We  are  all  aware  of  the  immense  destruction  of  timber 
throughout  the  country,  and  therefore  it  seems  to  me  very  jmor  policy, 
practically  speaking,  to  put  a heavy  duty  on  lumber  imported  from  a 
foreign  country,  which  comes  in  here  and  helps  us  preserve  what  timber 
we  have  left.  The  amount  of  timber,  ties,  &c.,  that  Is  being  brought 
over,  and  would  be  brought  over,  from  Canada  is  immense.  I could  tell 
you  of  the  destruction  of  Canada  forests  going  on  at  present  at  the  rate 
of  tens  of  thousands  of  acres.  Hemlock  timber  is  cut  down  every  year 
just  for  the  bark  alone,  and  the  timber  is  left  to  lie  on  the  ground  and 
rot.  Of  course,  as  you  are  aware,  hemlock  and  spruce  is  a cheap  article 
of  lumber;  there  is  no  heavy  valuation  put  upon  it.  When  you  come 
to  reckon  the  duties,  the  cost  of  manufacture  and  transportation,  it 
makes  a cheap  lumber  in  our  New  Englaud  markets,  where  our  trade 
is  very  good.  I think  we  should  protect  our  forests  in  every  possible 
way,  and  by  admitting  lumber  free  of  duty  the  effect  will  be  largely  in 
that  direction. 

I have  a number  of  other  topics  I should  like  to  speak  upon.  For 
instance,  take  the  article  of  hay,  which,  at  present,  pays  an  ad  valorem 
duty  of  10  per  cent.  I think  all  duties  should  be,  as  far  as  possible, 
made  specific.  I think  the  duty  on  hay  should  be  so  much  per  ton,  and 
at  a less  rate  than  at  present.  If  the  duty  was  put  at  $3  a ton — at  that 
specific  rate — it  would  save  us  all  a great  deal  of  annoyance.  To  illus- 
trate. Take  hay  that  is  grown  in  the  Sorel  district — half  way  between 
Montreal  and  Quebec;  the  very  best  quality  of  hay  is  raised  there  and 
sent  into  the  New  England  market.  It  is  also  a competing  point  for 
the  Boston  trade.  You  can  ship  hay  from  there  by  water  or  by  two  or 
three  different  lines  of  railway;  so  that  you  can  bring  the  hay  for  $2  or 
$3  a ton  freight  less  than  from  some  other  points.  Where  there  is  no 
competition  in  transportation  lines  it  would  cost  at  least  $4  a ton  to  de- 
liver such  hay  in  Boston.  Its  ad  valorem  duty  makes  the  rate  imposed 
upon  hay  a very  fluctuating  one,  while  if  there  was  simply  a specific 
duty  it  could  be  more  easily  computed.  There  are  many  reasons  why 
1 think  a specific  duty  should  be  placed  on  all  articles  imported  across 


6 72 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[OSCAR  C.  MILLER. 


the  border.  If  a specific  duty  was  placed  upon  horses  the  result  would 
be  that  you  would  get  the  best  horses,  and  they  would  keep  the  poorest 
at  home.  I also  think  it  would  be  very  advisable  to  have  all  duties 
based  upon  home  valuations ; I mean  the  value  of  goods  when  landed  on 
our  shores. 

I also  desire  to  speak  on  the  subject  of  granite.  I know  there  were 
some  large  granite  quarries  on  our  lake,  and  when  the  duty  was  put 
upon  granite  they  were  abandoned,  and  they  are  lying  idle  there  to-day. 
The  placing  of  the  duty  just  stopped  the  work,  and  they  are  not  used 
at  all  now.  I think  the  duty  is  about  $2  per  ton  actual  weight,  and 
granite  is  too  abundant  to  enable  them  to  work  the  quarry  with  any 
profit. 

Another  point  I would  like  to  speak  of,  is  the  matter  of  consular  fees 
and  government  fees  of  all  kinds.  There  is  not  a gentleman  in  this 
room  who  can  tell  me  to-day  what  it  will  cost  to  go  to  Canada  and  buy 
a horse  that  costs  a hundred  dollars  there  and  bring  him  in  on  this  side 
of  the  line;  they  might  study  the  question  some  time  too.  There  is  a 
long  string  of  fees  that  have  to  be  paid,  and  you  never  know  when  you 
get  through  with  them.  The  duty  on  horses  at  present  is  20  per  cent. 
If  20  per  cent,  does  not  give  the  government  a large  enough  revenue,  it 
ought  to  make  it  25  or  50  per  cent.,  and  not  have  a long  string  of  fees 
attached,  amounting  to  from  $5  to  $10.  The  consuls  are  the  biggest 
nuisance  in  the  whole  business  combined;  it  is  a perfect  outrage  on  im- 
porters. Perhaps  I am  putting  that  rather  strong,  but  I do  regard  it 
as  a great  nuisance  for  a very  small  affair.  There  has  been  a.  change 
in  the  practice  up  there  in  regard  to  the  consular  business.  Everything 
is  left  discretionary  with  the  collectors,  and  they  use  their  discretion 
in  regard  to  small  articles  without  regard  to  the  consular  certificate. 
The  consular  agents  up  there  were  not  getting  as  large  fees  as  they 
thought  we  ought  to  pay  them  probably,  and  the  rates  seem  to  have 
been  changed.  I do  not  understand  that  the  government  derives  any 
benefit  in  the  way  of  a revenue  from  their  fees,  but  I just  raise  the 
inquiry. 

In  regard  to  the  item  of  slabs — we  call  them  waste,  and  are  glad  to 
get  rid  of  them  and  get  enough  for  them  to  pay  for  loading  them  on  the 
cars — their  valuation  is  $8  a car-load,  and  they  are  taken  at  a very  cheap 
rate  to  the  Saint  Albans  limekilns  and  used  for  burning  lime.  You 
first  have  to  pay  $3  fees  on  a car-load  of  these  slabs,  or  $2.50  if  you 
make  out  your  own  papers.  Then  you  have  to  pay  for  the  manifest  35 
cents — 25  cents  for  the  writing  and  10  cents  for  the  blank  ; and  when 
you  get  along  a little  further  and  make  your  entry,  you  have  got  to  pay 
another  00  cents  for  that,  and  you  never  know  when  you  have  got 
through  paying  fees.  I want  the  rates  stated  in  such  a way  that  folks 
can  understand  them.  They  are  complicated,  and  no  one  who  is  not  in 
the  ring  knows  about  them.  It  is  quite  a trade  to  learn  them,  and  they 
ought  to  be  abolished.  For  instance,  for  these  small  pieces  of  paper, 
which  they  call  blanks,  they  charge  10  cents  apiece.  Those,  we  under- 
stand, are  perquisites  which  go  to  the  government  officers.  We  have 
to  use  three  blanks  each  time,  and  pay  30  cents  for  them.  That  is  all 
wrong,  although  the  government  allows  people  to  furnish  their  own 
blanks  in  case  they  are  printed  in  due  form  according  to  the  rules  and 
regulations.  Still,  if  you  should  furnish  your  own  blanks  they  might 
pick  out  some  little  technicality,  so  that  you  would  have  to  buy  their 
blanks  and  pay  for  them. 

Another  thing;  with  us  on  the  border  transactions  are  small  in  amount. 
They  are  seldom  large  transactions  at  any  time.  They  run  anywhere 


OSCAR  C.  MILLER.] 


BORDER  DUTIES. 


G73 


from  a dollar  up.  There  are  more  transactions  of  less  than  a hundred 
dollars  than  over  it.  For  instance,  we  ship  considerable  lumber.  Lum- 
ber from  our  Canada  mills  averages  about  $75  a car-load.  That  lumber 
is  shipped  in  small  lots,  of  a car-load  at  a time,  to  different  points  all 
over  New  England.  We  have  to  go  through  the  same  operation  to  get 
one  car-load  of  lumber  through  as  we  would  to  bring  through  $10,000 
worth  of  stuff. 

There  is  another  point  that  comes  right  in  here.  Our  railroads  bring 
this  stuff  over  to  suit  their  own  convenience.  If  we  started  three  cars 
together,  and  they  would  keep  them  together  until  we  got  them  across 
the  line  to  the  custom-house,  we  could  enter  them  all  three  at  one  time, 
and  the  fees  would  be  the  same  on  all  three.  But  the  chances  are  more 
than  equal  that  before  we  get  them  home  they  get  those  cars  divided, 
and  if  they  do  we  have  to  pay  on  each  separate  entry  of  each  one  as 
they  come  in  on  separate  trains.  We  run  a great  many  logs  up  there 
by  rail.  They  are  all  free  goods,  and  the  valuation  would  be  from  $8  to 
$15  a car-load.  Then,  we  are  subjected  to  these  everlasting  string  of 
fees  all  the  way  through,  which,  if  the  government  received  the  benefit 
of  them,  1 should  feel  different  about.  Of  course,  the  government  does, 
to  a certain  extent,  get  the  benefit ; but  I want  you  gentlemen  to  recom- 
mend the  government  to  pass  a law  that  our  duty  shall  be  so  much,  and 
have  an  entry  fee  of  just  so  much,  and  have  it  so  that  people  can  under- 
stand it,  so  that  a man  has  not  got  to  educate  himself  up  for  years  to 
know  what  it  is  going  to  cost  him.  We  are  situated  differently  from 
people  on  the  sea-coast.  There  we  are  neighbors  among  each  other,  and 
the  transactions  are  small  neighborhood  transactions.  The  farms  join, 
and  a man  will  perhaps  own  a farm  on  both  sides  of  the  line,  and  that 
causes  a great  deal  of  trouble. 

Speaking  of  this  consul  business,  they  have  divided  up  these  consuls. 
They  give  them  a certain  amount  of  territory ; sometimes  there  are  two 
consuls  in  the  same  township.  An  instance  came  under  my  observation 
a few  days  ago.  A man  went  up  to  Montreal  and  went  around  in  the 
country  and  bought  a car-load  of  horses,  and  got  them  loaded  and  ready 
to  come  to  this  side,  and  went  to  the  consul  for  a certificate.  The  consul 
asked  him  where  he  bought  them.  He  said  some  at  Three  Fivers  and 
some  at  other  places,  and  the  consul  said,  “I  cannot  give  you  a certifi- 
cate, only  for  those  you  have  bought  here.  You  can  goto  Three  Fivers 
and  get  a certificate  for  what  you  bought  there.”  The  result  was  that 
that  man  had  to  spend  two  days  trying  to  get  certificates  to  start  his 
car-load  of  horses.  These  consuls  don’t  know  anything  about  the  valua- 
tion. They  are  the  greatest  nuisance  of  anything  we  have  to  contend 
with. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  Are  these  American  consuls  or  English  consuls,  that  you 
are  speaking  of  ? — Answer.  American  consuls,  appointed  by  our  govern- 
ment to  reside  at  different  points  in  Canada. 

Q.  Are  they  generally  men  who  understand  the  subjects  spoken  of  in 
the  certificates  which  they  sign;  do  they  know  much  about  it? — A.  I 
don’t  think  they  do;  I never  knew  one  to  go  and  look  at  the  property 
in  my  life.  They  always  take  your  statement  for  it. 

Q.  They  sign  the  certificate  blindly? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I have  seen  piles 
of  certificates  that  were  signed  in  blank  and  left  to  be  filled  out  at  your 
own  convenience.  I have  seen  certificates  signed  in  the  custom-house 
on  this  side  and  left  there  for  people  to  make  their  own  entries,  and 
they  fill  them  right  out  there. 

H.  Mis.  6 43 


674 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[OSCAR  C.  MILLER. 


Q.  Who  fills  them  up? — A.  The  party  making  the  application,  usually, 
or  he  gets  some  one  to  do  it. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  a representation  of  your  grievances  to  the  State 
Department? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  well  for  you  to  do  so?— A.  I under- 
stand that  is  a part  of  the  State  Department,  and  these  consuls  are  all 
proteges  of  theirs,  and  perhaps  it  is  for  their  interest  to  keep  them  in 
office. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  would  be  the  objection  to  putting  horses  on  the  free  list? — A. 
I know  of  no  objection  to  it ; I do  not  think  it  would  hurt  the  interests  of 
our  farmers  there. 

Q.  You  advocate  a change  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a specific  duty? — A. 
Yes,  sir;  that  is  my  opinion  every  time. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  how  many  horses  are  imported  from  Canada 
into  the  United  States? — A.  No,  sir;  I have  no  data  to  tell. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  Do  your  American  neighbors  raise  many  horses? — A.  We  don’t 
go  into  it  extensively;  it  is  all  done  in  a small  way.  But  of  course, 
we  raise  a great  many  horses  there.  Farming  is  a leading  interest  in 
Vermont. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  farmers  would  be  glad  to  have  Canadian  horses 
come  in  free? — A.  I think  they  would,  for  this  reason.  Our  farmers 
don’t  make  a speciality  of  raising  horses;  we  don’t  raise  horses  for 
market. 

Q.  They  would  be  glad  to  have  cheaper  horses  to  do  their  work  with? 
— A.  I think  they  buy  as  many  horses  as  they  raise  for  their  own  use, 
taking  them  on  the  average. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q,  How  would  it  do  to  say  all  horses  and  cattle  of  all  kinds  imported 
for  breeding  purposes  should  be  admitted  free  of  duty  ? — A.  I think 
they  are  now,  if  they  are  imported  strictly  for  breeding  purpos'es. 

Q.  What  would  prevent  your  getting  hold  of  one  of  these  blank  cer- 
tificates and  filling  it  up  and  stat  ing  that  the  horses  you  imported  were 
for  breeding  purposes? — A.  Nothing,  only  the  oath  you  take;  some 
people  might  have  scruples  on  that  point. 

Q.  Do  they  generally  have  scruples  in  regard  to  custom  house  oaths 
in  your  part  of  the  country? — A.  Well,  we  don’t  any  more  than  we  are 
obliged  to. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  for  the  interest  of  farmers  to  have  hay 
come  in  free;  do  you  see  any  reason  why  it  should  come  in  free? — A.  I 
hardly  think  it  would  be  advisable  to  bring  it  in  free. 

Q.  Why  not? — A.  For  the  reason  that  we  have  got  to  raise  hay  and 
raise  duties,  and  I don’t  know  why  hay  should  not  help  pay  the  duties 
as  well  as  other  things,  although  hay  is  not  sold  in  our  vicinity  except 
in  small  quantities  for  shipment. 


DAVID  TOWNSEND.] 


SUGAR. 


675 


DAVID  TOWNSEND. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25, 1882. 

Mr.  David  Townsend,  treasurer  of  the  Continental  Sugar  Befining 
Company  of  Boston,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

The  views  which  I have  to  present  to  the  Commission  are  not  materially 
different  from  those  presented  by  Captain  Thomas,  of  the  Standard  Sugar 
Befinery,  but  they  are  not  perhaps  as  fully  elaborated  as  his  statement 
was.  I can  make  my  statement  in  a few  words. 

On  the  question  of  duties  on  sugar,  we  beg  respectfully  to  represent 
that  we  desire  the  lowest  rate  of  duty  consistent  with  the  necessities  of 
the  revenue  and  a due  regard  to  home  interests.  We  beg  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  present  assessment  of  25  per  cent,  in  ad- 
dition ro  specific  rates  on  sugar  was  enacted  under  an  emergency  re- 
quiring temporary  increase  of  revenue,  and  not  as  an  equitable  read- 
justment of  duties.  The  treaty  with  the  Sandwich  Islands  admits  the 
rapidly  increasing  product  of  those  islands  (now  estimated  at  70,000,000 
pounds)  dutyfree.  The  great  bulk  of  those  sugars  goes  to  the  Pacific  coast, 
and  from  thence  to  the  Western  markets,  affording  a discrimination  in 
favor  of  refiners  and  consumers  at  those  points  of  about  2.55  of  a cent 
per  pound. 

We  further  beg  leave  to  present  the  following  as  our  views  upon  the 
proper  mode  of  assessing  duty:  First,  we  recommend  an  ad  valorem 
rate  of  duty;  but,  if  the  polariscope  is  to  be  employed,  we  recommend 
the  plan  proposed  February  13,  1878,  signed  and  approved  by  the 
merchants  and  refiners  of  this  city  generally,  on  that  date,  viz,  fixing 
a specific  rate  upon  all  sugar  not  above  No.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color, 
testing  by  polariscope  not  above  75  degrees,  and  increasing  five  one- 
hundredths  of  a cent  for  each  polariscopic  degree  above  that;  also  fix- 
ing a specific  rate  upon  all  sugar  above  No.  13,  and  not  above  No.  10, 
Dutch  standard  in  color;  a still  higher  rate  upon  all  sugar  above  No.  10, 
and  not  above  No.  20,  Dutch  standard  in  color;  and  a still  higher  rate 
upon  all  sugar  above  No.  20,  Dutch  standard,  and  all  refined  sugars. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  at  fixed 
rates  on  sugar  would  be  preferable.  There  seems  to  be  a difference  of 
opinion,  however,  on  that  point,  and  I merely  offer  the  suggestion. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  Are  you  an  importer  as  well  as  a refiner  of  sugar? — Answer. 
Yes,  sir ; we  import  some  on  our  own  account. 

Q.  You  assent  to  the  statement  which  has  been  made,  that  the  test  by 
polariscope  is  the  best  way  of  determining  the  values  of  sugar  ? — A.  My 
own  preference  would  be  for  an  ad  valorem  duty,  if  it  is  a duty  upon  the 
valuation  at  the  time  of  purchase  which  is  capable  of  being  proved  after- 
ward. The  polariscope  is  used  in  commercial  transactions  very  largely, 
although  I think  it  is  open  to  many  objections.  Yet,  if  a test  of  that 
kind  is  used  at  all,  I think  it  is  the  best  at  hand. 

Q.  Is  not  that  test  used  when  you  buy  sugars  on  the  Island  of  Cuba  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir ; it  is,  very  generally. 


676 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  TOWNSEND. 


Q.  Do  you  use  it  yourself? — A.  I think  it  is  uniformly  used  in  all 
purchases  that  are  made. 

Q.  Can  you  give  any  reason  why  the  government  should  not  use  the 
same  test  for  its  own  purposes  ? — A.  The  only  reason  is,  the  large  volume 
of  sugar  to  be  appraised  by  the  government.  These  damp  sugars  must 
be  tested  at  different  times.  If  a sample  of  a damp  sugar  is  kept  in  an 
office  for  an  hour  in  a heated  place  the  result  of  the  test  will  vary.  That 
is  one  of  the  objections  to  the  use  of  the  polariscope — that  they  cannot 
draw  their  sugars  to-day  and  test  them  immediately  as  a man  who  is 
buying  and  selling  sugar  does. 

Q.  Is  not  that  caused  by  the  manner  of  sampling? — A.  No,  sir;  not 
necessarily. 

Q.  If  you  draw  a sample  of  sugar  at  ten  o’clock  to-day,  and  the  gov- 
ernment draws  a sample  at  the  same  time,  and  immediately  both  samples 
are  tested,  both  being  taken  from  the  same  part  of  the  box,  bag,  or 
hogshead,  the  polariscope  test  will  be  the  same  in  each  case,  will  it  not? — 
A.  It  ought  to  be,  very  nearly. 

Q.  The  result  would  be  more  accurate  than  with  any  other  system  that 
could  be  used? — A.  Yes,  sir,  I think  so;  provided  always  that  samples 
are  drawn  from  the  same  packages  and  tested  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  method  by  which  you  can  have  samples  drawn 
so  as  to  do  full  justice  to  the  importer  and  to  the  government?  If  so, 
please  state  what  system  you  would  like  to  have  your  samples  drawn 
under. — A.  In  regard  to  the  muscovado  sugars  imported  here,  one  part 
of  the  hogsheads  contains  a different  grade  of  sugar  than  another,  and 
the  merchant  in  sampling  sugars  aims  to  get  a proportion  of  the  better 
grade  and  lower  grade,  and  mixes  the  two  together  and  tests  them. 
That  is  his  plan  in  buying  and  selling. 

Q.  Would  you  recommend  that  the  government  samples  be  drawn  in 
such  a manner  as  that  to  arrive  at  the  full  average  of  the  sugar  con- 
tained in  the  package  from  which  the  samples  are  drawn  ?*— A.  That 
would  seem  to  me  to  be  a pretty  hard  thing  to  do. 

Q.  With  such  a system  as  that,  and  by  using  the  polariscope,  would 
you  not  get  fully  arid  definitely  the  value  of  the  sugar?— A.  Yes,  sir; 
provided  the  sugar  was  tested  immediately  on  its  receipt. 

Q.  Of  course,  I mean  under  the  same  circumstances.  What  is  the 
proportion  of  refined  sugar  which  you  make  to  the  aggregate  amount 
made  throughout  the  United  States? — A.  I am  not  prepared  to  answer 
the  question  at  present,  although  I should  be  glad  to  give  you  the  infor- 
mation if  I had  it. 

Q.  You  have  alluded  to  the  importation  of  sugars  free  of  duty  under 
a treaty ; you  refer,  of  course,  to  our  treaty  with  the  Sandwich  Islands  ? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  the  government  or  the  community  at  large 
derives  any  advantage  from  that  treaty? — A.  No,  sir;  on  the  contrary, 
I consider  it  a great  disadvantage  to  the  government  and  to  the  com- 
munity at  large;  it  is  a great  injustice  to  the  government.  The  Sand- 
wich Islands  are  increasing  their  product  of  sugar  every  year,  and  the 
sugar  they  send  us  comes  in  free  of  duty.  It  is  certainly  an  unfair  dis- 
crimination, when  sugar  from  one  point  may  be  brought  into  the  United 
States  free  of  duty  and  when  brought  from  another  point  it  has  to  pay 
from  2J  to  2J  cents  a pound  duty.  I had  some  experience  in  dealing 
with  the  West,  but  my  agent  there  has  written  me  that  I need  not  send 
any  more  sugar;  that  the  dealers  on  the  Pacific  coast  are  selling  sugar 
much  lower,  and  they  will  get  their  sugars  from  them. 


DAVID  TOWNSEND.] 


SUGAR. 


677 


Q.  You  think  it  is  a manifest  injustice  to  the  importer  and  refiner  on 
the  Atlantic  slope*? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  not  only  that,  but  it  is  a mani- 
fest injustice  to  the  people  of  the  country.  Something  would  seem  to 
be  wrong  when  you  can  go  to  Kansas  City,  for  instance,  and  buy  sugar 
at  a less  price  than  you  can  buy  it  in  Boston. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  the  consumer  on  the  Pacific  slope 
is  benefited  in  proportion  to  the  injury  done  people  living  on  the  At- 
lantic coast*? — A.  1 am  not  prepared  to  say;  but  my  impression  is  the 
refiner  on  the  Pacific  coast  gets  a greater  advantage  out  of  it  than  the 
consumer  does. 

Q.  What  is  the  price  of  sugar  in  San  Francisco  to  the  consumer  as 
compared  with  the  price  of  sugar  here ; or  does  the  consumer  on  the 
Pacific  coast  derive  an  advantage  corresponding  to  the  loss  to  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  injury  to  the  people  of  the  Eastern  States*? — A.  My 
impression  is  that  the  consumer  does  not  derive  much  benefit,  but  the 
refiner  of  San  Francisco  can  work  to  a very  great  advantage.  A house 
may  make  2,000  barrels  a day,  and  have  a market  for  1,000  barrels  at 
home,  and  send  the  surplus  to  Kansas  City  and  sell  it  for  a cent  a pound 
less  than  they  could  buy  it  thefe,  and  yet  make  a good  profit.  It  is  a 
system  of  discrimination  which  allows  a man  to  import  his  sugar  free 
and  distribute  it  at  a low  price,  while  at  other  points  he  has  to  pay  a 
high  duty  on  the  same  article. 

Q.  I have  seen  it  stated  in  the  public  prints  (and  I want  to  verify  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  statement)  that  sugars  are  being  delivered  to  the 
consumers  in  San  Francisco,  owing  to  freight  combinations  or  other 
causes,  at  a higher  price,  or  at  the  same  price  asked  in  this  city ; do  you 
know  anything  about  that  *? — A.  I have  been  informed  that  such  is  the 
case,  although  I am  not  fully  advised. 

Q.  If  that  is  the  case,  the  general  consumer  gets  no  benefit  from  hav- 
ing these  sugars  imported  tree*? — A.  No,  sir;  but  the  refiner  has  an  ad- 
vantage by  being  able  to  ship  to  the  East  the  surplus  over  and  above 
the  amount  required  in  San  Francisco,  dispose  of  it  at  a lower  price 
than  it  could  be  sold  for  in  Boston,  and  yet  derive  a profit.  It  seems 
to  me  that  is  discriminating  in  favor  of  the  refiners  at  particular  points 
of  the  country. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  general  sentiment  of  the  sugar  dealers 
and  refiners  of  the  Atlantic  coast  on  this  subject? — A.  So  far  as  I have 
heard,  it  has  been  uniformly  considered  that  it  was  an  unjust  measure, 
and  a discrimination  against  us. 

Q.  The  importers  and  refiners  of  the  Atlantic  coast  regard  it  as  an 
injury  inflicted  upon  their  business? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I have  heard  it 
spoken  of  repeatedly  in  that  way. 

Q.  That  is  the  general  sentiment,  is  it? — A.  I think  it  is. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  one  who  is  informed  on  that  subject  who  can 
speak  from  the  card  as  to  the  ultimate  consequences  of  these  peculiar 
importations? — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not  know  of  any  one  in  this  section  of 
the  country  who  is  specially  informed  in  regard  to  the  facts,  and,  of 
course,  the  refiners  in  San  Francisco  would  not  be  likely  to  state  them 
freely;  they  keep  their  own  counsel.  The  rates  of  freight  from  this 
part  of  the  country  to  San  Francisco  have  been  so  arranged  as  to  make 
it  impossible  for  us  to  export  sugar  there,  although  1 am  told  the  rates 
this  way  are  very  much  lower.  I have  had  no  occasion  to  verify  this 
statement,  because  I have  not  imported  sugar  from  San  Francisco. 

Q.  It  is  very  important  to  know  whether  there  is  a discrimination 
made  in  favor  of  the  Pacific  coast;  that  is  to  say,  whether  you  pay 


678 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  TOWNSEND. 


higher  rates  of  freight  to  San  Francisco  than  you  do  from  San  Fran- 
cisco?— A.  Not  very  long  ago  a favorable  rate  of  freight  was  proposed 
to  the  Boston  and  New  York  refiners  for  sending  their  sugar  to  San 
Francisco,  but  very  soon  afterward  that  rate  was  withdrawn,  and  we 
supposed  it  was  through  the  influence  of  some  one  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

Q.  You  are  aware  that  there  is  such  a discrimination  ?— A.  Yes,  sir; 
I am. 


F.  A.  WYMAN.] 


HEMLOCK  EXTRACT. 


679 


F.  A.  WYMAN. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Wyman,  of  Boston,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and 
made  the  following  statement : 

Hemlock  extract  is  the  product  obtained  by  grinding  and  leaching 
hemlock  bark  and  reducing  the  liquor  to  about  the  consistency  of  sirup 
or  molasses  by  evaporation  either  in  vacuo  or  openly,  as  you  would  boil 
down  maple  sap  to  make  maple  sugar.  Upon  this  article  there  is  at 
present  a duty  of  20  per  cent.  Cutch  or  gainbier,  a similar  material 
for  tanning,  is  free.  The  extract  is  chiefly  used  for  tanning  and  a small 
proportion  for  dye  stuffs.  The  tanning  material  of  this  country  is  fast 
becoming  used  up,  and  it  has  already  become  a serious  question  with  the 
shoe,  boot,  and  leather  trade  as  to  where  they  can  get  their  supplies. 
W^e  run  four  extract  works  in  the  United  States  and  five  in  New  Bruns- 
wick and  Canada. 

To  show  you  the  quantity  of  bark  used,  I can  remark  that  last  year 
we  peeled  over  150,000  cords  of  hemlock  bark,  or  enough  to  make  a pile 
4 feet  high  and  4 feet  wide  that  would  reach  from  Boston  to  New  York. 
We  tan  750,000  hides  per  year  in  the  United  States,  making  1,500,000 
sides  of  hemlock  sole  leather.  We  export  large  quantities  of  hemlock 
sole  leather,  a great  deal  more  than  wTould  be  made  by  the  extract  that 
we  import,  but,  unfortunately  for  us,  we  cannot  put  ear-marks  upon  our 
extract,  so  as  to  be  able  to  get  a drawback  of  duties  on  exportation. 
We  find  in  England,  and,  indeed,  upon  the  Continent,  that  we  have  to 
compete  with  Australian  leather,  the  leather  tanned  in  Australia  being 
of  a cheaper  grade  than  that  tanned  in  England,  and  competing  with  or 
against  American  hemlock-tanned  sole  leather.  The  hemlock  tree  has 
to  be  cut  down  to  obtain  the  bark,  and  in  a great  many  instances  the 
log  is  left  to  rot  upon  the  ground.  With  the  present  great  destruction 
of  our  forests  all  means  should  be  used  to  save  timber.  We  find  that 
logs  that  we  allowed  to  rot  ten  years  ago  would  to  day  have  a value  for 
lumber.  I have  tried  for  seme  years  to  obtain  data  to  enable  me  to 
approximate  the  quantity  of  hemlock  bark  in  the  world,  and  when 
Mr.  Sargent  issued  the  last  Forestry  Bulletin  I wrote  him  asking  his 
authority  for  the  statements  regarding  hemlock  timber  therein  con- 
tained, and  in  reply  he  intimates  that,  he  does  not  feel  satisfied  that  he 
has  obtained  the  correct  estimates  thereupon,  but  the  tanners  of  Penn- 
sylvania are  becoming  alarmed  at  the  great  quantity  of  bark  used  each 
year.  There  is  no  duty  on  hemlock  bark,  and  the  only  reason  we  reduce 
it  to  extract  is  simply  to  save  in  the  matter  of  transportation.  We  do 
not  refine  it  in  any  way,  but  simply  reduce  the  bulk  of  a cord  of  bark. 
Cheaper  extract  means  cheaper  leather,  and  consequently  cheaper  boots 
and  shoes.  With  cheaper  material  we  can  compete  in  the  South  Amer- 
ican markets  as  against  the  European  manufacturers  of  boots  and  shoes. 
By  making  the  extract  we  are  enabled  to  use  bark  that  would  otherwise 
be  inaccessible.  We  own  and  control  at  least  1,500,000  acres  of  hemlock 
forests  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  and  New  Brunswick. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  When  the  hemlock  extract  was  first  imported  in  1872  it  was 
then  decided  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  it  being  a new  article, 
that  it  should  pay  twenty  per  centum  duty.  That  was  ten  years  ago. 
Have  you  since  then  made  any  application  to  Congress  for  the  remis- 
sion of  the  duty? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  a strong  movement 
made  last  winter  in  regard  to  it. 

Q.  But  nothing  was  done  until  after  nine  years  had  passed  ? — A.  I 


680 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[F.  A.  WYMAN. 


do  not  know,  in  regard  to  that,  whether  there  was  any  action  taken  upon 
the  subject  before. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  movement  in  that  direction  at  the  time  the 
tariff  laws  were  revised  or  codified"? — A.  I do  not  think  any  movement 
was  made. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  reasons  for  removing  the  duty  on  the 
extract  of  hemlock  bark  : 

The  business  of  manufacturing  the  extract  of  hemlock  bark  is  carried 
on  chiefly  in  Canada.  This  extract  is  used  for  the  tanning  of  leather. 
For  the  past  five  or  six  years  the  tanners  of  this  country  have  found  it 
difficult  to  procure  the  bark  necessary  to  carry  on  their  manufacture, 
the  forests  in  many  parts  of  the  country  having  been  cleared  of  hem- 
lock trees.  The  result  was  that  manufactories  for  the  making  of  hem- 
lock extract  were  established  in  Canada,  where  bark  is  plenty.  The 
tanner  is  thus  saved  the  labor  and  expense  of  making  his  own  extract, 
and  is  also  saved  the  expense  of  importing  the  bark  in  bulk — a barrel 
of  extract  containing  the  strength  of  from  a cord  and  a half  to  two  and 
a half  cords  of  bark.  The  price  of  bark  has  advanced  within  the  year 
from  $8  to  812.50  a cord.  As  bark  is  so  important  an  element  in  mak- 
ing leather,  it  will  be  seen  that  on  it  largely  depends  cheap  leather  and 
cheap  boots  and  shoes. 

The  government  has  seen  fit  to  put  an  import  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on 
this  extract.  This  protects  only  an  inconsiderable  interest — the  owners 
of  hemlock  lands,  who  are  holding  them  for  speculative  purposes,  and 
a few  extract  works  in  this  country,  and  it  discriminates  against  the 
proprietors  of  more  than  5,000  tanneries,  who  represent  one  of  the  most 
important  industries  in  the  country.  The  government  reaps  no  benefit 
from  this  tax,  the  revenue  from  it  being  less  than  010,000.  The  tax, 
however,  prevents  our  tanners  from  receiving  the  benefit  of  a cheap 
tanning  material,  as  most  of  the  Canadian-made  extract  now  goes  to 
Europe,  where  it  is  used  for  the  inakiug  of  a cheap  leather,  which  com- 
petes with  our  own  product,  and  where  it  is  admitted  free. 

As  an  indication  ot  the  importance  this  question  of  cheap  bark  is  as- 
suming, it  may  be  stated  that  the  tanners  of  this  country  use  1,250,000 
cords  of  bark  a year.  An  acre  of  hemlock  land  will  yield  about  seven 
cords  of  bark.  It  thus  takes  every  year  upwards  of  178,000  acres  of 
land  to  supply  bark  to  the  tanneries.  As  only  nine  States  produce  hem- 
lock bark,  it  can  be  seen  why  the  supply  is  becoming  so  rapidly  ex- 
hausted. It  ought  to  be  understood  that  to  get  the  bark  the  tree  must 
be  cut  down,  and  a tree  cannot  be  replaced  in  less  than  from  15  to  20 
years. 

The  Canadian  Government,  in  view  of  the  increasing  importations  of 
bark  into  this  country,  are  agitating  the  question  of  putting  an  export 
duty  of  at  least  20  per  cent,  on  bark.  The  bark  itself  has  been  im- 
ported largely  because  it  was  admitted  free  of  duty,  while  the  extract 
pays  the  duty  complained  of.  The  question  here  suggests  itself:  “ Why 
protect  the  owners  of  hemlock  lands  against  the  makers  of  the  extract 
of  bark,  which  would  cheapen  leather,  when  they  are  not  protected,  and 
do  not  ask  protection,  against  foreign  bark,  which  is  coming  here  simply 
because  our  own  trees  have  been  used  up?”  The  tax  is  as  illogical  as 
it  is  a burden  to  a great  industry. 

A memorial  has  been  presented  to  Congress,  signed  by  most  of  the 
leading  tanners  of  the  country.  Nearly  if  not  all  would  have  signed  it 
had  there  been  an  opportunity  to  present  it  to  them.  They  ask  that 
this  duty  of  20  per  cent  on  the  extract  of  hemlock  be  removed,  be- 
cause it  protects  very  few,  if  it  does  anybody;  produces  an  inconsidera- 
ble revenue,  and  is  a grievous  burden  to  all  who  in  any  way  use  leather. 


B.  JOY  JEFFRIES.] 


SCIENTIFIC  PUBLICATIONS. 


081 


B.  JOY  JEFFRIES. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25, 1882. 

Dr.  B.  Joy  Jeffries,  of  Boston,  addressed  the  Commission  as  fol- 
lows : 

I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  some  points  in 
connection  with  the  tariff,  concerning  which  I feel  a personal  interest. 
I would  suggest  the  propriety  of  putting  on  the  free  list  books  printed 
in  foreign  countries  which  are  presented  to  people  living  in  this  country. 
I have  myself  received  several  books  and  distributed  them  to  gentlemen 
living  in  Europe  free  of  expense  to  them,  and  when  they  in  return  have 
kindly  sent  me  their  own  productions  they  have  been,  and  are,  under 
the  law,  stopped  in  the  post-office  and  sent  to  the  custom-house,  where 
a duty  has  been  levied  upon  them,  which  I have  had  to  pay.  These 
books  were  presentation  copies  sent  to  me  by  the  authors  or  publishers 
abroad.  Of  course  the  number  of  such  books  coming  into  the  country 
must  be  very  small,  and  the  revenue  cannot  be  a heavy  one  to  the  gov- 
ernment. 1 respectfully  suggest  that  all  such  books  should  be  put  upon 
the  free  list,  as  they  are  not  sent  here  for  sale  or  for  fepublication. 

I am  also  personally  interested  in  the  subject  of  color-blindness,  and  have 
devoted  some  time  and  attention  to  the  investigation  of  that  matter  as  it 
affects  the  employes  of  railroads  and  ocean  steamers.  I have  occasion  to 
import  different  kinds  of  apparatus  for  testing  color-blindness,  and  have 
been  presented  with  some  instruments  adapted  to  this  purpose,  by  gen- 
tlemen living  in  Europe.  These  instruments  were  sent  to  me  solely  for 
my  own  use  and  not  for  sale.  If  Harvard  University  desires  to  import 
scientific  instruments  for  its  own  use  they  are  admitted  free,  but  if  I 
desire  to  import  similar  instruments  for  scientific  use  I have  to  pay  a 
duty  on  them.  If  I should  go  abroad  and  bring  them  home  with  me 
they  would  come  in  free  of  duty,  but  if  I buy  them,  or  they  are  sent  to 
me  as  a present,  I must  pay  the  duty.  I beg  to  suggest  that  persons 
engaged  in  scientific  work  are  frequently  unable  to  pay  such  a tax,  and 
the  duty  for  that  reason  is  sometimes  felt  to  be  very  onerous.  Usually, 
these  scientific  instruments  are  of  a kind  that  cannot  be  made  in  this 
country.  For  instance,  one  was  sent  me  from  Sweden,  and  I used  it  to 
determine  the  proportion  of  color-blindness  at  the  Naval  Academy  at 
Annapolis.  That  instrument  was  copied  there  and  a duplicate  made. 
I had  to  pay  from  40  to  50  per  cent,  duty  on  its  importation.  I think 
all  such  instruments  should  be  put  on  the  free  list.  The  government 
does  not  collect  a very  large  amount  from  the  duties  imposed  upon  them, 
as  they  are  rarely  imported.  I present  these  points  for  your  considera- 
tion, and  shall  be  happy  to  answer  any  inquiries  which  may  be  addressed 
to  me  on  this  point. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  What,  in  your  opinion,  would  be  the  effect  of  putting  these 
instruments  and  books  upon  the  freelist;  would  it  increase  the  number 
brought  to  this  country  ? — Answer.  It  would ; the  number  would  be  likely 
to  increase  considerably.  I have,  within  a short  time,  received  a book 
which  was  sent  to  me  from  Germany,  and  which  came  through  the  cus- 
tom-house. If  that  book  could  come  in  free  of  duty  it  would  be  sent  to 
several  persons  in  this  country,  and  I should  translate  it  for  publication 


G82 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fu.  JOY  JEFFRIES. 


for  the  benefit  of  the  publishers  and  the  readers.  This  duty  operates 
as  a cheek  on  the  importation  of  books  of  a scientific  character.  This 
book  is  at  present  being  discussed  in  Eugland,  and  its  author  has  writ- 
ten me  in  regard  to  having  it  published  in  this  country.  If  it  could 
have  been  distributed  to  the  heads  of  colleges  and  others  in  this  coun- 
try free,  it  would  have  attracted  attention,  and  I should  now  be  en- 
gaged in  making  a translation  of  it  for  publication.  Of  course  we  want 
to  protect  our  own  manufacturers  in  every  way,  but  instruments  of  this 
class  are  seldom  made  in  this  country. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  would  you  distinguish  between  instruments  intended  for 
scientific  uses  and  engineering  instruments  intended  for  ordinary  busi- 
ness purposes,  such  as  theodolites,  of  which  there  are  a large  number 
used  in  this  country? — A.  I would  make  the  law  read  so  as  to  cover 
instruments  not  made  in  this  country.  If  it  is  a new  apparatus  I would 
admit  it  free  of  duty,  and  make  the  law  read  in  such  a way  that  the 
moment  it  is  produced  in  this  country  and  is  offered  for  sale, its  free  im- 
portation would  be  stopped.  That  would  protect  the  manufacturers  in 
this  country. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  have  referred  to  the  subject  of  color-blindness.  Ho  you  know 
what  percentage  of  color-blindness  there  is  in  the  country  ? — A.  I have 
myself  examined  36,000  persons  with  a view  of  determining  that  ques- 
tion, and  I have  found  4 per  cent,  of  males  are  color-blind.  It  is  con- 
genital. I have  also  examined  1,400  females,  and  of  this  number  I have 
only  found  12  persons  who  were  affected  by  color-blindness. 


WILLIAM  J.  CUTLER.] 


IMPORTED  DRUGS. 


683 


WILLIAM  J.  CUTLER. 


Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

Mr.  William  J.  Cutler,  of  the  firm  of  Cutler  Brothers  & Co.,  of 
Boston,  importers  and  wholesale  druggists,  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

I have  very  few  words  to  say  to  the  Commission,  but  I have  thought 
it  my  duty  to  lay  before  you  a list  of  articles  in  our  line  of  business  on 
which  the  present  duty  seems  to  be  excessively  heavy  and  virtually 
prohibitory.  The  articles  I refer  to  are  as  follows : 


Cream  of  tartar per  pouDd 

Citric  acid do.. 

Chloroform do.. 

Ethereal  preparations do . . 

Ethers  not  otherwise  provided  for do.. 

Morphine per  ounce 

Oil  cloves - per  pound 

Oil  croton do.. 

Oil  cubebs do.. 

Oil  bay-leaves do.. 

Santonine do.. 

Strychnine per  ounce 

Tannic  acid per  pound 

Tannin do . . 

Sugar  of  lead do.. 

Iodine  resublimed do.. 

Iodide  of  potash,  or do . . 

Hydriodate  of  potash do.. 

Essential  oils,  not  otherwise  provided  for per  cent 

Chemical  medicinal  preparations do 

Medicinal  extracts do 


$0  10 
10 

1 00 
1 00 
1 00 
1 00 
2 00 
1 00 
1 00 
17  50 
3 00 
1 00 
1 00 
2 00 
10 
75 
75 
75 
50 
40 
40 


Quinine  is  now  free;  we  should  recommend  10  per  cent.  duty.  We 
are  in  favor  of  protection  so  far  as  necessary  to  enable  the  American 
manufacturer  to  fairly  compete  with  the  foreign  manufacturer,  aud  no 
further,  and  think  that  all  foreign  and  domestic  crude  articles  used  in 
manufacturing  should  be  made  free.  There  are  many  other  small  arti- 
cles which  we  have  not  enumerated.  You  can  readily  see  that  the  high 
rate  of  duty  on  oil  of  bay  is  a great  temptation  to  smuggling. 

It  may  be  that  the  Commission  will  not  think  that  the  duties  on  all 
these  articles  is  excessive;  but  1 have  reason  to  know  that  they  have 
been  so  excessive  that  it  has  prevented  the  drug  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States  having  any  competition  from  abroad.  We  are  not  able 
to  import  many  of  these  articles  in  consequence  of  the  excessive  duty, 
and  I desire  to  emphasize  that  fact. 

I also  submit  a list  showing  the  present  rate  of  duty  on  certain  arti- 


684 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  J.  CUTLEU. 


cles,  and  the  rate  we  suggest  in  case  a change  in  these  duties  is  recom- 
mended by  the  Commission. 


Present  tariff  designation  or  commercial  name  of 
article. 


Present  rate  of  duty. 


Proposed  rate  of  duty. 


Acitate  of  lead,  white 

Acid,  citric 

Oream  of  tartar 

Chemical  preparations,  medicinal 

Chloroform 

Ethers  not  otherwise  provided  for  (alcohol  to  be  free) 
Ethereal  preparations  not  otherwise  provided  for  (al- 
cohol to  be  free) 

Extracts,  medicinal,  not  otherwise  provided  for 

Iodine,  resublimed 

Morphine 

Oils: 

Essential,  not  otherwise  provided  for 

Bay -leaves 

Cloves 

Croton 

Cubebs  

Lemon  (while  burgamot  is  free) 

Potash,  iodide  or  hydriodate 

Quinine  (with  alcohol  free) 

Santouine 

Strychnine  

Tannic  acid,  and 

Tannin,  the  same  thing 


10  cents  per  pound. . 

do 

....do 

40  per  cent 

$1  per  pound 

do 

do 

40  per  cent  

75  cents  per  pound. . 
$1  per  ounce 

50  per  cent 

$17  50  per  pound 

$2  per  pound 

$1  ner  pound 

do 

50  cents  per  pound. . 
75  cents  per  pound. . i 

Eree I 

$3  per  pound 

$1  per  pound 

do 

$2  per  pound 


Crude  articles , when  free. 
20  per  cent. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.  • 

Do. 

Do. 

Eree ; opium  10  per  cent. 

30  per  cent. 

Do. 

Fiee;  cloves  30  per  cent. 
30  jier  cent. 

Eree. 

20  per  cent. 

10  per  cent. 

20  per  cent. 

Do! 

Do. 


Pyrethrum  roseum,  or  cinerarisefolium,  called  by  the  French,  Per- 
sian chamomiles,  or  insect  flowers,  are  charged  10  per  cent.,  as  not 
otherwise  provided  for,  when  they  should  be  free,  under  u medicinal 
natural  flowers”  or  under  u dried  natural  flowers occasionally  used 
as  a medicine,  but  when  powdered  mainly  as  an  insecticide,  under  the 
name  of  insect  powder.  We  have  imported  this  year  60,000  pounds. 


H O.  HAVEMEYER  J 


SUGAR  REFINING. 


685 


H.  O.  HAVEMEYER. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

Mr.  H.  O.  Havemeyer,  of  the  firm  of  Havemeyers  & Elder,  sugar 
refiners,  New  York  City,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Gentlemen.  I desire  to  make  a brief  statement  of  the  points  to  be 
considered  in  regulating  the  sugar  tariff. 

And  first,  as  showing  the  importance  of  the  subject,  I will  state  that 
in  1881,  sugar  (including  molasses  and  melado)  paid  $48,000,000  of  the 
$194,000,000  of  total  revenue  from  duties.  The  refiners  of  tbe  United 
States  represent  an  invested  capital  of  $35,000,000,  and  employ  about 
10,000  work  men  of  various  grades.  Handling,  transportation,  wharfage, 
storage,  and  dealing  in  sugar  affect  large  interests.  Of  the  entire 
50,000,000  of  population  it  may  be  affirmed  that  every  one  is  a consumer 
of  sugar,  or  would  be  if  by  appropriate  legislation  the  price  can  be 
brought  within  his  means. 

Objects  to  be  attained.— A suitable  system  for  imposing  duties  upon 
articles  which  must  be  obtained  from  abroad  should  recognize  principles 
of  justice  and  fairness,  and  should  have  for  its  objects  the  equitable 
protection  and  promotion  of  American  industry,  the  reduction  of  price  so 
as  to  reach  the  means  of  all  classes,  and  the  consequent  encouragement  of 
consumption,  increase  of  revenue  from  duties,  and  benefit  to  all  inter- 
ests concerned. 

Uniform  rate  of  duty. — The  effect  of  a uniform  rate  would  be  to  exclude 
cheaper  grades,  to  reduce  the  volume  and  value  of  importation,  thus 
lessening  the  amount  of  revenue,  and  to  promote  refining  at  the  place 
of  production,  to  theinjury  of  American  refineries,  which  can  refine  sugar 
at  the  lowest  price,  and  thus  to  curtail  the  number  of  consumers,  with 
manifest  injustice  to  those  of  lesser  means  who  compose  the  large  mass 
of  the  population. 

A uniform  rate  of  duty  is  a misnomer.  It  means  the  taxing  of  lower 
class  sugars  at  a rate  two  or  three  times  as  great  as  higher  grades.  It 
is  condemned  by  the  argument  which  is  put  forward  in  its  favor — that. 
American  importers  are  dishonest,  and  that  the  government  can  only 
find  knaves  for  its  service;  that  inconsequence  a sugar  tariff  cannot  be 
arranged  according  to  the  merits  of  the  subject. 

In  regard  to  the  rate  of  duty,  in  some  practical  way  it  should  be  made 
to  correspond  with  the  value  of  the  article.  The  ad  valorem  principle 
is  that  which  is  most  just,  and  which  the  interssts  of  all  concerned  re- 
quire so  far  as  it  is  practicable.  Can  a system  of  specific  duties  be  gradu- 
ated so  far  as  to  fall  as  nearly  as  may  be  equally  and  justly  upon  all 
classes  of  sugar,  and  be  administered  without  difficulty  ? 

All  difficulty  will  be  obviated  if  the  government,  in  framing  legisla- 
tion, will  take  lessons  from  the  methods  employed  under  similar  circum- 
stances by  those  engaged  in  the  business,  who  have  been  taught  by 
experience. 

Sugars  differ  in  quality  and  value.  Dealers  have  been  compelled  to 
find  a convenient,  practical,  and  reliable  test  for  determining  quality. 
The  course  invariably  pursued,  and  with  sure  results,  is,  for  sugars 
above  No.  13,  Dutch  standard,  to  apply  the  color  test,  and  for  all  other 
sugars  to  use  the  polariscope. 


686 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  O.  HAVEMKYER. 


Sugar  is  a close  article,  a small  fraction  of  a cent  making  or  prevent- 
ing a transaction.  A test  which  meets  the  needs  of  the  trade  should 
answer  all  the  purposes  of  the  government. 

As  regards  the  proper  system  of  duty,  several  plans  have  been  sug- 
gested. 

First.  The  Boston  plan.  Impose  a duty,  say,  of  1.75  cents  per  pound 
on  all  sugars  not  above  No.  13,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  testing 
by  the  polariscope  not  above  75°  in  saccharine  strength,  and  add  five 
one-hundredths  of  a cent,  or  five  cents  a hundred  pounds,  for  each  ad- 
ditional degree  of  saccharine  strength,  as  indicated  by  the  polariscope. 
Sugars  increase  in  value  at  the  rate  of  about  one-eighth  of  a cent  per 
pound  for  each  degree  of  saccharine  strength.  Assume  that  the  duty 
will  be  at  least  40  per  cent.;  40  per  cent,  upon  J cent  per  pound  = y^. 
Sugars  above  No.  13,  Dutch  standard,  are  considered  as  refined ; they 
are  sold,  and  should  be  assessed,  only  by  color.  They  should  be  put  in 
groups,  say  first  group,  Nos.  13  to  16 ; second,  Nos.  16  to  20 ; third,  over 
No.  20 ; and  assessed  at  specific  rates,  say  3£  cents  a pound  for  the  first, 
4 cents  for  the  second,  and  4J  cents  a pound  for  the  third  group. 

Second.  The  same  as  the  first  for  sugars  over  No.  13,  Dutch  standard, 
but  sugars  below  that  standard  divide  into  groups  according  to  sac- 
charine strength,  as  determined  by  the  polariscope;  say  all  sugars  un- 
der 75° to  be  classed  in  one  group;  75°,  to  and  including  82°,  in  a second 
group ; 83°,  to  and  including  87°,  in  a third  group ; 88°,  to  and  including 
92°,  in  a fourth  group ; and  93°  and  upwards  in  a fifth  group ; a specific 
duty  of,  say,  If  cents  per  pound  to  be  assessed  upon  the  first  group,  2.1 
cents  per  pound  upon  the  second  group,  and  to  be  increased  25  cents  a 
hundred  pounds  for  each  successive  group. 

Third.  Detain  the  present  classification,  but  put  in  class  Nos.  10  to 
13,  Dutch  standard,  all  sugars  which  by  the  polariscope  test  above  93° 
of  saccharine  strength. 

Each  of  these  plans  has  its  advocates.  The  first  is  most  appropriate. 
It,  in  effect,  imposes  a specific  duty,  modified  in  a measure  so  as  to  ad- 
just the  amount  of  duty  to  value. 

One  word  as  to  the  matter  of  refining  in  bond.  No  sugar  tariff  is  ad- 
equate which  does  not  make  suitable  provision  for  refining  in  bond. 
Then,  without  injury  to  any  interests,  American  capital  and  labor,  to  a 
large  amount,  are  benefited;  and  not  only  in  refining,  but  for  transpor- 
tation, handling,  storage,  wharfage,  mercantile  transactions,  and  the 
like.  In  addition  to  a system  of  drawbacks,  a safe  and  secure  arrange- 
ment should  be  made  for  bonding  refineries,  permitting  sugars  to  be 
refined  without  preliminary  payment  of  duty  when  desired,  providing 
for  the  return  of  a drawback  on  exportations  where  a dutjT  upon  im- 
portation has  been  paid;  and  providing,  further,  that  the  products  of 
refineries  may  be  withdrawn  from  the  bond  for  consumption  upon  pay- 
ment then  of  the  same  duties  upon  such  products  as  under  the  law  would 
be  required  upon  their  importation. 

A system  of  drawbacks  is  liable  to  lead  to  differences  with  the  gov- 
ernment. This  paralyzes  transactions.  The  difficulty  will  be  obviated 
by  giving  the  option  to  refine  in  bond.  An  exact  and  practical  system, 
binding  both  upon  the  government  and  upon  the  refiner,  will  enable 
the  latter  to  proceed  without  being  deterred  by  fear  of  differences  about 
the  administration  of  the  law. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  Your  business  is  that  of  a refiner,  I understand? — Answer. 
Yes,  sir. 


H.  0.  ITAVEMEYER.] 


SUGAR  REFINING. 


687 


Q.  Are  you  a practical  refiner? — A.  To  some  extent. 

Q.  You  understand  the  business  of  refining  thoroughly  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; 
I think  so. 

Q.  You  also  import  sugars  largely? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  import  for  sale? — A.  No,  sir;  not  as  a general  thing,  but 
we  have  sold  sugars  of  our  own  importation  and  would  sell  them  if  we 
found  it  better  to  sell  than  to  refine  them. 

Q.  In  importing  sugars,  how  do  you  test  them? — A.  By  the  polari- 
scope. 

Q.  Do  you  use  that  test  exclusively? — A.  Almost  exclusively.  Color 
bas  some  weight  with  us  in  the  purchase  of  sugar. 

Q.  Is  there  any  reason,  so  far  as  you  know,  why  the  government 
should  not  use  the  polariscope  in  making  its  test  of  sugar  ? — A.  No,  sir; 
I know  of  no  reason  why  it  should  not.  In  fact,  our  experience  in  re  - 
gard  to  government  tests  by  the  polariscope,  during  Secretary  Sher- 
man’s administration  of  the  Treasury  Department,  established  to  our 
satisfaction  the  fact  of  its  ability  to  determine  the  saccharine  strength 
of  sugar. 

Q.  When  the  government  test  by  the  polaroscope  was  applied  to  your 
sugar,  did  it  vary  materially  from  your  own  test  of  the  same  sugar? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  it  vary  at  all? — A.  Well,  perhaps  sometimes,  one-half  per 
cent.,  and  then  a resampling  generally  resulted  in  an  approximate  test. 

Q.  When  you  buy  sugars  in  any  of  the  sugar-producing-countries,  and 
they  are  delivered  to  you  in  New  York,  and  found  to  be  not  of  the  qual- 
ity they  were  represented  to  be  when  purchased,  in  other  words,  when 
you  buy  sugars  in  Cuba,  suxiposing  they  will  test  94°,  and  upon  receiv- 
ing them  here  you  find  they  test  only  92°  or  93°,  in  settling  your  ac- 
count with  your  vendor,  what  . is  your  rule  for  a reduction ; what 
allowance  is  made  ? — A.  On  centrifugal  sugars  it  is  one-tenth  of  a cent 
a pound. 

Q.  And  on  other  sugars;  muscovado  sugars? — A.  It  is  about  one- 
eighth  of  a cent  a pound. 

Q.  That  is  12  J cents  a hundred  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  you  make  a reduction  of  12J  cents  for  every  hundred  pounds  for 
one  degree  difference  in  the  xiolariscope  test,  would  the  government  be 
safe  in  making  a reduction  of  5 cents  a hundred  pounds  for  each  degree 
of  difference ; would  it  be  fair  for  the  government  to  say  to  the  importer, 
“We  will  allow  a reduction  of  5 £>er  cent,  on  every  hundred  pounds  for 
each  change  of  one  degree  in  the polariscoxie  test?” — A.  The  custom  of 
the  trade  has  establishhd  the  rate  at  one-eighth  of  a cent  a pound.  The 
duty  is  not  based  on  any  such  custom.  It  is  based  on  an  assessment 
of  the  same  rate  ad  valorem  on  the  difference  in  the  value  of  the  sugar. 
Sugars  here  and  in  foreign  countries  are  worth  the  difference  of  one- 
eighth  of  a cent  a x>ound  for  every  degree  of  test  above  or  below. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  classifying  sugars  in  groups.  Can  we  not  classify 
sugars  by  the  polariscox>e  and  not  by  the  group?  If  we  take  as  a basis 
75°  by  the  i>olariscope,  and  a duty  of  1.50,  couldn’t  you  add  5 cents  a 
hundred  for  every  degree  of  difference  instead  of  classifying  by  groups? — 
A.  lres,  sir;  undoubtedly. 

Q.  You  see  no  objection  to  that  system  ? — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  You  say  that  in  the  trade  you  increase  or  diminish  12£  cents  a hun- 
dred for  each  point  of  the  imlariscope  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  you  can  do  that,  will  not  the  government  be  asking  very  little 
when  it  asks  an  increase  of  5 cents  a hundred  on  each  degree  of  differ- 
ence as  shown  by  the  x^olariscope ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


688 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  0.  HAVEMEYEU. 


By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Would  not  precisely  the  same  object  be  gained  in  a more  simple 
and  direct  manner  by  a fixed  rate  on  every  pound  of  crystal! izable 
sugar  up  to  and  including  No.  13 ; wouldn't  that  be  your  first  plan? — A. 
How  are  you  going  to  determine  that  ? 

Q.  You  say  that  sugar  should  be  tested  exclusively  by  the  polariscope 
up  to  and  including  No.  13,  and  above  that  by  the  Dutch  standard  of 
color.  Assuming  that  to  be  correct,  I say  is’nt  this  a more  simple  and 
correct  method  of  collecting  the  duty  than  the  method  proposed  by  you 
which  proposes  a number  of  rates.  Why  not  have  one  fixed  rate  for 
every  pound  of  crystallizable  sugar  as  determined  by  the  polariscope  up 
to  and  including  No.  13  ? — A.  The  percentage  of  saccharine  strength  in 
some  sugars  is  not  worth  as  much  as  it  is  in  others.  A sugar  testing 
100°  sometimes  has  four  times  the  value  as  sugar  that  another  sugar  has 
only  testing  50°.  When  I speak  of  sugar,  1 speak  of  the  commercial 
article  of  sugar.  One  kind  of  sugar  contains  70  per  cent,  and  another  99 
per  cent,  of  sugar.  The  99-per-cent,  sugar  is  what  is  known  in  com- 
merce as  the  pure  sugar,  and  is  worth  three  times  as  much  as  the  pure 
sugar  in  molasses  or  lower  sugar,  on  account  of  the  economy  in  refining  it. 

Q.  Then  the  polariscope  is  the  best  means  of  testing  the  value  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir;  in  sugars  testing  over  75°. 

Q.  But  notin  sugars  below  that? — A.  No,  sir.  The  ad  valorem  sys- 
tem pure  and  simple  is  the  proper  system,  but  the  tendency  of  legisla- 
tion is  always  towards  specific  rates.  1 know  of  no  system  approxi- 
mating the  ad  valorem  system  more  nearly  than  the  polariscope  inregard 
to  sugars  over  75°.  The  Dutch  standard  does  not  apply  to  those  sugars, 
but  the  polariscope  steps  in  and  defines  the  proper  class  on  the  ad 
valorem  principle. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  Is  not  the  polariscope  generally  used  in  England  in  determining 
the  true  value  of  sugars? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  also  used  in  determining  their  value  in  France? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  and  in  Germany,  Russia,  and  Austria. 

Q.  And  even  in  Holland,  where  the  Dutch  standard  was  established? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Does  not  the  Government  of  France  use  the  polariscope  as  a 
proper  test  of  the  value  of  sugars  in  levying  its  duties  and  allowing 
drawbacks  ?— A.  Yes,  sir ; I believe  it  does. 

Q.  Now  I desire  to  ask  you  a question,  which  you  need  not  answer 
unless  you  desire  to.  How  large  is  your  own  business  as  compared  with 
the  total  business  of  refining  sugars  in  the  United  States?  What  pro- 
portion of  the  refined  sugars  of  the  United  States  are  made  in  the  re- 
fineries in  which  you  are  interested? — A.  I do  not  object  to  answering 
the  question.  I should  think  we  make  about  one-third  of  the  sugars 
that  are  refined  in  this  country. 

Q.  What  is  your  x>rincipal  objection  to  the  system  of  drawback  at 
present  existing? — A.  That  it  is  within  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  fix  the  amount  of  the  drawback. 

Q.  You  think  that  is  an  unsafe  power  to  lodge  in  the  hands  of  any 
one  man  ? — A.  I do.  I think  a man’s  business  ought  to  be  under  his 
own  control,  and  only  subject  to  the  laws  properly  enacted  to  cover  it. 

Q.  How  would  you  avoid  that  difficulty ; by  advocating  refining  in 
bond? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  suggest  in  regard  to  that  matter ; have  you  any 
system  to  recommend? — A.  I have  not  examined  the  laws,  but  I should 


H.  O.  HAVEMEYEU.] 


SUGAR  REFINING. 


689 


say  that  the  same  laws  that  at  present  apply  to  other  bonded  ware- 
houses should  be  made  to  apply  to  sugar  refineries.  I do  not  see  why 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  should  not  put  its  own  citizens 
on  the  same  footing  with  the  citizens  of  other  countries.  If  sugars  are 
made  in  Cuba,  why  should  not  they  be  made  in  Brooklyn  and  brought 
in  subject  to  the  same  duties?  That  is  all  we  ask. 

Q.  in  other  words,  you  ask  the  government  to  establish  for  the  re- 
finer a private  bonded  warehouse? — A.  We  would  like  to  refine  under 
the  general  law  relating  , to  bonded  warehouses.  As  I say,  I am  not 
perfectly  familiar  with  that  law;  but  the  same  system  which  applies  to 
bonded  warehouses  where  merchandise  is  imported  and  then  withdrawn 
would  do  very  well. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  the  sugar  after  being  placed  in  the  bonded  ware- 
house passes  from  your  control  to  the  control  of  the  refiner  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  subject  to  the  control  ot  the  government  official  in  charge. 

Q.  You  would  take  the  sugar  and  carry  it  to  your  refiner  and  then 
go  through  the  regular  process  of  refining? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Of  course  it  would  not  be  under  the  observation  of  the  govern- 
ment officer  while  you  were  doing  that,  would  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  he  know  the  amount  of  sugar  that  was  placed  in  the  re- 
finery, and  could  he  keep  trace  of  it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  He  knows  now' 
when  sugars  are  brought  from  Cuba,  when  they  are  entered,  and  where 
they  are  stored. 

Q.  But  when  it  was  withdrawn,  after  the  process  of  refining,  would 
he  be  able  to  follow  it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; he  would  have  to  know  it  or  he 
wrould  not  allow  it  to  pass.  He  would  know  all  about  it,  because  any 
system  adopted  would  restrict  that  refiner  to  bonded  sugars,  of  course. 

Q.  Then  you  would  have  one  of  your  sugar  houses  devoted  exclu- 
sively to  the  manufacture  of  bouded  sugar? — A.  Undoubtedly;  there 
would  be  no  way  of  determining  the  matter  otherwise. 

Q.  Could  a refiner,  then,  who  has  but  one  sugar  house  where  he  is 
carrying  on  his  usual  business  of  refining  under  this  system,  refine  su- 
gars and  get  the  drawback  on  them  ; I mean  under  this  system  you 
propose  of  bonded  warehouses  ? — A.  Under  the  system  I propose  of 
refining  in  bond,  it  would  be  independent  of  the  present  system.  I do 
not  see  why  the  government  should  not  allow  me  to  refine  in  bond  in- 
dependently. I do  not  see  why  the  government  should  not  pay  a draw- 
back on  duty-paid  sugar  equivalent  to  the  amount  of  duty  paid.  The 
two  kinds  of  sugar  could  not  be  worked  together  in  the  same  refinery 
at  the  same  time. 

Q.  Then  you  would  have  both  systems  prevailing ; the  present  sys- 
tem, leaving  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
determine  the  drawback  where  the  party  made  both  classes  of  sugar 
for  home  and  for  foreign  consumption,  and  then  have  a bonded  ware- 
house under  a proper  system  for  refining  sugar  in  bond ; leaving  it  to 
the  option  of  the  refiner  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I do  not  advocate  the  allow- 
ing of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  fix  a drawback  upon  sugar  at 
all.  But  in  justice  to  those  refiners  who,  having  refined  duty-paid  su- 
gars, wish  to  export  them,  there  should  be  some  provision  for  a suit- 
able drawback.  I do  not  believe  in  giving  that  discretion  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury ; I think  it  should  be  fixed  by  statute.  What  we 
desire  is  to  work  independently  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Q.  And  in  order  to  do  that,  a party  must  have  a sugar-house  devoted 
exclusively,  for  the  time  being  at  least,  to  refining  sugars  for  export? — 
A.  Yes,  sir,  or  for  importation  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  In 
refining  in  bond,  we  might  only  want  to  export  a certain  percentage  ot 
H.  Mis.  6 14 


690 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


H.  O.  HAVEMKYER. 


our  products  and  to  import  into  the  United  States  for  consumption  the 
balance.  Of  course  we  want  a drawback  ou  that  which  we  export,  and 
we  only  want  such  duties  as  foreign  sugars  are  subject  to  on  the  amount 
we  import  from  our  refinery;  the  amount  we  withdraw,  in  other  words, 
for  home  consumption. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  want  the  duty  on  that  amount  you  withdraw  for 
exportation  to  be  fixed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  you  do  not 
want  that  left  to  his  discretion'? — A.  No,  sir.  All  sugars  withdrawn  for 
consumption  pay  a duty.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  discre- 
tion fixes  the  amount  of  the  drawback  paid  on  sugars  exported,  which 
is  presumed  to  be  equivalent  to  the  amount  of  duty  paid.  Of  course 
the  other  sugars  go  right  into  direct  consumption,  having  paid  the  duty 
originally. 

Q.  Then  what  you  want  is  the  present  system  and  the  bonded  system 
both  to  prevail? — A.  Yes,  sir ; but  not  in  one  refinery  at  the  same  time. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  You  want  two  systems.  You  want  the 
present  system  for  one  class  of  sugars,  and  you  want  an  additional  sys- 
tem for  refining  in  bond  without  the  payment  of  duty  unless  the  product 
is  put  on  the  home  market.  You  also  want  the  present  system  modified 
by  statute,  fixing  the  amount  of  drawback  instead  of  leaving  it  to  the 
discretion  of  the  Secretary. 

The  Witness.  I think  that  would  be  better. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Do  you  regard  the  polariscopic  test  as  an  absolute  measure  of  the 
value  of  sugar? — A.  Not  the  absolute  test,  but  as  nearly  a correct  test 
as  any  system  I know  of. 

Q.  The  polariscope,  I understand,  does  not  test  sugar  at  all  when  it 
gets  below  75° ? — A.  I have  never  seen  sugar  under  75°  tested  by  it. 

Q.  But  whenever  it  is  crystallizable  sugar,  the  use  of  the  polariscope 
is  the  proper  method  of  testing  it? — A.  Yes,  sir;  for  all  sugar  over  75°. 

Q.  You  say  you  never  have  heard  of  any  test  made  with  it  less  than 
75°  ? — A.  I have  heard  of  concrete,  a sort  of  sugar  and  molasses,  being 
tested  in  England.  That,  however,  never  comes  here. 

Q.  You  would  have  a lower  rate  on  molasses  and  melada  in  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  of  sugar  found  in  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  not  in  this  molasses  and  melada  a residuum  that  is  of  con- 
siderable commercial  value? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I have  not  said  anything 
about  what  the  duty  on  molasses  ought  to  be.  however. 

Q.  I understand  that  your  mode  of  estimating  the  value  above  75°  by 
the  polariscopic  test  covers  all  the  sugars,  so  far  as  you  know? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  it  covers  all  the  sugars,  not  regarding  melada  or  molasses  as  sugar. 
The  essence  of  my  principle  is  the  value,  and  molasses  should  be  assessed 
proportionately  to  sugar;  the  same  ad  valorem  or  specified  rate  should 
apply  so  as  to  conform  to  that  principle. 

Q.  Your  idea  is,  then,  that  below  75°  per  cent,  it  should  be  so  graded 
as  to  pay  on  the  foreign  commercial  value  and  not  on  its  value  as  con- 
taining so  much  sugar? — A.  Yes,  sir.  The  houses  in  molasses-produc- 
ing countries  have  a way  of  determining  that  ratio  which  might  be  of 
value  in  determining  the  mode  of  assessing  it. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  give  us  that  mode  of  determining  the  value  f — A. 
No,  sir ; I could  not.  That  matter  is  within  the  i>ro vince  of  those  houses 
which  deal  in  molasses. 

Q.  Who  could  give  us  that  information  ? — A.  I suppose  Mr.  Bartol, 
of  Philadelphia,  could  give  you  that  information,  or  the  firm  of  D.  H. 


H.  O.  HAVEMEYER.]  SUGAR  REFINING.  691 

Howell  & Co.,  of  New  York,  or  any  of  the  half  a dozen  molasses-boiling 
houses  I could  name. 

Q.  You  understand  that  some  of  them  will  appear  before  the  Commis- 
sion l — A.  I do. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  If  a man  were  to  come  to  you  in  New  York  and  offer  you  tank-bot- 
toms, the  sirup  of  sugar-cane,  concentrated  melada  or  concrete  for  sale, 
would  you  not,  in  case  you  thought  it  advantageous  to  buy  it,  test  what- 
ever lie  offered  you  by  the  polariscope? — A.  I think  I should  use  that 
test  as  an  auxiliary  means  of  ascertaining  its  value. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  You  say  that  you  would  like  to  see  the  rate  of  drawbacks  fixed  by 
statute? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  subsequently  that  you  did  not  believe  any 
statute  could  be  made  to  cover  it? — A.  I do  not  see  why  the  govern- 
ment in  its  legislative  capacity,  with  the  same  data  before  it  that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has,  should  leave  it  in  such  a way  that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  can  fix  one  rate  to-day  and  change  it  to  a dif- 
ferent rate  to  morrow.  If  the  rate  was  established  by  statute  we  could 
work  at  least  a year  without  interruption,  but  when  it  is  established  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  we  cannot  work  sometimes  more  than 
one  or  two  days  before  there  is  a change.  If  the  matter  was  fixed  by 
statute  it  would  have  more  stability.  I would  rather  work  under  an 
unequal  system,  if  it  was  only  stable,  than  to  work  under  one  that  was 
lair  but  subject  to  constant  change. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  When  you  made  the  statement  as  to  the  proportion  of  sugar  that 
your  house  refined,  what  was  the  aggregate  of  the  amount  upon  which 
you  based  that  calculation  ? — A.  One  billion  six  hundred  million  pounds, 
or  eight  hundred  thousand  tons  of  sugar. 

I desire  to  say  a word  or  two  in  regard  to  the  Hawaiian  treaty,  if  the 
Commission  will  allow  me.  The  price  of  sugar  in  California  is  regulated 
by  the  price  of  sugar  in  New  York,  plus  the  freight  from  New  York  to 
San  Francisco.  We  have  made  many  attempts  to  supply  the  San  Fran- 
cisco market  with  sugar,  but  the  monopoly  there  keeps  the  price  to  the 
New  York  figures,  plus  the  freight.  The  object  of  the  passage  of  the  Ha- 
waiian treaty  was  to  establish  commercial  intercourse  between  this  coun- 
try and  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  but  the  statistics  show  that  the  remission 
of  duties  on  the  importation  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  amounts  in  value 
to  just  double  the  importations  to  these  islands  from  this  country.  The 
duties  on  the  sugars  which  have  been  imported  alone  amount  to  double 
the  value  of  the  total  exportations  to  that  island,  so  that  no  benefit 
accrues  to  the  consumer  here  at  all,  and  the  sugar- planters  in  the  Ha- 
waiian Islands  get  all  the  benefit.  We  think  it  is  an  outrage,  and  that 
the  treaty  should  be  abrogated. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  You  think  that-  no  benefit  has  accrued  to  either  the  consumer  here 
or  in  San  Francisco  ? — A.  No,  sir;  to  neither.  All  such  discriminations 
accrue  to  the  producing  country ; never  to  the  consuming  country. 


692 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HOWE  & FRENCH. 


HOWE  & FRENCH. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25, 1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Messrs.  Howe  & French,  of  Bos- 
ton, Mass.,  was  read  and  ordered  to  be  printed: 

We  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  a difference  exist- 
ing at  present  between  the  Internal  Revenue  and  Treasury  Departments 
touching  the  item  of  shellac  varnish. 

Shellac  varnish  is  simply  gum  shellac  dissolved  in  alcohol,  and  comes 
in  under  the  tariff  at  50  cents  per  gallon  and  25  per  cent.  duty.  Parties 
in  Canada  buy  alcohol  here  in  bond,  transport  it  to  Canada,  and  mix 
it  with  shellac  in  a bonded  warehouse  there  under  a special  license 
given  by  the  Canadian  Government.  Thus  manufactured,  and  having 
paid  no  tariff  or  tax  to  the  Canadian  Government,  this  varnish  is  shipped 
all  over  this  country  and  sold  30  to  40  cents  per  gallon  lower  than  it  can 
be  manufactured  here.  Last  year  the  customs  officers  seized  a large 
quantity,  and  brought  the  matter  before  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
for  decision.  The  officers  held  that  in  reckoning  the  cost  of  shellac  var- 
nish, alcohol  should  be  taken  at  what  it  was  selling  for  in  Canada,  and 
not  at  what  it  was  worth  in  a bonded  warehouse  there.  They  further 
held  that  this  w5s  a preparation  or  compound  of  which  distilled  spirits 
roas  the  component  part  of  chief  value,  and  consequently  should  pay  the 
tariff  on  distilled  spirits.  (See  article  594  in  tariff. ) 

If  we  are  correctly  informed,  the  Treasury  Department  ruled  that  inas- 
much as  this  was  imported  under  the  name  of  varnish,  and  was  com- 
mercially recognized  as  a varnish,  it  should  come  in  under  the  tariff 
specifically  set  upon  it. 

Alcohol  to-day  costs  consumers  all  over  the  country  $2.10  to  $2.15  per 
gallon.  Your  Commission  will  readily  see  how  it  affects  the  interest  of 
manufacturers  here  when  foreigners  can  buy  our  alcohol,  tax  off,  under 
the  regulations  of  the  Revenue  Department,  carry  it  home,  manufacture 
it,  and  bring  it  in  under  our  tariff,  so  that  they  can  sell  it  40  cents  below 
the  price  any  varnish-maker  in  this  country  can  produce  it  at. 

Your  Commission  might  reasonably  consider  whether,  under  certain 
circumstances,  it  may  not  be  profitable  to  foreigners  to  manufacture  this 
varnish  in  quantities,  so  large  that  it  might  be  an  inducement  to  precip- 
itate the  gum,  and  sell  the  distilled  spirits  remaining  in  open  competi- 
tion with  that  selling  here  and  paying  the  tax.  If  the  gum  were  cheap 
enough,  as  it  has  been  in  days  gone  by,  we  think  this  might  confront 
our  officials. 

We  think  your  Commission  can  obtain  from  the  files  of  the  Treasury 
Department  the  correspondence  touching  this  matter  a year  or  more 
ago.  We  have  to  suggest  that  you  propose  that  shellac  varnish  and  all 
other  varnish  manufactured  from  distilled  spirits  shall  be  subject  to  a 
tariff  no  less  than  that  of  distilled  spirits. 

We  will  add  that  the  consumption  of  this  article  reaches  some  thou- 
sands of  barrels  per  year. 

We  are,  respectfully, 


Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 


Howe  & French. 


JAMES  B THOMAS.] 


SUGAR  REFINING. 


693 


JAMES  B.  THOMAS. 

Boston,  Mass.,  Avgust  25,  1882. 

Mr.  James  B.  Thomas,  president  of  the  Standard  Sugar  Kefining 
Company  of  Boston,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Gentlemen  : As  importers  and  refiners  of  sugar,  we  ask  for  a tariff 
that  will  not  discriminate  against  the  importation  of  low  grades  of  sugar. 
The  present  tariff  favors  the  importation  of  high- testing  sugars,  that  are 
partially  refined  at  the  place  of  production,  and  prevents  the  importation 
of  a large  amount  of  sugar  produced  in  the  East  Indies  and  elsewhere, 
which,  being  of  very  low  grade,  cannot  be  imported  into  the  United 
States  while  the  present  discriminating  duty  exists.  We  believe  the  ad 
valorem  principle  the  most  practical  and  just  way  of  assessing  duties, 
and  it,  therefore,  is  our  first  choice.  Our  next  choice  is  what  is  known 
as  the  Boston  plan,  which  was  recommended  by  Boston  importers  and 
refiners  generally,  in  1878,  which,  in  effect,  is  nearly  ad  valorem,  and  is 
as  follows: 

On  all  tank  bottoms,  concretes,  sirups  of  sugar-cane  juice,  melado, 
concentrated  melado,  concentrated  molasses,  and  on  all  raw  sugars  not 
above  No.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  testing  by  the  polariscope  not 
above  75  degrees,  1.50  cents  per  pound,  with  an  addition  of  five  one- 
hundredths  of  a cent  for  each  and  every  degree  or  fractional  part  of  a 
degree  above  75°. 

On  all  sugars  above  No.  13  Dutch  staudard  in  color,  and  not  above 
No.  16  Dutch  standard  in  color,  3 cents  per  pound. 

On  all  sugars  above  No.  16  Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  not  above 
No.  20  Dutch  staudard  in  color,  3J  cents  per  pound. 

On  all  sugars  above  No.  20  Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  on  all  re- 
fined sugars,  4J  cents  per  pound. 

On  molasses,  testing  by  the  polariscope  not  above  56°,  5 cents  per 
gallon. 

On  molasses,  testing  by  the  polariscope  above  56°,  10  cents  per  gal- 
lon. 

The  above  rates  would  reduce,  on  the  average,  the  present  exorbitant 
duties  only  about  twenty-five  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds.  We  would 
favor  such  a reduction  as  would  be  consistent  with  the  needs,  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  business  of  the  country,  and  the  benefit  of  the  consumer. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  Do  you  represent  the  refiners  and  importers  of  sugar  ? — 
Answer.  We  are  importers  and  refiners. 

Q.  You  mean  that  you  import  on  your  own  account? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  receive  goods  on  consignment  ? — A.  No,  sir.  We  im- 
port on  our  own  account  the  most  of  our  sugars,  and  we  buy  some  here. 

Q.  Do  you  advocate  the  polariscopie  test  on  all  sugars  below  No.  13 
Dutch  standard,  as  the  test  of  the  quality  of  the  sugar  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I would  like  some  information  on  the  question  of  drawbacks.  Do 
you  think  the  law  on  the  subject  of  drawbacks  could  be  so  construed 
as  to  be  adapted  to  the  bonded  warehouse  system  ? One  of  the  wit- 
nesses has  stated  that  the  law  on  the  subject  of  drawbacks  leaves  too 
much  discretion  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  deter- 
mining the  amounts  of  drawback  which  he  would  like  to  see  placed  on 


694 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  B.  THOMAS. 


sugars  and  other  imported  articles.  To  avoid  putting  that  power  and 
discretion  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  it  was  sug- 
gested that  it  might  be  proper  to  adopt  a system  of  bonded  warehouses 
where  sugar  might  be  placed  and  refined  in  bond. — A.  I think  it  would 
be  a difficult  matter  for  refiners  to  refine  in  bond ; I do  not  know  how 
that  could  be  done.  We  should  be  compelled  to  have  custom-house 
officers  present  during  the  refining  process,  and  that  would  be  very 
troublesome  and  expensive. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  I think  perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  recall 
the  gentleman  who  made  that  statement  this  morning  (Mr.  H.  O.  Have- 
ineyer),  and  have  him  repeat,  in  your  presence,  his  system  of  refining 
in  bond,  so  that  you  could  state  after  hearing  it  whether  you  think  it 
would  suit  the  refiners  of  Boston. 

Mr.  H.  O.  Havemeyer  repeated  his  statement  as  follows : 

u One  word  as  to  the  matter  of  refining  in  bond.  No  sugar  tariff  is 
adequate  which  does  not  make  suitable  provision  for  refining  in  bond. 
Then,  without  injury  to  any  interests,  American  capital  and  labor,  to  a 
large  amount,  are  benefited ; and  not  only  in  refining,  but  for  transpor- 
tation, handling,  storage,  wharfage,  mercantile  transactions,  and  the 
like.  In  addition  to  a system  of  drawbacks,  a safe  and  secure  arrange- 
ment should  be  made  for  bonding  refineries,  permitting  sugars  to  be 
refined  without  preliminary  payment  of  duty  when  desired,  providing 
for  the  return  of  a drawback  on  exportations  where  a duty  upon  im- 
portation has  been  paid  ; and  providing,  further,  that  the  products  of 
refineries  may  be  withdrawn  from  the  bond  for  consumption  upon  pay- 
ment t hen  of  the  same  duties  upon  such  products  as  under  the  law  would 
be  required  upon  their  importation. 

“ A system  of  drawbacks  is  liable  to  lead  to  differences  with  the  gov- 
ernment. This  paralyzes  transactions.  The  difficulty  will  be  obviated 
by  giving  the  option  to  refine  in  bond.  An  exact  and  practical  system, 
binding  both  upon  the  government  and  upon  the  refiner,  will  enable 
the  latter  to  proceed  without  being  deterred  by  fear  of  differences  about 
the  administration  of  the  law.” 

Mr.  Havemeyer. — Bonded  warehouses  now  exist  with  great  advan- 
tage to  the  American  people,  and  I do  not  see  why  the  same,  system 
could  not  be  be  applied  to  refining  sugar  in  bond  for  the  benefit  of  those 
who  feel  disposed  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  There  would  be  nothing 
compulsory  about  it. 

Q.  [To  the  Witness.]  Bo  you  think  that  a refiner  could  refine  sugars 
under  the  system  described  by  Mr.  Havemeyer? — A.  I have  not  had 
time  to  think  much  upon  that  subject,  but  I cannot  see  any  great  advan- 
tage in  it  at  present,  though  I may  change  my  mind  when  I have  given 
the  subject  fuller  consideration.  Mr.  Havemeyer  has  probably  consid- 
ered the  matter  very  carefully,  and  I should  like  an  opportunity  to  do 
the  same. 

Q.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  exporting  sugars  to  any  extent  so  that 
your  attention  would  be  called  to  such  a system? — A.  Not  a great  deal 
during  the  last  year.  We  have  in  some  years  exported  largely,  how- 
ever. 

Q.  You  understand  that  the  system  of  drawbacks,  particularly  as  ap- 
plicable to  sugars,  is  a very  important  one,  and  the  Commission  are  en- 
deavoring to  ascertain  what  modification  of  that  system  should  be  con- 
sidered by  them.  They  are  well  aware  of  the  responsibility  thrown  upon 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  acts  as  arbiter  in  the  case  and  fixes 
the  rate  of  drawback.  That,  of  course,  places  very  great  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  Secretary,  and  that  is  the  reason  I ask  this  question.  We 


JAMES  B.  THOMAS.] 


SUGAR  REFINING. 


G95 


want  to  get  at  the  best  system  possible  for  the  allowance  of  drawbacks 
on  sugars.  Can  you  state  what  is  the  amount  of  sugar  that  you  refine 
in  proportion  to  the  aggregate  amount  refined  in  the  United  States  ?■ — 
A.  I could  not,  without  going  into  calculations  which  would  occupy 
some  time.  I can  tell  you  how  much  our  company  refines.  We  have  a 
capacity  for  melting  600,000  pounds  of  sugar  a day.  We  do  not  always 
run  to  our  fullest  capacity,  but  the  average  toe  year  around  would,  per* 
haps,  be  a half  a million  or  550,000  pounds  a day. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Making  your  annual  product  how  much?  Or  give  us  the  decrease 
in  meltage. — A.  We  ought  to  allow  about  3 or  4 per  cent,  for  meltage, 
depending  upon  the  quality  of  the  sugar. 

1 have  had  some  facilities  in  regard  to  ascertaining  the  prices  of 
sugar  in  California.  The  prices  in  San  Francisco  on  all  grades,  from 
yellow  sugars  up  to  the  best  white  sugars,  run  from  1J  to  2§  cents  a 
pound  higher  than  the  consumer  has  to  pay  here ; the  consumer  there 
has  to  pay  about  that  percentage  more  than  he  does  here  on  the  aver- 
age. It  is  a monopoly  there  and  they  are  now  extending  their  business. 
They  sell  what  they  can  in  California  at  an  exorbitant  price — between 
two  and  three  cents  a pound  more  than  we  get  here — and  the  surplus 
they  ship  east  to  Kansas  City  and  Saint  Louis,  and  probably  they  will 
ship  it  as  far  east  as  Chicago  before  long.  The  production  of  the  Sand- 
wich Islands  is  increasing  very  fast,  from  10,000,000  pounds  a few  years 
ago  to  70,000,000  this  year,  and  probably  80,000,000  pounds  will  be  the 
next  crop.  I was  in  San  Francisco  in  the  early  times  when  we  received 
but  very  little  sugar  there;  perhaps  we  would  receive  in  San  Francisco 
3,000,000  or  4,000,000  pounds  of  a low  grade  of  yellow  sugar.  It  is  only 
within  a few  years  that  we  have  begun  to  import  the  higher  grades. 
They  are  making  much  higher  grades  of  sugar  there  by  reason  of  the 
process  of  refining  than  in  former  years.  The  monopoly  is  a very  great 
one.  They  discriminate  against  wholesale  dealers  in  sugar  whenever 
they  please.  If  the  dealers  import  sugar  from  the  Atlantic  States  these 
men  refuse  to  sell  them  their  sugar.  They  compel  them  to  pay  their 
own  prices  there,  or  otherwise  they  will  not  sell  to  them.  Of  course, 
getting  their  raw  sugars  cheaply,  and  receiving  a large  price  for  them, 
it  makes  it  very  hard  for  us  to  meet  them  half-way  across  the  continent 
and  compete  with  them  in  the  selling  of  their  surplus,  which  they  can 
afiord  to  sell  at  almost  any  price. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  positively  and  unequivocally  that  the 
price  of  sugar  sold  to  the  consumer  at  San  Francisco,  and  on  the  Pacific 
coast,  is  from  1J  to  2f  cents  higher  than  the  price  that  the  consumer  on 
this  side  gets  his  sugar  for? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  case,  and  it  has 
been  for  the  last  two  or  three  years. 

Q.  And  there  has  been  an  inordinate  increase  of  sugar  imported  from 
the  Sandwich  Islands? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  this  owing  to  the  fact  of  an  increase  in  the  cultivation  of  cane 
and  the  manufacture  of  sugar,  or  does  it  arise  from  commercial  rela- 
tions with  China,  Java,  and  Japan,  or  is  it  introduced  under  this  Ha- 
waiian treaty? — A.  They  are  working  in  the  United  States  to  better  ad- 
vantage than  formerly,  and  also  extending  the  fields  of  production  very 
fast  in  the  Sandwich  Islands.  Labor  is  cheap  there,  and  the  principal 
refiner  in  San  Francisco  is  a large  owner  of  sugar  estates  in  the  Sand- 
wich Islands. 


69  6 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  B.  THOMAS. 


Q.  The  labor  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  consists  principally  of  Chinese 
and  coolies  from  the  English  colonies  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  rate  paid  for  that  kind  of  labor  ? — A.  I do  not  recol- 
lect now,  but  I know  it  is  cheap  ; it  must  be,  necessarily. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  a monopoly  ; what  do  you  mean  precisely  when  you 
use  that  word  ? — A.  There  are  only  two  or  three  refiners  in  San  Fran- 
cisco or  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and  I believe  only  one  in  Oregon,  and  they 
can  fix  their  prices  and  get  just  what  they  choose  to  ask. 

Q.  Then  the  prices  to  the  consumer  have  not  been  lowered  on  ac- 
count of  the  Hawaiian  treaty ? — A.  No,  sir ; not  at  all. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  You  have  been  a resident  of  California? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  of  any  efforts  having  been  made  in  California  to 
manufacture  sugar  from  the  beet  root? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  Hawaiian  treaty  upon  that  man- 
ufacture ? — A.  It  has  been  very  much  depressed  in  consequence  of  it, 
and  a great  many  have  abandoned  the  business.  A good  deal  of  money 
was  put  into  that  industry  some  years  ago,  but  I do  not  think  anyone 
made  much  from  it;  still  some  are  trying  to  manufacture  it  now. 

Q.  Had  these  parties  you  refer  to  any  prosperity  before  this  treaty 
was  made  ? — A.  They  had  hardly  got  fairly  under  way  at  that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  public  sentiment  in  California  is  that 
that  industry  was  checked  by  the  operation  of  the  Hawaiian  treaty  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir  ; that  is  the  general  impression  ; that  the  industry  was  very 
much  checked.  In  1880  the  importation  of  sugar  into  the  United  States 
from  the  Sandwich  Islands  amounted  to  64,301,365  pounds.  In  1881 
the  imports  amounted  to  88,438,000  pounds,  showing  a great  increase 
over  the  previous  year. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  the  area  of  sugar  production  in  the  Sandwich  Islands  capable  of 
being  enlarged  ? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; they  can  enlarge  it  to  a great  extent. 
In  conclusion  1 will  submit  a table  showing  the  relative  prices  of  re- 
fined sugars  in  San  Francisco  and  New  York,  as  follows : 

CRUSHED. 


San 

Francisco. 

New  York. 

Difference. 

1882. 

Anpnst,  8 

$0  12J 

m 

12! 

1-a 

$0  09 1 
09 1 
09& 

m 

09§ 

09! 

09! 

$0  02J 
022 

9 

10 

02$ 

12 

025 

15 

12! 

12! 

12! 

oaf 

00 

16 

17 

03 

CUBES. 


1882. 

A n mi  at,  8 . 

12! 

12! 

09! 

03 

10 

09* 

09! 

09! 

09! 

03 

12 

12! 

12! 

12! 

12! 

03 

15 

03 

16 

03 

17 

09! 

03 

JAMBS  B.  THOMAS.] 


SUGAR  REFINING. 


697 


POWDERED. 


1 

San 

Francisco. 

New  York. 

Difference. 

1882. 

August  8 

12| 

32J 

12| 

12! 

12! 

12! 

09!  to  09§ 
09£ 

09£  to  09§ 
09!  to  09! 
09!  to  09! 
09!  to  09! 

03!  to  03! 
03J 

10 

12 

03J  to  03! 
03|  to  03! 
03!  to  03! 
03§  to  03! 

15  

16 

17 

GRANULATED. 


1882. 

August  8 

32 

09! 

09 

02! 

02f! 

10 

12 

12 

12 

09! 

09! 

09T3S  to  09! 
09! 

02! 

15 

32 

02f 

02!!  to  02! 
02! 

16 

12 

17 

12 

FINE  POWDERED. 

1882. 

August  8 

13J 

09! 

09| 

03! 

02! 

17 

13! 

Tlie  San  Francisco  prices  are  taken  from  the  San  Francisco  Trade 
Review,  and  the  New  York  prices  are  taken  from  Coombs7  New  York 
Market  Report.  We  find  the  prices  of  sirups  in  San  Francisco  to  be 
80  per  cent,  higher  than  here. 


698 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  G.  WEBSTER. 


JOHN  G.  WEBSTEB. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Mr.  John  G.  Webster  was  read 
and  ordered  to  be  printed: 

To  the  honorable  Commission  on  Revision  of  the  Tariff: 

Your  attention  is  respectfully  requested  to  the  article  of  mustard  oil, 
or  fixed  oil  of  mustard,  which  is  rated  by  the  present  existing  tariff  at 
25  cents  per  gallon.  This  rate  of  duty  protects  no  interest  in  this  coun- 
try, as  the  amount  manufactured  here  is  very  small;  in  fact,  the  use  for 
the  oil  heretofore  has  been  very  limited. 

As  to  its  importation,  the  statistics  for  1879  and  1880  showr  none 
brought  into  any  port  of  the  United  States.  In  1881  there  was  entered 
but  four-tenths  of  a gallon,  which  paid  a duty  amounting  to  10  cents. 
The  first  two  quarters  of  the  present  year  show  no  imports.  Back  of 
1879  we  could  not  readily  get  access  to  statistics. 

Large  quantities  of  the  oil  could  be  used  for  mill  purposes  in  combi- 
nation with  other  oils  if  it  could  be  landed  at  a less  price,  and  we 
would  therefore  respectfully  represenst  that  a duty  of  10  cents  per  gallon 
would  insure  to  the  government  a handsome  revenue,  which  it  does  uots 
at  present  rate  of  duty,  enjoy. 

John  G.  Websier. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 


ARTHUR  WILLIAMS  ET  AL.] 


SALTPETER. 


699 


ARTHUR  WILLIAMS. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25,  1882. 

Mr.  Arthur  Williams,  of  Boston,  president  of  tbe  Oriental  Powder 
Mills,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

We  are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  powder  and  converted  salt- 
peter. I desire  to  state  that  three-fourths  of  the  gunpowder  made  in 
this  country  is  made  from  nitrate  of  soda,  which  is  imported  from  South 
America  free  of  duty.  If  you  abolish  the  duty  on  saltpeter  it  does  not 
stimulate  the  importation  at  all.  As  we  have  shown  in  the  paper  which 
will  be  read  by  Mr.  Chandler,  this  industry  gives  employment  to  a large 
number  of  people  in  this  country.  The  consumption  of  nitrate  of  soda 
will  still  continue,  for  this  reason : That  it  costs  about  50  per  cent,  less 
than  saltpeter  even  if  the  tariff  is  taken  off.  The  price  of  nitrate  of 
soda  is  about  cents  a pound,  while  the  price  ot  salpeter  is  6 cents  a 
pound.  Assuming  that  you  make  saltpeter  free,  and  the  price  is  one 
cent  a pound  less,  we  will  have  saltpeter  costing  5 cents,  as  against 
nitrate  of  soda  costing  2.J  cents,  and  the  cheaper  article  makes  a better 
article  of  powder  for  blasting  purposes.  About  three-fourths  of  the 
powder  used  in  this  country  is  used  for  blasting  purposes.  There  is  but 
a very  small  portion  of  powder  used  as  ammunition.  The  finer  grades  of 
gunpowder  are  made  from  Calcutta  saltpeter  and  from  the  converted  salt- 
peter. There  is  a large  capital  invested  at  present  in  the  industry,  and 
we  should  regard  it  as  almost  a total  annihilation  of  our  interests,  to  say 
nothing  of  its  national  effects,  if  the  duty  should  be  removed.  We  are 
entirely  independent  of  England  now  for  our  supply  of  this  article. 
Our  government  has  in  years  past  appropriated  as  much  as  $100,000  a 
year  in  the  preparation  of  refined  saltpeter,  and  it  has  large  quantities 
of  the  article  deposited  for  future  use.  But  the  amount  the  government 
has  at  its  disposal  is  not  more  than  one  year’s  average  importation,  and 
if  we  should  get  into  war  with  a foreign  power  we  should  have  to  use 
*this  converted  niter.  That  is  the  whole  story  as  far  as  our  business  is 
concerned.  I do  not  think  there  is  any  necessity  for  making  a change. 
Our  business  has  been  conducted  on  this  basis  for  many  years,  and  there 
seems  to  be  no  complaint  from  any  source  in  regard  to  the  present  tariff. 
We  do  not  interfere  with  any  other  industry  in  the  country,  and  our 
business  will  certainly  be  destroyed  if  saltpeter  is  admitted  free. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  It  lias  been  stated  to  us  that  there  is  a large  amount 
of  capital  invested  in  the  business.  Can  you  tell  us  about  what  the 
total  amount  is  ? — Answer.  I think  about  half  a million  dollars  is  in- 
vested in  this  industry  to-day,  in  factories  and  stock;  perhaps  more. 
My  own  company  is  a large  producer,  and  we  are  only  doing  a fair  busi- 
ness as  it  is,  with  our  present  protection.  We  do  not  come  here  asking 
that  the  duty  on  saltpeter  shall  be  increased;  we  shall  be  perfectly  sat- 
isfied if  it  remains  as  it  is. 

Q.  The  crude  nitrate  of  potash  is  worth  as  imiiorted  here,  paying 
duty,  about  6 cents  a pound? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  we  get  about  Gf  cents 
a pound  for  the  material  after  it  has  been  refined  from  the  crude  mate- 
rial. We  make  pure  nitrate  of  potash,  the  same  as  it  comes  from  India. 

Q.  You  get  for  your  refined  nitrate  of  potash  cents  a pound  and 


700 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ARTHUR  WILLIAMS  ET  AL. 


it  is  tlie  chemical  equivalent  of  the  pure  nitrate  of  potash  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  It  is  put  up  in  barrels  for  shipping  and  is  about  the  equivalent  of 
the  crude  saltpeter  at  6 cents  a pound. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  Where  do  you  get  your  potash  from  ? — A.  From  the  continent  of 
Europe. 

Q.  In  what  form  does  it  come  ? — A.  In  crystals.  It  is  a mealy  sub- 
stance and  is  shipped  in  bags,  the  same  as  nitrate  of  soda,  which  is  a 
manufactured  product.  The  two  articles  combined  make  the  present 
nitrate  of  potash. 


Mr.  Alfred  B.  Chandler,  attorney  at  law,  Boston,  said: 

I appear  here  in  the  interest  of  certain  corporations  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  converted  saltpeter,  to  enter  a protest  against  a sug- 
gestion made  to  the  Commissiou  yesterday  for  the  removal  of  the  duty 
on  crude  saltpeter.  The  protest,  which  has  been  prepared  by  the  manu- 
facturers whom  I represent,  reads  as  follows : 

To  the  Commissioners  appointed  to  consider  a revision  of  the  tariff : — 

The  undersigned,  manufacturers  of  converted  saltpeter,  in  behalf  of 
themselves  and  others,  respectfully  protest  against  any  reduction  of  the 
tariff  on  crude  or  on  refined  saltpeter,  for  the  following  among  other 
reasons : 

The  capital  invested  in  the  manufacture  of  converted  saltpeter  in  the 
United  States  is  very  large. 

To  make  imported  saltpeter  free  would  close  up  every  domestic  fac- 
tory of  converted  saltpeter  in  the  country. 

The  British  Government  control  the  entire  exportation  of  crude  salt- 
peter (nitrate  of  potash)  in  the  world.  It  is  in  the  power  of  that  gov- 
ernment to  prohibit  the  exportation  of  this  saltpeter  to  the  United 
States,  a power  already  twice  exercised  in  the  past  twenty-seven  years, 
once  during  the  Crimean  war  and  once  since. 

To  close  the  domestic  factories  of  converted  saltpeter,  and  to  so  put 
this  country  in  the  power  of  Great  Britain,  is  certainly  unadvisable  ; 
therefore  no  reduction  should  be  made  of  the  tariff  on  crude  or  on  re- 
fined saltpeter. 

ORIENTAL  POWDER  MILLS, 
By  ARTHUR  WILLIAMS, 

President . 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25, 1882. 

I would  like  to  say  a few  words  in  explanation  of  this  protest.  As 
you  may  know,  the  natural  saltpeter  of  the  world  is  found  almost  en- 
tirely on  the  plains  of  India,  and  it  is  controlled  by  the  English  Gov- 
ernment. The  duty  on  that  saltpeter  is  one  cent  a pound.  This  natural 
saltpeter  goes  in  the  market  by  the  name  of  Calcutta  saltpeter,  or,  more 
commonly,  crude  saltpeter.  Within  the  last  quarter  of  a century  in 
this  country  there  has  been  developed  the  manufacture  of  what  is  com- 
mercially known  as  u converted  saltpeter.”  This  converted  saltpeter, 
as  distinguished  from  the  crude  saltpeter  of  India,  is  composed  of  nitrate 
of  soda,  which  is  imported  from  Chili  free  of  duty.  That  nitrate  of  soda 
is  then  compounded  with  muriate  of  potash,  and  the  chemical  product 
of  the  two  is  nitrate  of  potash,  or  what  we  call  in  the  market  here  u con- 
verted saltpeter.”  The  business  of  manufacturing  this  converted  salt- 


ARTHUR  WILLIAMS  ET  AL.J 


SALTPETER. 


701 


peter  is  very  large  in  this  country.  It  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the 
liner  grades  of  gunpowder.  It  is  also  very  largely  employed  in  pack- 
ing meats  and  provisions,  an  industry  which,  as  we  all  know,  is  very 
extensive  in  the  United  States.  This  home  industry,  this  manufacture 
of  converted  saltpeter,  is  a well-established  business  in  several  of  the 
States  of  the  Union,  and  I understand  that  the  aggregate  capital 
employed  is  very  large. 

The  proposition  which  was  submitted  here  yesterday  to  have  the  tariff, 
on  the  crude  saltpeter  of  India  removed,  would  have  this  effect  on  the 
home  manufacturers  of  converted  saltpeter:  It  would  make  the  crude 
saltpeter  free,  and  would  ultimately  close  up  all  the  home  manufactures 
of  converted  saltpeter.  Now,  if  these  home  industries  are  of  necessity 
to  be  closed  up  in  this  way,  the  result,  as  we  look  at  it,  is  inevitable, 
that  this  country  will  be  dependent  on  England  for  its  saltpeter ; and 
England,  as  is  well  known,  has  twice  in  my  lifetime — once,  as  this  pro- 
test shows,  in  the  Crimean  war — forbidden  the  exportation  of  saltpeter 
from  India  to  this  country  and  to  other  countries.  It  is  perfectly  plain, 
then,  without  any  further  elaboration,  that  if  you  close  the  home  in- 
dustry of  the  manufacture  of  converted  saltpeter  by  taking  off  the  tariff*, 
you  might  put  this  country  i n a very  awkward  position.  The  two  points, 
then,  which  I wish  to  cover  by  these  few  words  are  these : To  remove 
the  tariff  on  the  crude  saltpeter  of  India  will,  first,  close  the  factories 
now  devoted  to  the  production  of  converted  saltpeter  here;  and,  second, 
which  is  a matter  of  national  importance,  will  subject  the  United  States 
to  the  caprice  and  will  of  Great  Britain  for  the  introduction  of  the  salt- 
peter supply.  These  two  reasons  are  amply  sufficient,  as  it  seems  to  us, 
to  induce  the  Commission  to  recommend  that  no  change  whatever  in 
the  present  tariff  on  saltpeter  shall  be  made. 


702 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWIN  F.  ATKINS. 


EDWIN  F.  ATKINS. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  25, 1882. 

Mr.  Edwin  F.  Atkins,  of  Boston,  representing  the  sugar-importing 
interest,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows  : 

1 desire  to  present  to  the  Commission  a document  which  has  been 
signed  by  all  the  sugar  importers  in  Boston.  With  your  permission  I 
will  read  the  paper  at  length: 

“ The  undersigned,  sugar  importers  of  Boston,  recommend  a reduc- 
tion in  the  duties  on  raw  sugars : 

u 1.  Because  it  will  give  the  consumer  his  refined  sugars  at  lower 
prices,  increase  the  consumption,  and  thereby  benefit  both  the  importer 
and  refiner. 

“ 2.  Because  we  believe  a cheaper  sugar  would  check  its  adulteration 
with  glucose,  which  at  times  has  been  so  largely  carried  on  by  middle- 
men or  mixers. 

u3.  Because  it  would  remove  the  principal  reason  of  Spain  in  keep- 
ing her  high  rates  of  duty  on  provisions,  and  induce  a reduction  on  her 
part,  opening  a large  market  for  our  exports,  and  turning  Cuba  to  this 
country  for  her  supplies  now  so  largely  purchased  iu  Europe. 

“E.  Atkins  & CO. 

“Willett,  Hamlin  & Co. 

“Dana  Bros. 

“Benj.  Burgen  & Sons. 

“ Whitney,  Kirtland  & Co. 

“Alf.  Winsor  & Son. 

“Kufus  C.  Cushman  & Co. 

“Chas.  V.  Porter  & Co.’I * * * * * 7 

I also  desire  to  make  a few  remarks  on  this  subject,  giving  my  own 
personal  views.  What  I now  say  is  on  my  own  responsibility. 

The  argument  of  the  Louisiana  planters  iu  favor  of  a high  rate  of 
duty  is  that  they  need  it  as  a protection  against  the  slave  labor  of  Cuba. 
I beg  your  attention  to  the  following  figures : 

The  number  of  slaves  nowin  Cuba  is  about  180,000 ; this  includes 
men  and  women ; by  no  means  are  all  of  this  number  employed  in  the 
raising  of  sugar,  very  many  being  engaged  in  the  tobacco  interests, 
others  as  laborers  in  the  cities,  and  a large  proportion  are  house 
servants. 

Under  the  existing  laws  of  Spain  the  slaves  of  Cuba  will  be  freed 
during  the  next  four  years,  a proportion  each  year.  Each  slave  has  a 
right  to  buy  himself  at  a price  fixed  by  the  government,  a price  which, 
the  present  year,  amounts  to  $200,  and  reduces  $50  per  year  as  their 
time  of  servitude  draws  to  a close.  The  law  compels  their  owners  to 
pay  to  each  able-bodied  male  $3  per  month,  and  to  each  female  $2,  besides 
furnishing  food  and  clothing.  The  old  negroes  and  the  younger  ones, 

although  free,  must  be  cared  for  by  the  owners,  so  it  can  be  readily  un- 
derstood that  two  hands  have  to  be  fed  for  every  able-bodied  slave. 

Calculating  the  cost  of  food  and  clothing  at  $7  per  month,  a figure  which 

I have  found  to  be  only  a reasonable  one,  gives  us  $L4  per  month ; add 
to  this  average  wages  of  $2.50  and  it  makes  $10.50  per  month  as  the 
nominal  cost  of  present  slave  labor  in  Cuba,  leaving  out  of  the  calcnla- 


EDWIN  F.  ATKINS.] 


IMPORTED  SUGAR. 


703 


tion  loss  of  time  from  sickness  and  other  causes,  when  all  expenses,  ex- 
cept the  $2.50  wages,  must  run  on. 

Free  labor  in  Cuba  ranges  from  $17  to  $27  per  month ; we  may  say 
$22  is  a fair  average  rate.  The  employer  furnishes  food  at  a cost  of  $10 
per  month;  this  gives  a rate  of  $32  per  month  as  the  cost  of  free  labor 
in  Cuba. 

The  Louisiana  planters  are  paying  from  85  cents  per  day  for  hoe  hands 
to  $1.50  for  more  skilled  labor,  the  laborers  furnishing  their  own  food 
and  clothing ; if  we  calculate  an  average  rate  of  $1.25  per  day  for  the 
working  days  of  the  month  we  find  a total  cost  of  $32.50.  Considering 
that  tbe  Louisiana  planter  pays  a day7s  wages  only  for  a day’s  work,  I 
contend  that  the  average  monthly  cost  of  labor  in  Louisiana  is  but  lit- 
tle in  excess  of  cost  of  same  in  Cuba,  and  that  the  Louisiana  planter, 
while  entitled  to  all  due  consideration,  should  not  expect  the  consumers 
to  protect  him  to  the  extent  of  the  present  duty,  amounting  to  some 
$45,000,000  to  $50,000,000,  or  250  per  cent,  of  his  whole  crop. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  What  is  tbe  nature  of  your  business'? — Answer.  We  are 
sugar  importers  and  commission  merchants,  and  bankers  in  the  Island 
of  Cuba. 

Q.  Do  you  import  on  your  own  account1? — A.  We  receive  sugar  mostly 
on  consignment. 

Q.  Then  you  represent  the  foreign  producer  of  sugar  ? — A.  Yes,  sir, 
somewhat. 

Q.  Have  you  imported  largely  on  your  own  account  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  import  do  you  test  the  sugars  by  the  Dutch  standard 
or  by  the  polariscope  ?— A.  By  the  polariscope.  That  is  the  only  method 
we  use. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason  why  the  polariscope  should  not  be 
used  by  the  United  States  Government  in  testing  sugar  as  well  as  by 
individuals  in  their  private  transactions? — A.  I do  not,  provided  we  get 
a reasonably  low  rate  of  duty. 

Q.  Does  the  use  of  the  polariscope  depend  upon  the  rate  of  duty  at 
all ? — A.  It  does  in  this  way : the  higher  the  rate  of  duty  the  more  objec- 
tion there  would  be  to  the  assessment,  because  ot  the  difference  in  rating 
sugar  from  one  degree  to  another ; it  is  more  of  a temptation  to  fraud, 
and  the  harder  it  is  to  collect  a fair  duty. 

Q.  You  mean  the  higher  the  duty  the  greater  the  temptation  to 
fraud  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  not  the  use  of  the  polariscope  lead  to  the  proper  classifica- 
tion of  sugar,  whether  that  sugar  was  worth  five  or  ten  cents  a pound  ? 
— A.  Yes,  sir ; I think  it  would  show  the  gradations  in  sugar  as  fairly 
as  any  means  that  could  be  adopted. 

Q.  You  see  no  objection  to  its  being  used  by  the  government,  then, 
as  well  as  by  the  individual  dealers  in  sugar — the  buyers  and  the  sellers? 
— A.  I do  not. 

Q.  Of  course,  you  recollect  the  time  when,  under  Secretary  Sher- 
man’s order,  all  sugar  imported  was  tested  by  tbe  polariscope.  What 
was  the  difference  between  the  test  made  by  the  government  and  that 
made  bv  the  importer,  as  a rule;  was  there  any  marked  difference  be- 
tween the  two  tests  ? — A.  The  tests  were  made  on  a different  basis. 
Tbe  government  test  was  made  on  tbe  dry  test,  and  the  importers’  on 
the  contents  of  the  hogshead,  which  would,  of  course,  give  the  differ- 
ence in  tbe  moisture  of  the  samples  of  the  sugar. 

Q.  Of  course;  but  the  dry  test  being  fixed  as  a rule,  both  parties 


704 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWIN  F.  ATKINS. 


would  be  compelled  to  use  that  dry  test,  would  they  not?— A.  Both 
parties  are  not  compelled  to,  but  the  government  is  compelled  to,  ac- 
cording to  the  Secretary’s  regulation. 

Q.  I mean  when  an  individual  called  on  the  government  officer  to 
test  sugar  by  the  dry  test,  was  not  the  importer  compelled  to  use  the 
polariscope  on  the  same  basis  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; if  he  wished  to  check  the 
test  of  the  government  appraiser. 

Q.  Are  you  interested  in  the  refining  of  sugar  at  all?— A.  Yes,  sir; 
but  I come  here  to  represent  the  importers  principally. 

Q.  In  selling  sugars  to  the  importers,  the  sale,  I believe,  is  usually 
made  by  the  polariscopic  test,  and  if  the  test  is  not  equal  to  what  it  is 
said  to  be  at  the  place  where  the  sugar  is  purchased,  what  deduction  is 
made  for  each  degree  it  falls  below  the  standard? — A.  It  is  customary 
to  allow  on  centrifugal  sugar  one-tenth  and  on  muscovado  sugar  one- 
eighth  to  one-tenth  per  cent. 

Q.  It  is  never  less  than  one-tenth? — A.  No,  sir;  not  on  centrifugal 
sugar. 

Q.  And  on  muscovado  it  is  one-eighth  percent.? — A.  That  is  accord- 
ing to  the  agreement;  but  the  customary  rate  is  one-tenth.  I have 
bought  both  ways.  In  regard  to  centrifugals,  it  is  the  general  custom 
to  make  an  allowance  of  one-tenth  per  cent.;  of  course,  I speak  of  the 
Boston  custbm. 

Q.  You  do  not  speak  of  the  New  York  usage? — A.  No,  sir;  Idonot. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  total  amount  of  sugar  refined  in  the  United 
States  is  refined  by  the  house  with  which  you  are  connected  ? — A.  1 
have  not  the  figures  of  the  total  refining  capacity  of  the  United  States, 
and  Therefore  could  not  tell  you.  I can  give  you  the  capacity  of  our 
own  house. 

Q.  What  is  the  capacity  of  your  own  house?— A.  We  have  a capa- 
city of  melting  300,000  pounds  of  raw  sugars  per  day,  or  a little  in  ex- 
cess of  that. 

Q.  You  cannot  say  what  proportion  that  is  to  the  aggregate  amount 
refined  in  the  United  States? — A.  I should  not  like  to  make  any  wide 
statement ; I should  prefer  to  figure  at  it. 


WILLIAM  AMORY.  ] 


PORTLAND  CEMENT. 


705 


WILLIAM  AMOEY. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  26,  1882. 

Mr.  William  Amory,  Jr.,  manufacturer  of  Portland  cement,  ad- 
dressed the  Commission  as  follows  : 

I noticed  in  the  public  prints  that  a few  days  ago  an  importer  of  for- 
eign cement  appeared  before  the  Commission  at  Long  Branch  aud  as- 
serted that  Portland  cement  could  not  be  made  in  this  country  because 
no  chalk  existed  here.  I appear  here  for  the  purpose  of  proving  by 
documents,  which  I shall  submit  on  the  subject  of  Portland  cement, 
thait  in  the  manufacture  of  it  chalk  is  not  necessary,  nor  is  it  used 
largely  in  the  manufacture  of  such  cement.  I have  here,  first,  the  writ- 
ten statement  of  Mr.  Crane,  our  superintendent,  which  I will  read,  as 
follows : 

New  York,  August  24,  1882. 

To  the  Tariff  Commission  : 

It  having  been  represented  to  your  honorable  Commission,  that  “Portland cement ,y 
is  not  and  cannot  be  manufactured  in  this  country,  I beg  to  state  that  I am  the  su- 
perintendent of  a Portland  cement  manufactory,  and  have  been  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  Portland  cement  in  this  country  for  several  years.  Also,  that  the 
product  of  our  manufactory  has  been  pronounced  by  users  and  experts  superior  to 
the  English  manufacture,  and  equal  to  the  German  or  French  product.  Also,  that 
Portland  cement  is  manufactured  from  either  chalk  and  clay,  or  limestone  and  clay — 
the  best  cements  of  Germany  and  France  being  manufactured  from  limestone  and  clay 
— and  that  there  are  extensive  deposits  of  limestone  and  clay  in  this  country  eminently 
suited  for  the  manufacture  of  a superior  quality  of  Portland  cement. 

Appended  hereto  is  the  chemical  analysis  of  Portland  cement  manufactured  in 
England,  in  Germany,  and  this  country,  showing  the  articles  to  be  similar  in  all  es- 
sential features. 

Portland  cement  manufactured  in  this  country  was  exhibited  at  the  Philadelphia 
Centennial  Exhibition,  and  was  awarded  a front  rank  by  General  Q.  A.  Gillmore,  in 
his  report  on  that  class. 

A large  amount  of  money  has  been  expended  in  developing  this  industry,  and  man- 
ufacturers have  to  contend  against  false  statements  of  importers,  as  well  as  the  cheap 
labor  of  European  countries,  but,  with  improved  machinery  and  reasonable  protec- 
tion, this  industry  should  become  one  of  great  importance  in  this  country.  At 
least  500,000  barrels  are  now  annually  imported  from  England,  Germany,  France,  and 
Sweden,  paying  a lower  tariff  than  most  of  the  products  of  manufacture  which  have 
become  well  established  in  this  country,  and  are  in  no  need  of  protection.  Sixty  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  would  be  a reasonable  tariff,  and  would  help  protect  the  home  in- 
dustry from  the  attacks  of  foreign  manufacturers,  who  resort  to  every  unfair  means  to 
prevent  its  development.  Such  tariff  would  also  be  in  the  interest  of  our  natural 
cement  manufactories,  who  represent  a great  and  important  industry,  and  would  not 
increase  the  cost  to  consumers. 

Until  recently  the  importers  have  had  the  monopoly  of  the  United  States  market, 
and  their  prices  have  been  arbitrary.  With  increased  production  here  the  cost  of 
manufacture  can  be  considerably  reduced. 

I would  be  pleased  to  appear  before  your  honorable  Commission  and  give  testi- 
mony as  to  this  industry,  and  the  advantage  to  be  derived  from  its  development, 
which  may  be  greatly  aided  by  a reasonable  but  protective  tariff. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  Mis.  6 45 


T.  T.  CRANE. 


706 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  AMORY. 


Chemical  analysis  of  Portland  cements. 


Component  parts.  English. 

German. 

Wallkill. 

Lime  

59.06 
24  07 
6.  92 
3.41 

57.1 

23.2 
9.2 
5.12 

59. 43 
24.10 
8. 13 

Silica 

Alumina  

( )xide  iron 

Peroxide  iron - 

5. 17 
1.  72 
0.  85  ? 
0.  34  > 
Injurious 
0. 45 

Magnesia ... 

0.82 
0.  73  ? 
0.  87  J : 
2.85 

1.32 
0.  58? 
0.  70  J | 
0.64 
1.90 

Potash 

Sulphate  lime 

Carbonic  acid 

Sand,  &c 

1.47 



100.  20 

99.  76 

100. 19 

I desire  to  call  attention  to  this  chemical  analysis  of  the  component 
parts  of  Portland  cement  made  in  this  country,  England,  and  Germanj^, 
showing  that  they  are  almost  identically  the  same. 

In  regard  to  the  matter  of  the  tariff  charge  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
now  imposed  on  the  importation  of  Portland  cement,  presuming  that  a 
tariff'  for  revenue  will  be  approved  by  the  people,  I would  respectfully 
ask  your  board  to  recommend  that  this  duty  may  be  increased.  Under- 
standing that  an  importer  of  Portland  cement  has  appeared  before  you 
to  advocate  a reduction  of  this  duty  on  the  ground  that  this  article  is 
not  made  in  this  country,  and  cannot  be,  because  chalk,  a chief  compo- 
nent in  its  manufacture,  has  nowhere  been  found,  I would  say  in  answer 
that  the  best  Portland  cements  are  made  without  chalk.  One  of  the 
principal  manufacturers  in  England,  viz,  at  Rugby,  making  upwTardsof 
250,000  barrels  per  annum,  and  selling  all  his  product  at  home  because 
of  its  superior  quality,  uses  no  chalk.  In  France,  Germany,  and  Swe- 
den, Portland  cement  is  generally  made  of  limestone  and  clay.  It  may 
be  made  of  a variety  of  stone  containing  the  requisite  chemical  proper- 
ties in  correct  proportions,  or  of  limestone  and  clay,  or  of  chalk  and 
clay. 

One  manufacturer  in  this  country,  using  stone  alone,  is  now-success- 
fully  producing  a good  quality  of  Portland  cement.  A manufacturing 
establishment  in  ISTew  York  has  proved  that  a variety  of  limestone  and 
clay,  conveniently  located,  exists  there  in  inexhaustible  quantities,  and 
they  are  making  from  it  a Portland  cement  in  considerable  quantity, 
which  has  proved  beyond  all  question  that  their  materials  are  suitable 
for  a cement  equal  to  the  best  imported  English  brands.  It  is  probable 
that  deposits  of  lime  and  clay  suitable  for  this  product  will  be  found  in 
every  State. 

In  England  the  manufacture  of  Portland  cement  was  started  in  1829, 
but  with  little  success,  till  in  1859  the  engineers  on  the  London  Drainage 
Works  introduced  its  use  on  a large  scale.  In  twenty -three  years  its 
manufacture  there  has  increased  from  almost  nothing  to  5,000,000  bar- 
rels per  annum.  In  Germany,  in  a much  shorter  time,  it  has  increased 
to  5,000,000  barrels,  and  in  France,  Sweden,  Russia,  and  other  European 
countries  to  about  as  much  more.  If  in  those  countries  already  possessing 
lime,  Roman.,  and  other  cements  similar  to  our  Rosendale  cement,  fifteen 
millions  of  barrels  have  been  made  and  used  per  annum,  surely  in  this 
country  there  must  be  a similar  want  and  pressing  need.  The  high 
price  at  which  Portland  cement  wTas  at  first  introduced  prevented  its 
adoption  for  building  till  lately,  and  the  importation  has  increased  in 
the  last  four  years  from  very  little  to  about  500,000  barrels.  The  price 


WILUAM  AMORY.] 


PORTLAND  CEMENT. 


707 


has  fallen  from  $7  to  $3.  At  this  or  at  a lower  price  the  introduction 
is  likely  to  be* rapid.  At  a higher  price  in  New  York  this  cement  can- 
not be  used  in  the  West  because  of  the  added  cost  for  distant  delivery. 

Should  the  duty  of  20  per  cent,  be  taken  off,  it  is  improbable  that  the 
foreigner  would  sell  lower  on  a market  where  he  finds  no  home  competition. 

Should  the  duty  be  increased,  he  is  not  likely  to  sell  at  higher  prices, 
because  this  would  limit  a sale  which  at  $3  returns  large  profit. 

The  Western  manufacturer  has  increased  protection  in  the  added 
freights.  With  the  protection  of  a reasonable  tariff,  it  is  probable  that 
in  a few  years  Portland  cement  will  be  made  in  large  quantities  in  every 
part  of  the  Union. 

With  increased  protection,  this  industry  must  shortly  have  immense 
proportions. 

With  or  without  protection,  we  must  increase  our  use  of  Portland  ce- 
ment, because  we  must  find  other  materials  for  construction  as  substi- 
tutes for  wood,  now  so  rapidly  diminishing  in  every  State.  Shall  we 
send  our  gold  to  Europe  in  increasing  streams  to  pay  for  millions  of  bar- 
rels of  cement,  for  freights,  insurance,  and  for  profits  to  the  foreigner  ? 

Will  it  not  be  better  for  all  interests  that  this  new  enterprise  shall  be 
assured  a certain  protection  for  a few  years,  and  until  if  shall  become 
well  established  and  able  to  resist  the  attacks  of  the  wealthy  and  pow- 
erful manufacturers  of  Europe,  and  to  supply  the  wants  of  this  country 
at  prices  far  less  than  at  present. 

The  mysteries  thrown  about  the  manufacture  of  Portland  cement 
abroad  have  now  been  brushed  away.  The  methods  are  simple,  easily 
understood,  and  open  to  all.  Suitable  materials  have  not  hitherto  been 
found  because  they  have  not  been  sought.  Immense  quarries  of  lime- 
stone and  deposits  of  clay  exist  in  nearly  every  State.  Suitable  vari- 
eties of  both,  in  convenient  situations  for  development,  will  doubtless 
soon  be  found  and  worked. 

Remembering  how  other  industries  have  been  protected  in  their  in- 
fancy, and  that  this  policy  of  our  government  has  proved  to  be  for  the 
greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number,  I would  ask  you  seriously  to  con- 
sider whether  you  cannot  advocate  a higher  duty.  I would  further  ask 
that  the  importation  of  Portland  cement  clinker,  sent  to  this  country 
to  be  ground  and  made  into  cement,  be  made  subject  to  the  same  duty. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  Where  are  your  works  located  ? — Answer.  Temporarily  at 
Carthage  Landing,  on  the  Hudson  River.  The  principal  works  are  at 
South  Rondout,  on  the  Walkill  River. 

Q.  There  is  a great  deal  of  natural  cement  made  there  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir $ 1,500,000  barrels  of  cement  are  made  in  that  neighborhood  every 
year,  and  we  think  an  increase  in  the  tariff  would  protect  that  industry 
also. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  what  the  manufacturers  in  Ulster  county,  New 
York,  produce  ? — A.  No,  sir,  I have  not.  I have  only  been  informed 
that  their  product  amounts  to  1,500,000  barrels  a year. 

Q.  That  is  the  Roseudale  cement  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Our  product  is  made 
entirely  without  chalk,  which  really  does  not  exist  in  this  country. 
This  is  made  entirely  of  stone  and  without  any  clay,  the  chemical  prop- 
erties all  being  contained  in  the  stone  cement  which  is  dug  out  of  the 
ground,  and  which  is  mixed  according  to  a chemical  analysis  so  as  to 
produce  the  proper  proportions. 

Q.  Why  is  it  that  the  Portland  cement  commands  so  much  larger  a 
price  than  any  other  American  cement u? — A.  At  the  present  prices,  all 


708 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  AMORY. 


tlie  manufacturers  of  Portland  cement  will  tell  you  tliat  it  is  much  cheaper 
than  any  other  kind  of  cement. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  Portland  cement  is  cheaper? — A.  Yes,  sir-;  in 
ultimate  results  to  the  user.  In  using  Kosendale  cement,  for  instance, 
it  may  be  necessary  to  make  one  part  of  sand  and  one  part  of  cement, 
while  with  this  Portland  cement  it  is  only  necessary  to  use  one  part  of 
cement  to  three  parts  of  sand,  which  reduces  the  cost,  and  the  result  is 
a stronger  mixture,  of  greater  binding  power  wherever  it  is  used. 

Q.  You  say  that  one-third  of  the  Portland  cement  and  two-thirds 
of  sand  produces  the  same  result  that  equal  portions  of  sand  and 
the  Kosendale  cement  produce  ? — A.  I said  one-fourth  of  the  Portland 
cement  and  three-fourths  of  sand.  It  makes  a stronger  cement  and  is 
decidedly  cheaper,  a fact  that  is  well  recognized  by  experts.  I do  not 
wish  in  any  way  to  criticise  the  Rosendale  cement,  because  its  use  is 
vastly  extended  in  preference  to  the  use  of  lime  and  water,  and  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  demand  will  always  continue. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  You  say  the  Portland  cement  is  also  more  certain  in  its  results 
than  natural  Cement  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; the  natural  cement  is  made  out  of 
seams  of  rocks  brought  from  different  parts,  and  after  a chemical  an- 
alysis has  been  made,  these  component  parts  are  mixed  together  so  as 
to  produce  a certain  result. 

Q.  Is  not  that  mixture  found  in  the  natural  seam? — A.  No,  sir;  it  is 
not. 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  that  the  manufacture  of  Portland  cement  is 
a commercial  success  at  present? — A.  Yes,  sir;  our  establishment  has 
been  running  now  a year  and  a half.  It  was  established  temporarily  in 
an  old  flour  mill,  as  we  did  not  care  to  venture  too  far  in  buying  costly 
machinery  and  buildings  until  we  demonstrated  the  fact  of  its  being  a 
very  good  product.  It  has  stood  the  highest  tests  to  which  it  has  been 
subjected,  and  it  is  universally  approved  by  constructors,  wherever  it 
has  been  used,  and  there  has  been  quite  a demand  for  it  for  use  in  im- 
portant public  works.  The  Scranton  Steel  Works,  a company  that  is 
putting  in  the  largest  steel-rolling  machinery  in  the  world,  have  used  it 
lately.  They  commenced  to  build  on  a quicksand  in  which  they  have 
had  to  sink  900  barrels  of  our  cement.  They  would  not  have  used  it.  of 
course,  unless  they  had  thoroughly  examined  as  to  its  quality.  We  re- 
ceived an  order  yesterday  for  100  barrels  from  a constructor  on  the 
Wrest  Side  Railroad  who  had  used  50  barrels  previously  within  a fort- 
night, showing  that  he  regarded  our  cement  as  the  best  and  cheapest 
for  his  purpose. 

Q.  Are  there  any  other  points  where  the  Portland  cement  is  made  in 
this  country  besides  those  you  have  named? — A.  I understand  it  has 
been  manufactured  in  a careless  and  slovenly  way  at  a point  near  Port- 
land, or  further  down  the  coast ; I do  not  remember  the  name  of  the 
place.  I understand  also  that  it  has  been  manufactured  on  the  Ohio 
River  near  Cincinnati;  that  large  quarries  of  suitable  limestone  exist  in 
that  locality  and  also  in  Kentucky  and  in  Maine.  We  all  know  that 
limestone  exists  almost  everywhere. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Is  it  manufactured  on  the  Potomac  River  ? — A.  I do  not  know 
whether  it  is  or  not.  There  is  a Louisville  company  making  limestone 
cement.  Portland  cement  is  entirely  different  from  the  natural  stone 
cement. 


EDWIN  S.  BARRETT.] 


GOAT  AND  SHEEP  SKINS. 


709 


EDWIN  S.  BARRETT. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Edwin  S.  Barrett,  of  the  firm  of  Edmands  & Barrett,  of  Bos- 
ton, dealers  in  foreign  goat  and  sheep  skins,  addressed  the  Commission 
as  follows: 

I wish  to  speak  to  the  Commission  in  regard  to  the  repeal  of  the  duty 
on  East  India  tanned  goat  and  sheep  skins.  I represent  the  importers 
of  skins,  and  have  here  with  me  two  gentlemen  who  represent  the  man- 
ufacturers of  East  India  tanned  skins,  as  well  as  one  representing  the 
shoe  interest. 

The  facts  are  these:  Hindostan  has  a yearly  product  of  20,000,000 
goat  skins  and  about  the  same  quantity  of  sheep  skins.  The  sheep 
skins,  to  which  we  shall  particularly  allude,  are  what  are  called  hair  sheep, 
being  a mongrel,  or  what  might  seem  to  be  a crqss  between  a sheep,  and 
a goat,  although  they  are  a distinctive  breed,  and  their  hair,  or  wool,  is 
of  little  or  no  value,  but  their  skins  are  tough  and  of  a lasting  quality, 
nearly  as  good  as  a goat  skin,  and  far  superior  for  shoe  purposes  to  the 
wool-sheep  skinsof  any  country.  Of  this  40,000,000  goat  and  sheep  skins, 
all  the  hair  sheep  are  tanned  in  India,  and  the  larger  part  of  the  goat 
skins;  the  balance  of  the  goat  skins,  some  6,000  bales,  say  3,000,000 
skins,  are  shipped  to  the  United  States,  and  known  as  East  India  raw 
skins.  About  an  equal  quantity,  say  6,000  bales,  or  3,000,000  skins, 
are  shipped  to  this  country  after  being  tanned  in  India,  and  known  as 
East  India  tanned  skins;  so,  in  one  sense,  the  contest  comes  between 
duty  or  no  duty  on  this  3,000,000  raw  goat  skins,  untanned,  against 
the  3,000,000  tanned  goat  skins  tanned  in  India.  There  are  no  raw 
sheep  skins  (hair)  shipped  from  India.  So  that  this  product  of  40,000,000 
skins  will  stand  as  follows,  taking  the  last  three  years  as  a basis: 

Skins. 

Raw  goat  skins  shipped  to  the  United  States 3,  000,  000 

Tanned  goat  skins  shipped  to  the  United  States 3,  000, 000 

Tanned  sheep  skins  shipped  to  the  United  States 3, 000,  000 

Shipped  to  Europe,  or  absorbed  in  India  for  the  wants  of  its  own  people.  31,  000, 000 

Total 40,000,000 

There  are  no  raw  skins  sent  to  Europe,  so  that  what  Europe  receives 
are  in  the  tanned  state.  We  are  not  referring  in  any  way  to  wool-sheep 
skius.  These  skins  are  shipped  from  Madras,  Bombay,  and  Calcutta, 
lirincipally  from  Madras,  by  steamers  through  the  Suez  Canal  to  London, 
with  an  average  passage  of  sixty  days  from  Madras  to  New  York  or 
Boston. 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  refer  to  the  value  of  these  East  India  goat 
and  sheep  skins,  both  raw  and  tanned.  The  3,000,000  raw  goat  skins 
would  average  to  cost  40  cents  each,  or  $1,200,000;  the  3,000,000  tanned 
goat  skins  would  cost  an  average  of  65  cents,  with  present  10  per  cent, 
duty  paid,  or,  say,  $1,900,000 ; the  3,000,000  tanned  sheep  skins  would 
average  to  cost,  with  the  10  percent,  duty  paid,  55  cents  each,  or  $1,250,000; 
so  the  aggregate  value  of  the  tanned  skins  from  India  represents  a value 
of  $3,150,000  against  an  import  of  raw  goat  skins  of  the  value  of 
$1,200,000. 

Now,  here  is  the  case  in  a nutshell:  There  are  in  the  United  States 


710 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWIN  S.  BARRETT. 


about  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  morocco  manufacturers;  about 
twenty-five  of  this  number  manufacture  to  a considerable  extent  in  their 
factories  these  raw  East  India  goat  skins;  there  are  fifty,  or  double  this 
number,  who  manufacture  the  India  tanned  skins  to  a greater  or  less 
extent;  some  manufacture  them  altogether,  and  others  use  both  India 
tanned  skins,  and  also  tan  the  raw  skins,  raw  skins  from  other  coun- 
tries as  well  as  from  India,  and  the  remaining  fifty  manufacturers  use 
Mexican,  South  American,  and  skins  from  other  countries  besides  India. 
These  twenty-five  manufacturers  of  raw  East  India  goat  skins  have 
prospered  on  the  average  better  than  any  other  branch  of  the  leather 
manufacturing  industry ; in  fact,  this  is  true  of  the  whole  morocco  trade. 

These  twenty-five  manufacturers,  seeing  the  rapid  growth  of  the 
trade  and  manufacture  of  India  tanned  skins,  which  has  already  out- 
stripped their  business,  seek  to  retard  it,  possibly  destroy  it,  by  an  in- 
crease of  duties.  A business  of  $1,200,000  per  annum,  still  as  large  in 
volume  as  ever  known,  seeks  to  kill  out  a business  of  $3,150,000  per 
annum ; but  the  simple  fact  is,  gentlemen,  that  the  day  for  importing 
raw  goat  skins  from  India  has  gone  by,  for  the  reason  that  the  produ- 
cers had  rather  sell  their  skins  green  to  the  home  tanners  than  take 
the  risk  of  drying  and  curing  them  for  the  United  States;  in  fact,  the 
United  States  is  the  only  country  that  takes  the  raw  skins  away  from 
India  at  all,  every  other  country  preferring  to  buy  them  tanned.  An- 
other reason  is,  that  India  raw  skins  are  double  the  cost  of  what  they 
were  twenty-live  years  ago,  caused  by  the  increased  demand  for  morocco 
all  over  the  world,  particularly  the  United  States,  and  being  a low  grade 
of  skins  the  advance  has  been  greater  than  in  any  other  kinds;  lienee 
the  greater  difficulty  these  twenty  five  India  raw  goat  manufacturers 
experience  in  getting  large  profits;  but,  under  any  circumstances,  duty 
or  no  duty,  we  cannot  see  how  the  importation  of  raw  India  goat  skins 
is  likely  to  increase.  After  long  experience  manufacturers  find  it  safer 
to  buy  the  skins  already  tanned,  as  for  the  past  few  years  the  quality 
of  the  tanned  skins  is  much  better  relatively  than  the  raw  goods,  and 
then  the  risk  of  tanning  is  always  great,  and  has  been  particularly  the 
case  of  late  years,  many  manufacturers  having  suffered  losses  as  high  as 
50  per  cent,  on  certain  invoices. 

Here  is  rather  an  interesting  fact : Some  dozen  years  or  more  ago 

the  duty  on  tanned  skins  was  20  nr  25  per  cent.,  and  the  National  Morocco 
Exchange  petitioned  Congress  to  take  off  the  duty  or  reduce  it,  and  the 
duty  was  finally  brought  down  to  10  per  cent.,  where  it  is  to-day.  A few 
manufacturers  wish  it  raised  25  per  cent.,  making  35  percent.,  but  only  a 
few.  The  president  of  the  National  Morocco  Exchange  manufactures  in 
his  factory  nothing  but  India  tanned  skins,  and  is  in  favor  of  removing 
the  existing  10  per  cent,  duty;  and  this  is  the  feeling  among  a large  num- 
ber of  the  morocco  manufacturers. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  place  this  India  morocco  fills  in  the  great 
leather  industry  : The  United  States  j>roduce  a very  few  goat  skins,  not 
enough  to  be  worth  considering.  Our  neighbor  Mexico,  x>roduces  the 
best  and  highest  grades.  South  and  Central  America,  Curacoa,  and 
Bio  Hache  produce  high-priced  skins,  while  large  quantities  are  brought 
here  from  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  all  superior  to  East  India  skins,  and 
representing  in  the  total  a yearly  value  of  $10,000,000.  Now,  is  it  worth 
while  to  protect  $1,200,000  worth  of  low-grade  skins  from  India,  or  raise 
the  existing  duty,  on  a business  which  from  the  rapid  growth  of  the 
morocco  trade,  and  other  circumstances  which  I have  mentioned,  must 
relatively  decline? 

The  comparative  cost  of  labor  between  our  country  and  India  and 


EDWIN  S BARRETT.] 


GOAT  AND  SHEEP  SKINS. 


711 


Europe  is  in  this  case  a matter  of  small  moment  One  educated  Amer- 
ican workman  will  do  as  much  in  a day  as  ten  indolent  East  Indian 
laborers,  or  twice  as  much  as  the  poorer  paid  European  workman,  and 
as  citizens  and  men  there  is  no  comparison,  and  for  this  reason  they 
receive  liberal  compensation. 

Now,  let  us  see,  gentlemen,  who  wear  the  India  tanned  goat  and  sheep 
skin  shoe.  The  fashion  of  the  day,  and  likely  to  be  a permanent  one 
among  the  female  population  of  the  country,  is  for  a neat,  serviceable 
button  or  lace  boot;  intact,  women  and  children  throughout  the  land 
demand  and  wear  this  for  a best  boot  beyond  any  other  kind.  Now, 
boots  from  East  India  skins,  of  really  excellent  quality,  can  be  bought 
at  from  $2  to  $5  per  pair,  while  those  from  the  finer  grades  of  morocco 
will  cost  from  $5  to  $12  per  pair,  and  the  great  middling  and  poorer 
classes  cannot  afford  to  buy  the  higher  priced  article;  and  if  ihe  duty  is 
raised  25  per  cent,  on  India  tanned  skins,  up  goes  the  cost  of  every  pair 
of  shoes  made  from  this  leather,  and  all  for  the  benefit  of  twenty-five 
wealthy  morocco  manufacturers,  and  against  the  protest  of  fifty  other 
equally  wealthy  manufacturers  of  India  tanned  skins.  The  India  tanned 
goat  and  sheep  skins,  after  partially  retanning  here,  make  such  hand- 
some and  durable  shoes  that  our  wives  and  daughters  think  they  are  get- 
ting French  kid  when  they  purchase  them,  and  even  the  best  judges 
being  unable  to  detect  the  India  tanned  skins  from  the  higher  cost 
Curagoa  or  South  American,  when  made  into  a shoe,  while  our  shoes 
for  style,  durability,  and  cheapness  are  unequaled  in  the  world,  thanks 
to  the  inventive  genius  and  improved  machinery  of  our  artisans. 

Let  us  look  for  a moment,  on  broad  and  general  principles,  and  see 
who  wishes  the  repeal  of  the  existing  duty  of  10  per  cent,  on  these  East 
India  tanned  skins.  Every  head  of  a family,  every  widow,  every  orphan, 
every  person  who  wears  a boot  upon  their  feet,  every  boot  and  shoe 
manufacturer  from  one  end  of  this  broad  land  to  the  other;  and  I be- 
lieve, Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  if  ever  this  question  of  duty  comes 
before  Congress,  the  representatives  of  fifty  millions  of  people  will  sweep 
away  this  duty  of  10  per  cent. 

These  twenty-five  manufacturers,  before  alluded  to,  ask  for  an  addi 
tional  duty  of  15  to  25  per  cent,  on  these  skins,  which  already  pay  10 
per  cent.;  if  they  cannot  get  25  per  cent,  they  will  take  what  they  can 
get.  Thus,  with  the  utmost  selfishness  and  greed,  they  seek  to  fasten 
upon  the  great  middling  and  poorer  classes  a large  additional  cost  for 
their  boots  or  shoes  from  India  leather.  We  claim,  Mr.  President,  that 
they  need  no  protection  whatever;  they  are  prosperous  now  and  will 
continue  to  prosper  if  this  10  per  cent,  duty  is  repealed.  They  are  sub- 
ject to  the  changes  in  business,  or  to  the  wants  and  tastes  of  the  people, 
the  same  as  all  branches  of  business,  particularly  in  manufactures.  If 
East  India  skins  are  not  profitable,  they  can  buy  other  kinds ; there  is 
always  a large  variety  to  choose  from. 

Manufacturers  of  East  India  tanned  skins  have  built  large  factories 
and  filled  them  with  machinery,  and  employ  large  numbers  of  workmen, 
thinking  very  properly  that  the  existing  duty  of  10  per  cent,  would  be 
retained  or  repealed,  knowing  well  that  the  sentiment  of  the  country 
was  against  any  increase  of  the  duty,  particularly  on  raw  or  unfinished 
goods. 

Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission,  we  most  re- 
spectfully ask  that  you  make  a favorable  report  on  our  petition  for  the 
repeal  of  the  existing  duty  on  India  tanned  goat  and  sheep  skins. 

Mr.  Ira  S.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Marcus  Beebe,  of  Boston,  who  were 


712 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWIN  S.  BARRETT. 


present  during  the  hearing,  stated  that  they  indorsed  the  views  ex- 
pressed by  Mr.  Barrett  in  every  respect. 

Mr.  Franklin  said : As  a manufacturer  of  East  India  tanned  goat 
and  sheep  skins,  I desire  to  state  to  the  Commission  that  an  increase 
of  the  duty  from  15  to  25  per  cent,  would  throw  me  out  of  business  en- 
tirely. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  Do  these  skins  come  here  tanned"? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  meant,  th£n,  by  raw  skins'? — A.  Skins  taken  from  the  ani- 
mal and  dried  with  the  hair  on. 

Q.  Do  you  import  any  skins  in  that  condition"? — A.  No,  sir;  I make 
a specialty  of  working  in  tanned  goat  and  sheep  skins;  working  them 
into  morocco  of  different  kinds. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Do  you  agree  to  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Barrett  that  it  would 
make  a considerable  difference  to  the  consumer  in  price? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
a vast  difference. 

Q.  How  many  skins  does  it  take  to  make  a pair  of  lady’s  boots'? — A. 
It  only  takes  a portion  of  one  skin;  about  one-third  to  one- fourth  of  a 
whole  skin  will  make  one  pair  of  boots.  The  sizes  of  skins  vary. 

Q.  What  is  the  average  price  for  that  skin  in  India  in  the  raw  state  % — 
A.  It  is  40  to  65  cents  for  tanned  skins. 

Q.  What  is  the  rate  of  duty  that  you  recommend  now? — A.  Thirty- 
five  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  It  was  stated  that  this  East  India  product  is  cheaper  than  that 
obtained  at  any  other  point? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  is  that? — A.  Because  it  is  of  a poorer  grade.  It  has  the  lower 
price  of  an  inferior  skin. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  So  that  practically  it  does  not  interfere  with  anything  produced 
in  this  country? — A.  No,  sir;  it  does  not.  But  there  is  nothing  pro- 
duced in  this  country  to  make  a shoe  that  will  equal  it  in  appearance 
for  the  price,  although  it  cannot  compare  with  the  French  skins  in  du- 
rability. 


A.  E.  DENISON.] 


POTATO  STARCH. 


713 


A.  E.  DENISON. 

- Boston,  Mass.,  August  26,  1882. 

Mr.  A.  E.  Denison,  attorney  at  law,  Boston,  Mass.,  on  behalf  of  the 
potato-starch  manufacturers  of  the  United  States,  made  the  following 
statement : 

I represent  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  manufacturers  of  potato 
starch  in  the  United  States,  who  have  signed  a petition  which  1 shall 
submit  to  you  at  the  close  of  my  statement  of  our  case.  I fliay  as  well 
state  at  the  outset  that  what  we  desire  the  Commission  to  recommend 
to  Congress  is,  that  the  duty  on  potato  starch  shall  be  increased  from  1 
cent  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the  present  rate,  to  2 cents 
per  pound  specific  duty,  and  also  to  place  the  same  duty  on  farina,  dex- 
trine, and  gum  substitute.  This  request  is  based  upon  the  following  con- 
siderations : 

By  the  census  of  1870  there  were  in  the  United  States  195  establish- 
ments engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  starch,  employing  2,072  hands; 
with  capital  invested  of  $2,741,000;  paying  in  wages,  $900,719;  with 
value  of  material,  $3,884,909,  and  value  of  product,  $5,994,422. 

Of  these  establishments,  72  were  in  the  State  of  New  York  and  66  in 
New  Hampshire,  and  the  statistics  respecting  them  were  as  follows: 


New  York. 

New  Hampshire. 

Establishments 

72 
1,  348 
$1,  895,  375 
776,  855 
2,  929,  018 
4,  678, 413 

66 
294 
$246,  200 
233,  381 
308.  695 
405,  242 

Capital  . 

Material 

Product 

The  statistics  for  New  York  include  the  extensive  corn-starch  manu- 
factories of  Kingsford  and  Duryea,  embracing  a large  proportion  of  the 
capital  invested,  wages  paid,  and  material  and  products.  The  statis- 
tics for  New  Hampshire  fairly  represent  the  industry  in  the  United 
States  for  the  year  1870.  In  the  year  1870  the  production  of  potatoes 
in  the  United  States  was  143,337,473  bushels,  and  of  this  amount  there 
were  raised  in — 


Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

New  York 


Bushels. 
7,771,363 
4,515,419 
5, 157, 428 
28, 547,  593 


A total  of  45,991,803  bushels  in  these  four  States,  or  nearly  one  third  of 
the  entire  crop  for  that  year. 

The  statistics  of  the  census  of  1880  are  not  yet  available,  but  careful 


714 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A.  E.  DENISON. 


observers,  men  long  engaged  in  the  business,  are  of  the  opinion  that  at 
the  present  time  there  are  not  over  175  potato-starch  establishments  in 
active  operation,  with  a capital  invested  not  exceeding  $2,000,000,  and 
located  almost  entirely  in  the  States  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Ver- 
mont, and  New  York.  It  may  fairly  be  claimed  to  be  a New  England 
industry.  By  reason  of  unfair  discrimination  in  the  laws  regulating  the 
tariff,  the  industry  has  made  no  progress  in  the  past  ten  years. 

The  great  competitor  in  this  market  for  potato  starch  is  Germany.  In 
fact,  the  greater  proportion  of  potato  starch  and  its  products  imported 
into  this  country  comes  from  Germany,  where  potatoes  are  raised  in 
such  immense  quantities  that  in  1876  the  product  of  green  starch  was 
91,000,000  pounds  and  of  dry  starch  was  11,000,000  pounds.  There, 
immense  sections  of  the  country  are  planted  with  potatoes;  the3r  are 
tended  by  women  and  children  almost  entirely,  and  when  harvested  are 
stored  in  iiflmense  pits  or  silos.  From  these  pits  the  good  potatoes  are 
marketed,  while  the  small  and  refuse  ones  go  to  the  factory  to  be  manu- 
factured into  starch  and  grape  sugar.  By  reason  of  the  temperate 
climate  and  the  facilities  for  storing  the  material  in  pits,  the  German 
factories  are  enabled  to  run  the  year  round.  In  this  country,  you  will 
readily  understand  that  it  is  impossible  to  store  potatoes  in  large  quanti- 
ties in  the  States  where  the  potato-starch  industry  is  carried  on,  by  reason 
of  the  cold  climate  and  the  great  and  disproportionate  expense,  and, 
therefore,  the  season  of  running  starch  factories  is  limited  to  the  time 
from  harvesting  to  the  middle  of  December,  a period  of  not  over  two  to 
three  months  in  each  year. 

To  a proper  understanding  of  the  subject,  you  will  please  consider 
that  starch  is  one  of  the  most  extensively  diffused  and  one  of  the  most 
useful  ingredients  contained  in  plants,  and,  when  separated  from  the 
fibrin  or  cellulose  containing  it,  has  a very  wide  application  in  every- 
day life.  While  all  plants  contain  starch  to  a greater  or  less  extent,  the 
number  which  contain  it  in  sufficient  quantities  to  manufacture  is  lim- 
ited, both  in  Europe  and  America,  to  potatoes,  wheat,  rice,  and  corn. 
It  is  used  for  multifarious  purposes,  such  as  the  sizing  of  paper;  large 
quantities  in  the  manufacture  of  paper,  and  also  in  the  manufacture  of 
textile  fabrics;  powdering  in  metal  foundries  in  place  of  powdered 
charcoal;  in  the  production  of  whiskies,  brandies,  beer,  and  ale;  in  house- 
hold for  laundry  purposes,  &c.  In  these  and  various  other  ways  potato 
starch  is  used  in  greater  quantities  than  any  other  because  of  its  cheap 
ness. 

With  reference  to  its  chemical  nature,  it  belongs  to  the  hydrates  of 
carbon  or  to  that  group  of  organic  bodies  which,  besides  carbon,  contain 
hydrogen  and  oxygen  in  such  proportions  that  they  could  form  water 
when  combined  with  each  other,  and  in  this  group  of  hydrates  is  found 
fibrin  or  cellulose,  starch,  dextrine,  cane  sugar,  grape  sugar,  &c.  In  its 
elementary  composition,  starch  is  composed  of  twelve  equivalents  of 
carbon,  ten  equivalents  of  hydrogen,  ten  equivalents  of  oxygen,  and 
hence  the  chemical  formula  CcHmOs.  A distinguishing  characteristic  of 
starch  is  its  insolubility  in  cold  water. 

Prior  to  1810  Arabian  and  Senegal  gums  were  alone  used  in  finishing 
calicoes.  In  that  year,  owing  to  the  continental  blockade,  Arabian  gum 
was  unusually  scarce  and  high  in  the  European  market,  and  calico 
printers  began  to  cast  about  for  a substitute.  By  accident  Bouillon 
Lagrange  made  the  important  discovery  that  starch,  when  slightly 
roasted,  acquired  the  property  of  solubility  in  cold  water,  producing  a 
mucilaginous  or  gum-like  liquid.  The  discovery  was  immediately  util- 
ized with  gratifying  results,  and  the  torrified  or  roasted  starch  has  held 


A.  E.  DENISON.  J 


POTATO  STARCH. 


715 


its  place  as  a substitute  for  the  more  expensive  Arabian  and  Senegal 
gums  to  the  present  time.  Since  this  discovery  by  Lagrange  various 
experiments  and  investigations  have  been  made  by  various  chemists, 
and  various  methods  of  roasting  or  burning  or  transforming  starch  have 
been  tried.  In  1833  Biot  and  Persoz,  chemists,  were  experimenting  with 
this  roasted  starch,  and  made  the  discovery  that  when  polarized  light 
is  passed  through  a solution  of  it  the  plane  of  polarization  is  turned 
to  the  right  instead  of  to  the  left,  as  in  solutions  of  Arabian  gum,  and 
hence  gave  to  it  the  name,  which  it  has  since  borne,  “dextrine,”  from 
the  latin  dexter , right.  In  commerce  this  substance  is  known  by  a 
variety  of  names,  such  as  British  gum,  a name  given  to  it  by  calico 
printers,  referring  to  its  discovery,  roasted  starch,  starch  gum,  gum  sub- 
stitute, fruit  gum,  and  other  names.  But  by  what  ever  name  it  is  known, 
to  whatever  use  it  is  put,  or  by  whatever  means  it  is  produced,  whether 
by  roasting  in  pans,  by  boiling  in  kettles  with  acids,  or  by  the  action  of 
diastase,  dextrine  is  always  composed  of  the  same  elementary  bodies/and 
always  corresponds  to  the  chemical  formula  O6H10O5,  and  is  of  pre- 
cisely the  same  composition  as  starch,  despite  the  various  physical  modi- 
fications in  which  it  occurs.  They  all  mean  such  preparations  as  have 
been  obtained  by  the  artificial  transformation  of  starch. 

The  uses  of  dextrine  are  manifold,  and  constantly  increasing,  on  ac- 
count of  its  inexpensiveness  as  compared  with  Arabian  and  Senegal 
gums.  Among  its  principal  applications  may  be  mentioned  its  use  in 
the  art  of  printing  cloth,  for  thickening  and  preparing  mordants  for  fast 
colors,  and  generally  for  the  finishing  and  stiffening  of  textiles.  It  is 
also  used  in  the  production  of  colored  and  tinted  papers,  for  gumming 
envelopes,  postage-stamps,  and  labels.  It  is  a necessary  ingredient  in 
the  brewing  of  beer,  and,  in  general,  its  uses  as  well  as  its  composition 
are  identical  with  starch,  from  which  it  is  derived. 

By  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  § 2504,  Schedule  M,  the  duty 
imposed  upon  starch  made  of  potatoes  or  corn  is  1 cent  per  pound  and  20 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  while  by  a strange  inconsistency  this  slight  pro- 
tection which  is  given  to  our  own  farmers  and  manufacturers  is  prac- 
tically nullified  by  admitting  dextrine  at  20  per  cent,  duty,  and  gum 
substitute  10  per  cent.  duty.  You  must  seethe  injustice  and  absurdity 
of  these  provisions  of  the  statute  at  once,  and  we  ask  you  to  remedy  the 
injustice  as  far  as  it  lies  in  your  power  to  do.  We  ask,  what  it  seems 
fair  to  expect,  that  a specific  duty  of  not  less  than  two  cents  per  pound 
be  laid  upon  starch,  dextrine,  gum  substitute,  or  by  whatever  name 
transformed  starch  may  be  called.  Such  a duty  would  be  for  the  benefit 
of  the  manufacturer,  the  producer,  and  consumer. 

First.  As  to  the  manufacturer. 

It  may  be  stated  that  no  potato  starch  is  exported  from  this  country*, 
all  exports  under  the  name  of  starch  being  corn  starch  for  domestic 
uses.  The  average  consumption  of  potato  starch  and  its  products  in 
the  United  States  is  from  8,000  to  10,000  tons,  and  of  this  amount  from 
1,800  to  2,000  tons,  or  nearly  one-fourth,  is  imported.  The  average 
price  of  potato  starch  for  the  past  five  years  in  the  Boston  and  New 
York  markets,  as  found  by  a careful  compilation  of  prices  by  a large 
and  well-known  manufacturing  house,  has  been  4-L%  cents  per  pound, 
while  for  the  five  years  preceding  it  was  5^-J  cents  per  pound.  The 
price  has  been  gradually  declining  from  year  to  year  until  the  present 
year  it  is  higher,  owing  to  the  almost  total  failure  of  the  potato  crop  for 
1881.  This  decline  in  prices  is  owing  almost  entirely  to  the  foreign 
supply,  and  the  importation  of  the  products  of  starch  under  the  name 
of  dextrine,  gum  substitute,  roasted  or  burnt  starch,  &c.  In  order  that 


716 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A.  E.  DENISON. 


any  margin  of  profit  at  all  be  realized  by  manufacturers  at  current 
prices  for  the  past  five  years,  farmers  have  been  obliged  to  sell  their  crops 
at  from  25  to  30  cents  per  bushel  to  the  manufacturer,  andthisprice  is  as 
low  as  the  farmer  can  go  and  realize  any  thing  for  his  crop.  An  examination 
of  the  report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  for  the  year  1880  shows 
that  in  Maine  the  average  price  of  potatoes  per  bushel  for  that  year  was 
48  cents,  in  New  Hampshire  44  cents,  in  Vermont  42  cents,  and  in  New 
York  42  cents,  while  in  every  other  State  in  the  Union  except  Iowa  and 
Minnesota  the  price  ranged  from  58  cents  to  $1.29  per  bushel.  At  these 
prices  it  would  be  impossible  for  our  manufacturers  to  even  pay  for  the 
potatoes  with  the  starch,  saying  nothing  about  wages,  freights,  &c., 
hence  they  are  obliged  to  move  away  from  market  centers  and  locate  in 
places  where  land  and  labor  are  cheap,  where  the  cost  of  production  is 
reduced  to  a minimum ; and  it  will  be  found,  when  the  census  of  1880  is 
published,  that  Northern  New  York  and  Aroostook  County,  in  Maine, 
are  the  great  starch  manufacturing  regions  of  this  country.  It  takes 
250  bushels  of  potatoes  to  manufacture  a ton  of  starch,  and  at  25  cents 
per  bushel,  a low  price,  is  $02.50  as  first  cost  of  material.  Add  to  this 
the  estimated  cost  of  manufacture,  for  wages,  packing,  freights,  insur- 
ance, commissions,  &c.,  $22,  and  we  have  as  cost  per  ton  $84.50 ; at  av- 
erage price  per  pound,  4^-  cents,  $88.33,  showing  average  profit  per  ton 
of  $3.83.  This  means,  with  consumption  of  8,000  tons,  a total  yearly 
profit  to  our  one  hundred  and  seventy- five  manufactures  of  $30,640  on 
an  invested  capital  of  $2,000,000.  As  the  foreign  importations  run  the 
price  lower  and  lower,  farmers  refuse  to  plant,  and  the  result  will  be  that 
our  manufacturers  must  eventually  abandon  the  trade,  sell  their  facto- 
ries for  what  they  can  get,  pocket  the  loss,  and  leave  consumers  to  the 
mercy  of  the  foreign  trade.  With  the  protection  that  is  asked,  a fair 
profit  and  only  a fair  profit  can  be  realized. 

Second.  Such  a duty  would  benefit  the  farmer  and  consumer. 

The  consumer  of  starch  and  its  products  cannot  be  materially  affected, 
because  Arabian  and  Senegal  gums  are  at  hand  and  the  foreign  manu- 
facturer stands  ready  to  step  in  and  supply  the  market  at  a minimum  of 
profit.  In  any  event  the  price  of  starch  cannot  largely  be  affected  by 
the  increase  of  duty  proposed,  not  more  than  one  half  a cent  per  pound 
or  about  $10  per  ton,  and  this  disadvantage,  if  you  choose  to  call  it  so, 
is  more  than  offset  by  the  advantages  accruing  to  the  farmer  and  con- 
sumer of  the  potato  as  an  article  of  food. 

Starch  factories  insure  a good  plant  of  potatoes  in  the  locality  where 
they  are  located,  and  give  to  the  farmers  a double  chance  for  a good  price 
for  his  crop — first,  at  the  factory ; and,  second,  for  ordinary  consumption. 
If  marketable  potatoes  are  high,  of  course  he  markets  the  best  and  the 
factory  takes  the  refuse.  If  low,  he  can  haul  his  crop  to  the  starch 
factory  and  always  obtain  a fair  cash  price.  Farmers  are  a conservative 
class,  and  in  the  locality  of  these  factories  would  never  think  of  taking 
the  chance  of  a large  plant  on  the  uncertainty  of  the  market  alone. 
This  industry  has  been  in  a large  measure  the  making  of  Aroostook 
County,  in  Maine,  and  the  presence  of  its  twenty-five  potato-starch  fac- 
tories insures  every  year  a large  plant,  a prolific  yield,  and  a large  sur- 
plus for  our  markets,  greater  by  far  than  any  other  section  of  New 
England  produces.  The  same  is  true  of  the  northern  counties  in  New 
York ; and  in  the  States  where  this  industry  is  followed  to  any  great 
extent  you  will  find  that  the  average  market  i^rice  of  potatoes  is  the 
lowest. 

As  the  direct  result  of  the  presence  of  potato-starch  factories  in  New 
England,  domestic  consumers,  the  poor  in  our  large  cities,  and  the  op- 


A.  1£.  DENISON.] 


POTATO  STARCH. 


717 


eratives  in  our  manufacturing  towns  can  buy  this  important  article  of 
food  cheaper  than  they  otherwise  could,  and  are  directly  interested  in 
the  protection  of  this  industry.  In  the  town  of  Caribou,  Me.,  in  the 
year  1880,  there  was  raised  a surplus  of  250,000  bushels  of  potatoes, 
and  of  this  large  amount  the  starch  factory  consumed  100,000  bushels, 

100.000  bushels  were  marketed,  and  the  balance  were  left  on  the  farmers* 
hands,  because  the  factory  could  not  use  them  to  advantage.  The  pro- 
prietor of  the  factory  there  writes  that  “if  there  was  no  factory  there 
that  town  would  not  raise  25,000  bushels  of  potatoes  to  take  the 
chance  of  a shipping  market.”  What  is  true  of  Caribou  is  true  of  every 
town  where  a starch  factory  is  located.  Take  away  the  duty  on  starch 
and  its  products,  and  Germany,  New  Brunswick,  and  Canada  will  wipe 
out  every  factory  in  this  country  in  two  years.  Increase  the  duty  and 
put  the  American  manufacturer  on  a level  with  his  foreign  competitors 
and  enable  him  to  make  a fair  profit  on  his  investment,  and  the  benefit 
accrues  not  alone  to  him,  but  to  the  farmer  and  the  consumer  as  well. 

The  figures  in  relation  to  the  cost  price  of  starch  were  furnished  to 
me  by  Mr.  Eustis,  of  the  firm  of  Eustis  & Aldrich,  from  his  books,  and 
the  entries  on  this  subject  extend  over  a period  of  more  than  ten  years. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  this  industry  has  de- 
creased1?—Answer.  I have  made  the  statement  that  it  has  made  no 
progress  in  the  last  three  years.  I think  you  will  find  by  the  census  re- 
port s that  it  has  decreased.  If  you  go  through  Northern  Vermont  and 
New  Hampshire  you  will  find  the  starch  factories  abandoned,  and  the 
business  has  been  driven  to  Aroostook  County,  Maine. 

The  following  petition  has  been  signed  by  about  one  hundred  and 
twenty  manufacturers  of  potato  starch,  and  they  have  commissioned 
me  to  present  it  to  you.  They  say — 

“We,  the  undersigned  manufacturers  of  potato  starch,  respectfully 
present  the  following  statement  of  facts: 

“There  are  in  this  country  about  two  hundred  potato-starch  factories, 
employing  a capital  of  about  $2,000,000,  and  producing  from  8,000  to 

12.000  tons  of  starch  per  annum.  Many  of  these  factories  are  unable  to 
run  at  present  because  of  the  low  price  consequent  upon  the  importation 
from  Europe  of  farina,  potato  starch,  flour  dextrine,  and  gum  substitute. 
The  manufacture  in  this  country  can  only  be  followed  during  two  or 
three  months  of  the  year.  The  manufacturers,  as  a rule,  are  in  moder- 
ate circumstances,  the  business  never  having  been  more  than  reasonably 
profi  table. 

“The  farmers  in  the  vicinity  depend  upon  the  starch  factories  for  a 
market  for  their  potatoes,  this  being  their  chief  cash  outlet.  Under  the 
existing  tariff  the  duty  on  potato  starch  is  1 cent  per  pound  and  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  while  farina  is  on  the  free  list.  In  England  potato- 
starch  is  known,  and  is  always  invoiced,  as  farina;  and,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  potato  starch  (in  large  lots)  has  been  imported  from  Europe 
under  the  name  of  farina,  and  has  been  so  entered  and  passed  as  free 
goods  at  the  custom-houses  of  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston. 
The  fraudulent  imports  would  have  seriously  damaged  the  interests  of 
starch  makers  but  for  their  timely  detection  and  for  prompt  representa- 
tions to  the  Treasury  Department,  which  led  to  the  collection  of  duties 
and  penalties. 

“ Roasted-potato  starch  is  known  as  dextrine,  also  as  gum  substitute. 
The  duty  on  the  former  is  20  per  cent.,  and  the  latter  pays  10  per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  These  two  being  practically  one,  it  is  not  reasonable  that 


718 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A.  E DEXISON'. 


so  important  a product  of  potato  starch  should  be  admitted  at  a rate  of 
duty  so  much  lower  than  on  starch  itself. 

a The  rate  of  duty  on  starch,  other  than  corn  and  potato,  is  3 cents 
per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  A fair  protection  of  the  potato- 
starch  industry  demands  that  the  duty  should  not  be  less  than  2 cents 
per  pound $ and  that  dextrine  and  gum  substitutes,  which  are  made 
from  potato  starch  by  roasting,  should  be  subject  to  at  least  as  much 
duty  as  starch  itself.” 

Mr.  A.  S.  Etjstis,  of  the  firm  of  Eustis  & Aldrich, Boston,  Mass.,  said: 

I can  indorse  and  confirm  all  that  Mr.  Denison  has  stated.  I am  en- 
gaged in  the  manufacture  of  potato  starch  in  the  State  of  Maine,  and 
have  a practical  acquaintance  with  the  business.  I have  two  factories 
that  cost  me  $10,000,  which  I would  be  willing  to  sell  for  $100  apiece, 
for  they  cannot  be  used  in  the  present  condition  of  the  business.  1 tried 
to  run  one  of  them  last  year,  and  lost  money  in  the  attempt.  We  had 
to  import  some  potatoes  from  Ireland  last  winter  on  account  of  the 
scarcity  of  potatoes  in  this  country.  But  our  great  trouble  is  caused  by 
the  importation  of  potato  starch  f rom  abroad.  We  cannot  compete  with 
the  foreign  manufacturers  unless  we  have  a higher  protective  duty. 
We  only  run  our  factories  a few  months  in  the  year.  But  Mr.  Denison 
has  stated  the  case  so  fully  that  I need  not  enlarge  upon  the  subject. 


FRANK  M.  AMES.] 


SUGAR  CULTURE. 


719 


FRANK  M.  AMES. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Frank  M.  Ames,  of  Canton,  Mass.,  addressed  the  Commission  as 
follows: 

I represent  the  sugar  interest  of  Louisiana.  We  are  so  unfortunate 
as  to  own  some  10,000  or  11,000  acres  of  land  opposite  the  city  of  New 
Orleans.  Thirty-five  hundred  acres  of  this  land  were  cultivated  for 
sugar  before  the  war.  We  have  only  cultivated  about  1,300  acres  for 
this  purpose;  and  200  to  300  acres  have  been  cultivated  for  rice  a por- 
tion of  the  time.  We  commenced  the  cultivation  of  the  land  in  1872,  and 
have  paid  for  labor  and  supplies  $735,330,  and  for  new  construction  and 
improvements  about  $51,370,  making  a total  of  $806,700,  or  $80,670  on  an 
average  each  year.  Five  hundred  and  six  thousand  dollars  have  been 
paid  for  labor  in  cultivating  and  taking  off  the  crops,  and  probably 
$50,000  more  for  labor  in  and  about  the  premises  that  is  not  shown  in 
the  labor  of  cultivation,  making  about  $556,000,  or  $55,600  each  year. 
We  have  made  10,043,164  pounds  of  sugar,  or  an  average  of  1,004,316 
pounds  each  year. 

The  molasses  made  averages  about  one  sixth  in  value  of  the  whole 
crop.  This  would  show  that  the  sugar  has  cost  us  an  average  of  6.72 
cents  per  pound.  About  70  per  cent,  of  the  cost  has  been  for  labor, 
and  30  per  cent,  for  supplies.  This  would  show  that  the  cost  for  labor 
has  been  4.61  cents,  and  for  coal,  wood,  grain,  mules,  and  repairs  to  ma- 
chinery, &c.,  2.01  cents  per  pound. 

The  average  wages,  including  taking  off  the  crop,  will  average  over 
$1.25  per  day,  to  which  must  be  added  house-rent,  fuel,  &c.,  for  which 
no  charge  is  made. 

If  we  are  correctly  informed,  the  cooly  and  slave  labor  of  Cuba  and 
other  sugar  countries  will  not  exceed  40  cents  per  day.  Parties  esti- 
mate it  as  less  than  30  cents.  This  would  show  that  the  cost  of  labor 
in  Louisiana  is  from  three  to  four  times  greater  than  the  average  cost  in 
other  sugar  districts;  or  while  our  labor  costs  4.6  cents  per  pound,  it 
costs  but  1.15  to  1£  cents  in  other  districts.  If  these  data  are  correct, it 
will  be  seen  why  sugar-making  in  Louisiana  has  not  been  profitable  to 
the  planter,  while  it  is  profitable  to  the  producer  in  other  countries. 

The  difference  in  cost  of  labor  is  from  3.1  to  3.45  cents,  while  the  duty 
will  average  about  2.45  cents  per  pound. 

Theie  are  some  350,000  to  400,000  people  in  Louisiana  alone  who  are 
directly  dependent  on  the  sugar  interest  for  support,  and  the  supplies 
for  these  people  are  mostly  produced  in  the  Northern  States.  Probably 
700,0ti0  people  are  supported  by  this  industry. 

The  average  value  of  the  sugar  crop  of  Louisiana  for  the  past  five 
years  has  been  about  $15,000,000. 

If  the  duty  were  put  to  where  it  was  prior  to  the  advance  of  25  per 
cent,  in  1875,  it  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  fatal  to  the  sugar,  sorghum, 
and  maple-sugar  industry  of  the  United  States. 

The  sugar  lands  of  Louisiana  are  not  adapted  to  the  cultivation  of 
other  crops,  being  too  far  south  for  cotton,  corn,  or  wheat,  and  if  the 
cultivation  of  sugar  is  abandoned,  I know  of  no  crop  that  could  be  suc- 
cessfully cultivated  on  these  lands. 

The  sugar  crop  is  as  sure  as  any  other  crop  in  the  United  States, 


720 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FRANK  M.  AMES. 


as  the  experience  of  the  past  year  has  proved.  Perhaps  if  the  duty 
were  removed  from  every  article  imported,  the  planter  might  hold  his 
own,  hut  so  long  as  the  wage  paid  to  the  American  laborer  is  so  much 
greater  than  paid  in  any  other  country,  it  must  be  protected  against  the 
slave  and  pauper  labor  of  those  countries. 

The  constant  agitation  of  the  tariff  question  prevents  the  intelligent 
expenditure  of  money  by  the  Southern  sugar  planter.  The  money  he  has 
spent  for  improvement  has  been  from  necessity  and  in  order  to  sgcure 
the  growing  crop.  Could  he  have  had  the  assurance  that  the  duty  now 
levied  on  sugar  would  have  remained  as  long  as  it  has,  he  would  have 
been  in  much  better  condition  to-day,  as  he  would  have  made  improve- 
ments that  would  have  been  durable  and  lasting,  instead  of  make  shifts 
for  immediate  and  temporary  advantage.  With  improved  machinery  he 
would  have  been  able  to  extract  more  juice  from  the  corn  and  make 
better  sugar  from  that  juice. 

If  he  could  be  assured  that  the  present  duty  would  remain  for  5 
years,  he  would  be  warranted  in  making  permanent  improvements,  and 
in  10  years  he  would  be  in  a condition  that  would  secure  him  against 
loss,  even  though  the  duty  were  reduced  50  to  75  per  cent. 

Another  disadvantage  the  planter  has  had  to  contend  with  is  the 
floods  poured  down  from  the  rivers  of  the  North.  Now  that  the  general 
government  is  about  to  undertake  to  control  tliose  floods,  he  will  be  in 
a better  condition  than  before. 

The  present  duty  is  such  that  with  slight  change  and  the  use  of  the 
polariscope,  and  the  honest  collection  of  the  duty,  the  planter  will  be  able 
to  secure  a reasonable  profit,  although  not  half  that  made  by  many 
manufacturing  or  farming  interests  of  the  northern  section  of  the  United 
States. 

I have  here  a statement  showing  the  cost  of  cultivation,  taken  from 
our  books,  from  1872  to  1881,  inclusive,  as  follows : 


Labor,  wages  paid $506,307 

Supplies  and  repairs 249, 023 

Improvements  and  new  construction. 51, 370 


806, 700 

Sugar  made pounds . . 10,  043, 146 

Average  cost  of  crop,  yearly $80, 670 

Average  yield  of  sugar,  yearly pounds..  1,004,314 


Labor  as  above  is  about  G2J  per  cent,  of  cost  of  crop,  to  which  should 
be  added  6 or  7 per  cent.,  which  is  covered  in  the  items  of  supplies,  re- 
pairs, improvements,  and  new  construction  given  above. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  Do  you  reside  in  Massachusetts  the  principal  part  of  your 
time,  or  your  whole  time? — Answer.  I am  in  Louisiana  about  two 
months  in  the  year. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  cultivating  sugar  in  Louisiana? — A.  I 
commenced  making  it  there  in  1872. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  cultivate  sugar  on  any  of  the  islands,  or  in  any  for 
eign  country? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  These  figures  that  you  have  given  us  are  taken  from  your  books, 
and  therefore  are  absolutely  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  sugar  good  enough  to  ship  to  Boston? — A.  Yes,  sir ; 
in  small  quantities.  I shipped  it  for  my  own  use,  and  also  my  sugar  is 
being  used  by  one  of  the  sugar  refiners  in  this  city, 

Q.  Do  you  mean  being  used  for  consumption  ? — A.  Yes,  sir,  for  con- 
sumption. The  color  of  my  sugar  is  not  equal  to  that  of  refined  sugar,  and 


FRANK  M.  AME8.J 


SUGAR  CULTURE. 


721 


it  will  not  sell  for  the  price  of  refined  sugar,  although  actually  there  is 
more  saccharine  strength  in  it,  and  the  same  amount  goes  further  than 
the  same  amount  of  refined  sugar. 

Q.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  cultivation  of  sugar  in  Louisiana,  do 
you  think  that  with  proper  protection  that  State  would  make  enough, 
sugar  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  f — A.  I 
cannot  say  that  it  would  make  enough,  but  I think  it  would  make  nearly 
all  that  is  required  in  this  country.  Louisiana,  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
and  Texas  could  make  more  than  the  amount  required  in  the  United 
States. 

Q.  You  allude  to  the  polariscope  in  your  statement ; do  you  recom- 
mend its  use  by  the  government  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  what  is  that  recommendation  based;  your  knowledge  of  the 
polariscope,  or  from  hearsay  V — A.  It  is  based  on  my  own  knowledge  of 
its  working. 

Q.  Do  you  use  it  on  your  own  plantation  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; for  testing 
the  juices  and  the  products  of  the  juices,  from  the  time  we  take  the 
saccharine  matter  from  the  cane  until  the  sugar  is  made,  in  order  to  get 
the  richness  of  it  and  to  be  able  to  locate  the  best  quality  of  cane. 

Q.  Is  this  sugar,  of  which  you  have  iiroduced  a sample,  the  same  that 
is  used  by  the  refiners  ? — No,  sir ; this  is  a finer  grade,  although  it  is 
taken  from  the  same  sugars.  This  sugar  that  I have  here  has  gone 
through  a granulator.  It  has  not  been  refined,  but  it  has  been  put 
through  a granulator.  I have  with  me  a letter  from  the  superintendent 
of  the  refinery  in  regard  to  this  sugar,  which  I will  read : 

Boston,  Mass.,  January  17,  1882. 

Mr.  F.  M.  Ames, 

Canton^  Mass,: 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  yesterday  is  at  hand.  The  sugar  you  sent  to  be 
dried  was  better  this  year  than  last,  not  being  quite  so  gummy,  there- 
fore working  better  in  the  granulators.  The  polarization  of  this  last  lot 
was  98.4 ; moisture  1.4,  making  dry  polarization  or  exponent  to  be  99.8, 
which  is  very  good. 

There  will  be  no  bill  for  granulating,  as  what  lumps  and  tailings  from 
granulator  there  are,  which  are  not  of  much  use  to  you,  will  amply  repay 
us  for  whatever  expense  we  have  been  to. 

I remain  yours,  truly, 

J.  H.  WEBSTER. 

The  granulator  is  a revolving  cylinder  containing  a steam  drum,  which 
makes  it  very  hot  and  takes  the  moisture  from  the  sugar.  The  sugar 
loses  1 per  cent,  in  that  process.  This  sugar  is  being  used  by  a num- 
ber of  people  in  this  city  in  their  households.  Mr.  Peabody,  of  the  firm 
of  Peabody  & Co.,  told  me  within  a week  that  it  is  the  best  sugar  he  had 
ever  had  in  his  house ; they  like  it  better  than  any  sugar  they  have  ever 
had.  It  is  absolutely  pure  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  make  it  pure  with- 
out putting  it  through  a refinery. 

H.  Mis.  6 46 


722 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[C,  NORWOOD  & SON, 


0.  NOBWOOD  & SON. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  26, 1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Messrs.  0.  Norwood  & Son,  of 
Boston,  in  regard  to  the  duty  upon  isinglass,  was  ordered  to  be  printed: 

We,  the  undersigned,  manufacturers  in  the  United  States  of  “ ribbon 
isinglass ” from  “fish  sounds  or  bladders,”  respectfully  represent  that 
we  have  invested  in  our  business  a capital  of  about  $800,000,  and  employ, 
during  that  part  of  the  year  when  the  weather  permits  the  operation  of 
our  works,  about  250  men. 

The  “ fish  sounds  or  bladders”  used  by  us  are  rarely  used,  and  have 
but  small  value  except  for  the  purpose  of  our  manufacture ; consequently 
all  persons  engaged  in  the  fisheries  are  interested  in  its  continuance. 

The  manufacture  of  such  isinglass  is  of  comparative  late  date.  In 
1872  only  about  $150,000  was  invested  in  it  in  this  country.  At  the  above 
date,  when  the  present  tariff  law  was  enacted  making  such  “ isinglass” 
free,  there  were  no  manufactories  of  any  importance  in  foreign  countries, 
and  none  of  it  was  imported  into  this  country.  During  the  past  three 
years,  however,  several  manufactories  have  been  organized  and  put  in 
operation  in  Europe. 

The  fisheries  of  Norway  and  Sweden  afford  an  ample  supply  of  the 
crude  “sounds  or  bladders”  at  a low  price.  This,  coupled  with  cheap 
labor  and  admission  into  this  country  free,  has  enabled  the  foreign 
makers  of  “isinglass,”  through  their  agents  in  this  country,  to  bring  it 
here,  within  the  past  two  years,  and  put  it  upon  the  market  at  a price 
per  pound  nearly  as  low  as  we  pay  for  the  crude  “ sounds  or  bladders.” 
This  is  ruinous  to  our  business.  If  it  continues  with  its  natural  growth 
arising  from  the  above  advantages  in  the  hands  of  the  foreign  maker,  it 
will  be  impossible  for  us  to  continue  our  manufacture  except  at  a loss. 

We  therefore  respectfully  ask  that  in  the  tariff  bill  (the  preparation 
of  which  has  been  intrusted  by  Congress  to  you)  you  will  provide  for 
“ ribbon  isinglass”  at  a rate  of  duty  which  will  enable  us  to  continue 
the  manufacture  of  such  merchandise  in  this  country  without  suffering 
a loss  thereby ; and  respectfully  suggest  the  rate  to  be  40  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  or  its  equivalent,  a specific  duty  of  30  cents  per  pound. 

There  is  a large  shrinkage  or  waste  in  the  manufacture,  and  the  sug- 
gested rate  of  duty  will  be  only  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  compete  with 
the  foreign  maker  in  our  markets. 

Inasmuch  as  our  own  fisheries  have  not,  at  times,  produced  sufficient 
of  the  crude  article  to  supply  our  wants,  it  has  been  necessary  for  us  to 
buy  in  foreign  markets  (the  British  provinces  mainly).  We  would  there- 
fore ask  that  “fish  sounds  or  bladders  unmanufactured”  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  the  “ free  list.” 

Should  any  more  detailed  statement  or  particular  facts  pertaining  to 
this  matter  be  desired  by  you,  we  shall  be  pleased  to  furnish  the  same 
upon  being  advised  thereof. 

C.  Norwood  & Son. 

Howe  & French. 

Haskins  Brothers. 
m Boring  Grimes. 


TIICMAS  G.  KICK.  | 


appraiser’s  department,  boston. 


723 


THOMAS  G.  RICE. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Thomas  G.  Rice,  examiner,  appraiser’s  office,  Boston  custom- 
house, appeared  before  the  Commission  and  was  interrogated  as  follows: 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  I would  like  to  inquire  what  your  experience  has  been  in 
regard  to  the  matter  of  undervaluations  when  an  ad  valorem  duty  is 
paid.  Have  you  met  with  instances  where  you  considered  that  the 
goods  had  been  purposely  undervalued  abroad  in  order  to  escape  the 
payment  of  duty  here? — Answer.  Yes,  sir  ; I have  had  my  suspicions 
very  strongly  aroused  in  that  direction,  but  I have  met  with  difficulty 
in  obtaining  sufficient  evidence  to  sustain  them.  I have  no  doubt  that 
the  duty  on  wool  is  evaded. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Could  you  suggest  any  method  of  collecting  such  duties,  which 
would  restrict  this  evil? — A.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  you  reduce  the 
specific  and  increase  the  ad  valorem  duty,  without  having  any  di- 
vision line,  you  would  secure  uniformity,  and  also  I think  protect  the 
revenue  even  more  than  it  is  protected  under  the  present  tariff,  for  the 
reason  that  the  percentage  of  the  value  would  be  so  slight  that  the  in- 
ducement would  not  be  as  strong  as  now  to  undervalue.  Take  third- 
class  wools,  costing  12  cents  a pound.  We  have  invoices  coming  in  here 
where  the  value  is  placed  at  cents  a pound.  The  man  does  not 

live  who  can  estimate  within  of  a cent  a pound  what  the  value  of 
wool  is.  If  you  make  a tariff  without  any  of  those  divisions  in  it,  I 
think  it  will  greatly  obviate  or  do  away  with  the  trouble  I have  spoken  of. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  make  an  absolutely  ad  valorem  duty  and 
take  the  value  of  the  goods  in  this  country  as  the  basis? — A.  No,  sir ; I 
do  not  agree  with  you  as  to  taking  the  value  of  the  goods  here. 

Q.  Is  not  their  value  here  as  easily  ascertained? — A.  No,  sir ; I think 
not.  I think  that  system  would  be  open  to  other  objections  also. 

Q.  What  other  objections  ? — A.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  differ- 
ences in  the  rates  of  freight  in  bringing  the  goods  to  this  country.  Fur- 
thermore, these  importers  are  wide  awake  and  up  in  the  times,  and  if 
they  wanted  to  evade  the  duty  they  would  ascertain  at  what  port  the 
value  of  wool,  or  afty  other  article,  would  be  likely  to  be  lowest,  and 
their  shipments  would  go  there  largely.  I suppose,  also,  that  in  foreign 
countries  they  are  on  the  lookout  to  fiud  a market  for  their  manufact- 
ures. Supposing  they  offered  a drawback  for  such  merchandise  as  was 
exported;  they  might  make  their  drawback  equal  to  the  duty  on  the 
goods  imported  here,  and  then  the  goods  are  brought  here  in  competi- 
tion with  us.  I believe  the  matter  of  home  valuation  was  tried  in  this 
country  and  found  not  to  be  practicable. 

Q.  When  was  it  tried  here? — A.  I think  you  will  find  that  the  act 
of  1779  provided  for  it.  I have  not  read  the  law  carefully,  but  I infer 
that  it  provided  for  a home  valuation ; that  when  merchandise  paid 
only  5 per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the  value  of  that  merchandise  should  be 
taken  at  the  place  of  importation.  That  continued  up  to  1795,  and 
then  they  assessed  the  duty  on  the  foreign  value  at  the  place  of  expor- 


724 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| THOMAS  G.  KICK. 


tation.  That  continued  until  1833,  and  then  they  assessed  the  home 
valuation  until  1842.  Since  that  time  we  have  rated  the  goods  at  their 
value  iu  the  principal  markets  of  the  country  from  whence  they  are  im- 
ported. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  considered  the  subject  of  the  creation  of  a customs 
court? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I have. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  made  a statement  of  your  views  on  that  subject  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I wrote  to  him  concern- 
ing it. 

Q.  Can  you  give  in  substance  your  views? — A.  I stated  to  him  that 
my  opinion  was  that  a tribunal  or  board  of  arbitration  consisting  of  five 
persons  should  be  appointed,  with  headquarters  at  New  York  City. 
They  should  be  appointed  by  the  President,  to  hold  office  for  life  or 
during  good  behavior,  and  they  should  receive  a salary  commensurate 
with  the  services  performed.  Monthly  meetings  of  the  board  should 
be  held.  Hearings  might  be  had  at  the  different  places  where  these 
judges  resided,  and  evidence  might  be  taken  and  submitted  to  the  whole 
board  in  writing  at  the  next  meeting.  If  such  a system  was  adopted, 
a just  conclusion  would  be  arrived  at  with  much  more  dispatch  than 
under  the  present  system,  and  ninety-nine  times  out  of  a hundred  the 
decision  would  be  more  correct  and  give  more  satisfaction  to  the  im- 
porter, besides  saving  numberless  suits  and  much  litigation. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  You  have  referred  to  this  dividing  line,  which  is  32  cents  in  the 
the  wool  tariff’.  Is  there  any  considerable  amount  of  wool  imported 
valued  above  32  cents? — A.  No,  sir;  but  I think  anyone  will  readily 
see  that  a division  of  that  kind  shuts  out  a large  amount  of  wool  that 
might  come  here.  Take  South  American  wool,  for  instance,  and  some 
qualities  of  the  Cape  wool.  The  specific  duty  on  them  would  be  the 
same  as  on  the  finest  Australian  wool.  Suppose  Buenos  Ayres  wool 
costs  18  cents  a pound  and  Australian  wool  24  cents  a pound,  there 
would  be  a difference  of  six  cents,  and  the  ad  valorem  would  be  the 
only  difference  in  the  duty  you  would  have  to  pay,  and  the  Australian 
wool  is  much  more  valuable. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Your  proposition  is  to  lower  the  specific  duty  and  increase  the  ad 
valorem  duty? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  have  no  dividing  line. 

Q.  To  apply  that  principle  to  all?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : • 

Q.  Your  impression  is  that  that  would  increase  the  importation  of  the 
lower-priced  wools? — A.  Yes,  sir;  the  removing  of  that  dividing  line 
would  have  that  effect. 

Q.  And  not  only  that,  but,  adopting  your  suggestion,  would  it  not  di 
minish  the  specific  duty  and  increase  the  ad  valorem  duty?— A.  I don’t 
know  whether  that  would  affect  it  or  not.  I do  not  make  a recommendation 
to  reduce  the  duty  on  wool;  I merely  suggest  this  as  a proper  method. 

Q.  But  you  do  suggest  that  the  specific  duty  be  decreased  and  the 
ad  valorem  duty  increased? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  effect  would  that  have  on  the  importation  of  wool? — A.  As 
to  the  quantity  of  wool  imported,  I do  not  think  it  would  affect  it  at  all, 
but  I think  it  would  secure  the  government  against  evasions  of  the 


xhomas  g.  bice.  APPRAISER^  DEPARTMENT,  BOSTON.  725 

duty  which  uow  exist.  The  inducement  would  be  much  less  to  under- 
value than  it  is  now. 

Q.  What  is  the  character  of  the  wool  in  regard  to  which  these  evasions 
are  practiced  ? — A.  I should  say  it  was  principally  the  fine  third  class 
carpet-wools. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Supposing  the  duties  were  made  specific,  say  2 cents  a pound  on 
the  unwashed  and  three  to  four  cents  on  the  washed  wools;  would  that 
have  the  effect  of  taking  away  that  dividing  line  ? I mean,  supposing  a 
specific  duty  was  put  on  carpet  wools  and  double  the  duty  was  put  on 
washed  wools? — A.  I think  that  would  prevent  fraud,  for  it  would  not 
make  any  difference  what  it  cost ; they  would  have  to  pay  a specific 
duty  at  so  much  a pound  without  regard  to  the  cost. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Have  you  met,  in  the  performance  of  your  duties,  with  any  wools 
of  the  third  class  that  should  be  rated  above  that  class? — A.  No,  sir; 
the  tariff  provides  for  wools  of  merino  blood,  immediate  or  remote,  and 
sometimes  wre  have  a question  as  to  whether  there  is  any  merino  blood 
in  the  importation  or  not!  I do  not  know  of  any  attempts  that  have 
been  made  to  enter  first  or  second  class  wools  as  third-class  wools,  by 
mixing  them. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  there  any  difficulty  in  carrying  into  practical  execution  the 
present  classification  of  wools? — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not  find  any.  Of 
course  we  have  questions  arise,  as  I have  stated,  to  determine  which  an 
expert  has  to  be  called  upon,  but  I do  not  know  of  any  other  tariff  we 
could  have,  so  far  as  that  matter  is  concerned,  which  could  be  more 
easily  executed  than  this. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  At  present  it  is  a mere  question  of  judgment  between  the  ap- 
praiser and  the  importer. — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  a question  of  judgment,  of 
course,  and  we  have  to  decide  from  the  samples  that  are  before  us. 


726 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWIN  G.  ANGELL. 


EDWIN  G.  ANGELL. 

Boston.  Mass.,  August  26,  1882. 

Mr.  Edwin  G.  Anoell,  president  of  tlie  American  Screw  Company, 
Providence,  R.  I.,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Gentlemen  : The  tariff  approved  June  30,  1864,  reads  as  follows : 

On  screws,  commonly  called  wood  screws,  two  inches  or  over  in  length,  eight  cents 
per  pound;  less  than  two  inches  in  length,  eleven  cents  per  pound. 

On  screws  of  any  other  metal  than  iron,  and  all  other  screws  of  iron  except  wood 
screws,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

There  are  upon  the  usual  wood-screw  list  one  hundred  and  eighty- 
live  standard  sizes  that  may  be  imported  into  this  country  by  the  man- 
ufacturers of  Canada,  England,  France,  or  Germany,  said  sizes  rang- 
ing in  length  from  J inch  to  6 inches,  and  in  diameter  from  No.  0 to  No. 
30  screw  gauge. 

The  present  tariff  being  specific  bears  very  unequally  upon  different 
portions  of  the  list,  the  ^-inch  No.  0 screw  costing  more  than  twenty 
times  per  pound  that  of  the  lf-inch  No.  24  screw,  paying  the  same  duty, 
viz,  11  cents  per  pound. 

While,  therefore,  the  first  mentioned  must  be  manufactured  at  a loss 
(when  duty  paid  upon  rods  is  considered),  the  latter  is  over  protected, 
and  those  who  claim  that  there  is  too  much  protection  on  screws  usually 
base  their  arguments  upon  these  and  similar  goods,  ignoring  entirely 
the  other  and  major  portion  of  the  list. 

Most  of  the  iron  from  which  screws  are  made  must  of  necessity  come 
from  England  or  Germany,  and  in  manufacturing  screws  from  it  there 
is  a waste  in  weight  of  about  40  per  cent.  The  duty  on  this  raw  material 
(wire  rods  in  coils)  is  $28  tier  ton  (1J  cents  per  pound),  and  this,  with  the 
usual  ship  ping  expenses  added,  is  equivalent  to  an  advance  of  from  75 
to  80  per  cent,  (varying  according  to  charges  in  the  price  of  rods)  on  the 
cost  to  the  foreign  manufacturers  of  wood  screws,  with  whom  we  have 
to  compete.  (See  calculations  annexed.) 

While  this  material  for  the  screw-makers’  consumption  has  a protec- 
tion as  stated,  viz,  from  75  to  80  per  cent.,  the  protection  on  screws 
made  from  it  under  existing  tariff,  as  shown  by  custom-house  returns, 
ranges  from  40  to  50  per  cent.  On  account  of  the  large  waste  resulting 
from  forming  the  heads  and  threads  of  wood  screws,  somewhat  more  than 
2 cents  per  pound  of  the  protection  under  present  tariff  is  offset  by 
the  duty  paid  on  raw  material. 

Under  a threatened  removal  or  reduction  of  the  duties  on  screws,  we 
felt  compelled  to  transfer  a considerable  portion  of  our  machinery  to 
Dundas,  Ontario,  where  we  have  a supply  of  nearly  free  raw  material, 
and  have  prepared  to  manufacture  for  the  American  market,  in  event  of 
a reduction  in  duties  on  screws,  unaccompanied  by  a corresponding 
reduction  on  wire  rods.  Some  few  wire  rods  rolled  in  the  United  States 
are  used  for  making  screws,  but  they  are  largely  manufactured  from 
foreign  wrought  iron,  imported  scrap,  paying  a duty  of  $8  per  ton,  and 
in  its  conversion  into  rods  there  is  a considerable  waste. 

Screws  are  also,  to  a small  extent,  made  from  Bessemer  steel,  but 
the  nature  of  this  material  is  such  that  we  have  never  succeeded  in 
using  it  with  advantage,  although  we  can  buy  it  at  much  less  price  than 
iron,  and  this  experience  has  been  confirmed  by  the  foreign  screw  man- 


WOOD  SCREWS. 


BDWLN  G.  ANGELL.] 


727 


ufacturers.  There  is  now  double  the  quantity  of  screw  machinery  in 
the  United  States  than  can  be  successfully  employed. 

The  following  table  shows  the  cost  of  iron-wire  rods  in  coils  to  the 
American  manufacturers  of  wood  screws : 


ENGLISH  RODS. 

One  ton  rods  (invoice  price)  £8  10s,  at  $4.85  currency,  cost  to  English  manu- 
facturers   $41  23 

Expenses  to  American  consumers : 

£ s.  d. 

Shipping  charges 2 6 

Commission,  2f  per  cent,  on  £8  10s 4 3 

Freight 15  0 

1 1 9 at  $4.85..  $5  27 

Duties,  If  cents  per  pound,  2,240  pounds 28  00 

33  27 


Cost  to  American  manufacturers 74  50 

Expense  80.7  per  cent,  advance  on  English  cost. 

GERMAN  RODS. 


Cost  to  German  manufacturers $41  87 

Expenses  to  American  consumers: 

Freight,  Rotterdam  to  New  York $3  25 

Duties 28  00 

Shipping  charges 85 

32  10 

Cost  to  American  manufacturers  in  New  York,  per  ton 73  97 


Expenses  76.7  per  cent,  advance  on  German  cost. 

In  former  years  we  used  very  largely  a rod  made  from  scrap  iron 
for  screw  cutting,  but  the  scrap  has  deteriorated  in  quality  so  that  we 
cannot  possibly  use  it.  There  are  no  puddle  rods  made  in  this  country 
although  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  manufacture  them  several  times. 
Mr.  A.  S.  Hewitt  has  tried  it  several  times  at  his  factories,  and  the  peo- 
ple in  East  Boston  have  tried  it,  but  not  successfully.  Therefore  we 
have  been  obliged  to  get  them  from  England  and  Germany  more  and 
more,  until  at  present  we  import  substantially  all  our  material.  For- 
merly we  used  the  scrap,  but  this  was  so  poor  that  we  had  to  give  up 
the  attempt.  I gave  an  order  for  1,200  tons  yesterday  in  Germany. 
Our  consumption  is  large.  There  is  a rod  made  by  Mr.  Hewitt  of  scrap 
sunk  in  a charcoal  fire,  but  it  is  too  high  priced  for  ordinary  use.  We 
import  our  goods  largely  from  Sweden.  The  only  iron  we  buy  in  this 
country,  and  that  is  in  small  quantities,  is  this  charcoal  scrap  iron.  We 
get  that  in  Pennsylvania  and  pay  a very  high  price  for  it.  The  Penn- 
sylvania iron  is  of  the  best  quality  we  know,  but  the  price  is  two  and  a 
half  times  what  we  pay  in  Germany,  and  there  is  only  a very  limited 
product  at  that. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  Have  you  a plant  in  Canada? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  established? — A.  In  1875, 1 believe.  We  then  had 
iron,  duty  free.  There  was  a duty  imposed  of  5 per  cent.,  but  we  were 
relieved  of  that  by  order  of  council,  and  I think  we  shall  have  that 
same  favor  extended  to  us  again  after  a while.  The  present  duty  is  10 
per  cent.  They  gave  us  the  highest  duty  on  screws  that  they  put  on 


728 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EDWIN  G.  ANGELL. 


any  advanced  manufacture,  but  the  market  is  a very  limited  one,  and 
we  should  not  have  gone  there  for  that  alone. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Your  industry  was  formerly  protected  by  patents,  was  it  not? — A. 
Down  to  the  year  1850  we  had  a pretty  hard  time  of  it.  There  have 
been,  since  1815, 80  different  enterprises  started  for  the  manufacture  of 
screws,  and  I venture  to  say  there  are  not  five  to-day  who  can  get  their 
capital  back.  There  are  14  of  us  at  work  to-day;  but  I will  guarantee 
to  supply  the  wants  of  the  market  with  our  own  mills.  In  1849  the 
gimlet  pointed  screw  was  reintroduced.  It  was  not  a new  article  as  is 
generally  supposed;  it  was  an  old  European  product  revived.  The  first 
machinery  used  in  this  country  for  making  screws  was  only  adapted  to 
making  the  blunt  point  with  dies.  Abroad  they  were  made  with  a 
chisel  on  the  old  French  hand  machine.  That  was  made  an  automatic 
machine,  and  in  1849  the  gimlet-point  screw  was  brought  forward. 
Meanwhile  there  had  been  so  little  success  in  screw  making  that  there 
were  but  three  companies  left  and  they  reaped  the  harvest.  In  I860 
the  three  or  four  remaining  companies  consolidated  and  formed  the 
present  American  Screw  Company.  For  five  years  we  had  the  benefit 
of  patents  on  our  automatic  machinery,  but  since  that  time  we  have 
had  no  patents  to  protect  us. 

Q.  The  patents  have  expired,  have  they  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  expired 
in  1864.  But  following  the  war  we  had  this  period  of  prosperity,  and 
made  a good  deal  of  money.  There  is  some  misapprehension  in  regard 
to  the  profit  made  in  our  business,  from  the  fact  that  we  pay  our  divi- 
dends on  a nominal  capital,  and  our  reserve  was  twice  what  our  capital 
was.  Our  present  capital  represents  nearly  all  we  have  in  the  business. 


H.  HOWARD.  ] 


JEWELRY. 


729 


H.  HOWARD. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  26,  1882. 

Mr.  H.  Howard,  of  the  firm  of  Howard  & Scherrieble,  of  Providence, 
R.  I.,  manufacturers  of  sleeve  and  collar  buttons,  addressed  the  Com- 
mission as  follows : 

I am  not  asking  for  an  increase  of  duty  on  the  articles  we  manufact- 
ure. Our  principal  desire  is  to  extend  our  foreign  trade,  or  rather  to 
get  some  foreign  trade ; aud  1 think  that  is  more  important  to  us  than 
increasing  the  duty  on  our  productions.  The  duty  on  jewelry  is  25  per 
cent.,  and  on  precious  stones,  so  called,  10  per  cent.  Diamonds  also  pay 
the  same  rate  of  10  per  cent.  The  reason  for  placing  the  duty  on  diamonds 
so  low  was  because  of  the  facility  with  which  they  might  be  smuggled 
through  in  case  the  duty  was  too  high.  The  articles  we  use  in  addi- 
tion to  gold,  silver,  and  brass  are  precious  stones,  which  only  pay  a 
duty  of  10  per  cent.,  while  jewelry  itself  pays  a duty  of  25  per  cent.  I 
do  not  think  the  jewelers  of  the  United  States  have  complained  because 
the  duty  was  no  higher  than  it  is.  As  an  illustration  of  the  fact  that 
they  have  gotten  along  very  well  with  the  duty  at  the  present  rate,  I 
might  refer  to  the  American  watch  industry,  which  has  been  built  up 
to  enormous  proportions — the  proprietors  having  made  themselves  mill- 
ionaires, and  the  business  having  attained  such  proportions  that  the 
importation  of  Swiss  watches  has  almost  entirely  ceased.  I can  speak 
personally  and  feelingly  on  that  subject,  because  I was  one  of  the  im- 
porters who  was  driven  out  of  the  business  in  that  way.  I was  engaged 
in  the  business  five  years,  and  lost  money  in  it,  and  left  it  for  the  man- 
ufacturing business. 

The  American  Watch  Company,  the  Elgin  Watch  Company,  and  kin- 
dred companies  have  almost  entirely  monopolized  the  business  in  this 
country  on  a duty  of  25  per  cent.  They  have  been  protected  that  much 
and  no  more.  What  we  desire  is  a foreign  trade,  so  that  we  can  keep 
our  factory  running  the  entire  year.  At  present  we  have  only  eight 
months’  business.  The  average  wages  while  the  men  are  at  work  are 
about  $12  a week  for  adults,  although  our  last  pay-roll  showed  an  aver- 
age rate  of  from  $8  to  $9  per  week  per  head.  But  there  were  a consid- 
erable number  of  boys  and  girls  on  the  roll,  so  that  the  average  may  be 
smaller.  The  average  of  adult  jewelers  now  get  only  about  $2  a day. 
It  is  an  art  that  should  be  paid  well  for.  A man  is  required  to  be  a 
better  artisan  to  make  jewelry  and  articles  of  that  description  than  where 
he  has  only  to  work  upon  iron  or  any  other  of  the  heavier  metals. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Are  you  a manufacturer  of  jewelry ; that  is  to  say,  have  you 
a factory  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir.  We  have  a factory  and  employ  84  hands. 
I have  here  a letter,  received  from  our  agent  in  South  America,  in  which 
he  says:  “Inclosed  we  hand  you  a letter  received  by  the  way  of  Eng- 
land.” I do  not  know  of  any  better  text  to  illustrate  my  subject  than 
that;  the  idea  that  we  have  to  do  our  business  in  South  America  by  the 
way  of  England  is  enough  to  stop  our  export  trade.  Jewelry  is  a non-es- 
sential, and  by  itself  it  cannot  penetrate  foreign  countries ; we  can  only 
follow  in  the  wake  of  the  heavier  and  more  necessary  materials.  When  we 
can  export  large  quantities  of  cotton  cloth,  hardware,  &c.,  then  we  can 


730 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  HOWARD. 


hope  to  export  some  jewelry.  But  until  that  time  arrives  we  cannot 
hope  to  extend  our  business  to  foreign  countries,  and  until  we  do  that 
we  cannot  keep  our  men  at  work  the  entire  year;  consequently,  it  reduces 
our  men’s  wages  to  about  89  a week,  taking  the  whole  year  round; 
whereas,  if  we  could  give  them  work  the  entire  year,  we  could  pay  them 
eonsiderably  more.  The  highest  wages  we  pay  now  is  about  $3  a day, 
.and  the  lowest  about  83  per  week.  There  are  too  many  persons  engaged 
in  this  manufacture  at  present  to  afford  any  great  profit,  unless  we  can 
have  a foreign  market  to  export  our  goods  to;  and  I see  no  chance  for  a 
foreign  market  unless  we  can  so  extend  our  commercial  facilties  as  to 
have  direct  steamship  lines  between  this  country  and  the  ports  we  want 
to  reach.  As  I have  said,  our  foreign  representative  in  South  America 
has  to  send  his  letters  to  us  by  the  way  of  England. 

In  general,  I would  say  that  the  manufacturers  of  jewelry  are  doing 
reasonably  well,  and  are  not  asking  for  any  increase  of  duty;  in  fact, 
when  duties  on  other  goods  are  reduced  to  the  rate  paid  on  jewelry, 
namely,  25  per  cent.,  we  shall  be  satisfied  to  take  5 cents  lower  duty 
than  we  have  now.  We  would  rather  have  some  of  these  high  duties 
on  woolen  goods  reduced  to  our  own  standard  than  to  have  our  duties 
increased.  I do  not  think  it  would  help  us  at  all  to  have  our  duties  in- 
oreased ; on  the  contrary,  I think  it  would  defeat  what  we  are  looking 
after — the  creation  of  a foreign  market,  so  that  we  can  dispose  of  our 
surplus  productions.  If  we  could  sell  one-quarter  of  our  production  to 
foreign  countries,  and  not  be  confined  simply  to  this  country  for  our 
market,  we  could  employ  at  least  100  hands  during  the  whole  year. 
We  commenced  the  business  employing  85  hands.  We  reduced  the 
number  to  60,  and  so  on,  till  last  year  we  only  employed  30  hands ; we 
eould  find  no  employment  for  the  rest  of  them.  The  result  is,  a large 
number  of  hands  every  year  are  unemployed,  and  at  least  a quarter  of 
the  time  nearly  all  of  them  are  out  of  work ; and  we  see  no  way  to  im- 
prove this  condition  of  things  but  by  obtaining  foreign  trade ; and  we 
see  no  way  of  obtaining  foreign  trade  unless  our  ports  are  open  to  buy 
and  sell  more  freely  than  is  the  case  now,  which  would  give  us  a chance 
to  exchange  our  commodities.  The  old  Yankee  privilege  of  swapping 
is  denied  to  us.  We  think  it  is  unfair.  We  could  keep  our  men  at 
work  and  pay  them  better  wages  under  a different  state  of  affiars. 
Wages  have  increased  very  little,  while  the  cost  of  living  has  increased 
very  much.  I have  a memorandum  here  which  was  handed  to  me  by  a 
gentleman  this  morning,  which  shows  the  following  advance  in  prices : 


Cost  of  living. 


Articles. 

1856. 

1882. 

Flour 

Steak 

Potatoes . . . 

Butter 

Sugar 

Rent 

$5  00  to  $6  00 

....  12  to  18 

! 50  to  75 

....  15  to  17 

. . . . 6 to  8 

....  1200 

$9  00  to  $9  50 
30  to  35 
1 25  to  1 40 
35  to  60 

10  to  11 

20  00 

Wages  have  not  increased  anything  like  that.  A man  in  1856  could 
support  his  family  better  on  8600  a year  than  he  can  now  on  $1,200  a 
year;  and  I think  the  additional  expense  is  caused  by  the  immense  pro- 
tective tariff  which  we  have  in  this  country. 

Q.  Yon  have  a factory  giving  employment  to  84  persons! — A.  Yes, 


JEWELRY. 


H.  HOWARD. ] 


731 


sir;  we  do  not  employ  84  bands  except  during  the  busy  season,  lasting 
about  eight  months  in  the  year. 

Q.  Where  are  your  goods  sold? — A.  In  this  market  almost  entirely. 
We  have  made  an  effort  for  a foreign  market,  but  have  not  succeeded 
yet  in  exporting. 

Q.  What  class  of  jewelry  do  you  make? — A.  Sleeve  and  collar  but- 
tons almost  exclusively. 

Q.  Is  your  market  increasing  in  this  country? — A.  I presume  our 
market  is  increasing ; I have  no  doubt  about  that. 

Q.  You  say  the  article  you  manufacture  is  a superfluity? — A.  Yes, 
sir $ it  is  a superfluity  and  not  a necessity.  People  would  not  buy 
sleeve  buttons  if  they  wanted  bread  or  clothes. 

Q.  What  are  the  average  prices  received  for  your  goods  ? — A.  They 
run  very  low — from  $4.50  a dozen  pair  up  to  $15  a dozen  pair,  or  say 
from  37£  cents  to  $1.25  per  pair. 

Q.  What  class  of  people  are  your  customers  ?< — A.  The  middle  and 
working  classes  principally. 


732 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[AAEON  WILLIAMS, 


AARON  WILLIAMS. 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  August  29,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Rev.  Aaron  Williams,  in  regard 
to  the  duty  upon  foreign  Bibles,  was  read  and  ordered  to  be  printed : 

To  the  members  of  the  Tariff  Commission : 

Gentlemen  : Some  time  ago  a petition  signed  by  many  of  the  clergy, 
merchants,  bankers,  and  other  citizens  in  this  city  and  State,  praying 
for  the  abrogation  of  the  duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  now  charged 
on  all  foreign  Bibles,  was  presented  to  the  honorable  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives  in  Congress  assembled. 

Being  informed  that  the  said  petition  is  now  before  the  Tariff  Com- 
mission, appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  we  hereby 
take  the  liberty  to  express  an  earnest  hope,  that  after  due  consideration 
of  the  said  petition,  the  Commissioners  will  heartily  recommend  Con- 
gress to  admit  into  the  United  States  the  Bible,  and  any  and  every  part 
thereof,  and  in  every  form  and  language  whatsoever,  free  from  duty. 

This  great  boon  will  certainly  promote  the  sale  of  the  Bible ; the  dis- 
tribution of  the  Bible;  the  study  of  the  Bible;  and  the  influence  of  the 
Bible ; and  thus,  contributing  to  the  social,  the  commercial,  and  the 
moral  welfare  of  the  people  of  this  great  land  and  republic. 

All  who  have  signed  the  petition,  together  with  many  more  who  have 
not  had  the  opportunity  of  doing  so,  will  rejoice  to  know  that  the  Tariff 
Commission  have  used  their  great  influence  toward  securing  the  privi- 
lege sought. 

This  petition  has  been  the  subject  of  favorable  discussion  at  the  meet- 
ings of  the  denominational  clergy  of  this  city ; and  it  has  received  the 
recognition  of  the  local  press.  Other  papers  also  have  taken  up  the 
question,  and  thus  the  public  have  become  well  acquainted  with  its 
merits. 

With  confidence,  we  assure  the  Tariff  Commission  that  the  idea  of  a 
free  Bible  has  met  with  almost  universal  approbation  in  every  mind  to 
whom  the  question  is  presented. 

On  behalf  of  the  petitioners, 

Aaron  Williams,  Secretary. 

San  Francisco,  Cal.,  August  21,  1882. 

The  following  is  a copy  of  the  petition  referred  to  : 

To  the  honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress  assembled: 

The  undersigned  petitioners,  citizens  of  the  State  of  California,  beg  leave  to  show 

That  the  present  revenue  laws  impose  a duty  of  25  per  cent.,  ad  valorem,  on  the  im 
portation  of  the  Bible  into  the  United  States. 

That  the  Bible  is  printed  and  bound  and  sold  in  other  countries  at  a price  from  50 
to  75  per  cent,  cheaper  than  in  the  United  States. 

That  in  common  with  the  great  majority  of  the  citizens  of  our  republic,  your  petit- 
ioners believe  that  the  social,  commercial,  and  moral  welfare  of  our  people  will  been- 
chanced  by  the  cheap  distribution  of  the  Bible  among  all  classes. 

That  no  citizen  can  desire,  or  ought  to  have,  the  protection  of  the  government  for 
pecuniary  profit  by  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  the  Bible. 

That  the  Government  of  the  United  States  cannot  desire  to  realize  a revenue  from 
the  importation,  or  distribution,  or  sale  of  the  Bible. 

Wherefore,  your  petitioners  pray  that  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  may 
be  amended,  so  that  the  Bible,  and  any  and  every  part  thereof,  and  in  whatever  form 
and  language,  may  be  admitted  free  from  duty. 


PATRICK  BARRY.] 


PLANTS. 


733 


PATRICK  BARRY. 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  August  29,  1882. 

Mr.  Patrick  Barry,  of  tlie  firm  of  Ellwanger  & Barry,  of  Rochester, 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

My  statement  will  occupy  but  a very  short  time.  I inteuded  when  I 
heard  that  the  Commission  would  visit  Rochester  to  invite  several  of 
the  leading  nurserymen  of  the  country  to  meet  here  and  agree  upon  a 
statement  to  be  submitted  to  the  Commission;  but  the  time  at  my  dis- 
posal was  so  short  that  I found  it  impossible  to  do  so.  Therefore  my 
present  statement  is  an  individual  one,  and  embodies  merely  my  own 
views. 

We  respectfully  recommend  that  all  duties  on  living  trees  and  plants 
imported  from  foreign  countries  be  abolished,  for  the  following  and  other 
reasons : 

1st.  The  value  of  such  importations  is  so  small  that  no  considerable 
revenue  is  derived  from  it.  What  little  there  is  must  be  mostly  con- 
sumed by  the  expense  of  collecting. 

2d.  American  nurserymen  need  no  protection.  They  have  nothing  to 
fear  from  foreign  competition.  They  can  grow  almost  all  sorts  of  trees 
and  plants  in  demand  in  this  country  cheaper  and  better  than  they  can 
be  grown  in  any  part  of  Europe.  The  prices  of  fruit  trees  and  a great 
many  ornamental  trees  and  plants  are  at  this  time,  and  have  been  for 
many  years,  lower  in  American  than  in  European  catalogues. 

There  are  certain  articles  that  can  be  grown  in  Europe  better  and 
cheaper  than  in  this  country,  and  it  would  be  advantageous  to  Ameri- 
can nurserymen  and  to  the  American  planter  to  have  them  imported 
free  of  duty.  The  amount  of  the  duty  is  not  a very  great  burden,  but 
the  delay  which  its  collection  causes  frequently  results  in  the  death  of 
the  plants,  and  the  importer  pays  duty  and  expenses  on  worthless  prop- 
erty and  suffers  serious  disappointment  besides. 

The  great  objection  to  the  working  of  the  present  system  is  the  delay 
and  expense  in  getting  goods  through  the  custom-house  on  these  small 
matters.  I have  here  a memorandum  of  our  importations  of  last  spring. 
They  were  very  small,  much  smaller  than  they  have  been  in  twenty 
years.  We  import  articles  from  Belgium,  France,  England,  and  Scot- 
land. Altogether  there  were  eight  different  importations,  all  small  in 
amount.  The  total  amount  was  $2,748,  on  which  the  duty,  at  20  per 
cent.,  amounted  to  $545.60.  There  were  other  custom-house  expenses 
amounting  to  $67.50,  making  a total  of  custom-house  expenses  on  this 
$2,748  of  $613.10.  These  articles  were  nearly  all  new  varieties  of 
plants.  There  are  certain  kinds  of  plants  and  trees  originated  abroad 
which  we  import  into  this  country  to  be  propagated  and  then  sold  by 
the  nurserymen.  There  are  also  some  articles,  such  as  seedling  trees, 
which  grow  better  in  the  climate  of  England,  France,  than  they  do 
here.  These  are  the  only  articles  imported  by  nurserymen.  They 
amount  to  very  little  in  value,  and  the  country  would  be  benefited  to 
have  them  brought  in  free.  But  our  great  objection  has  been  the  delay 
that  is  caused  in  the  custom-house  on  articles  that  should  be  shipped 
right  through  and  reach  here  in  a short  time. 


784 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[PATRICK  BARRY, 


By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  Does  this  item  of  $67.50,  to  which  yon  have  referred,  in- 
clude the  custom  brokerage? — Answer.  Yes, sir. 

Q.  That  is  not  properly  a custom-house  expense ; the  broker  is  your 
agent.  The  brokerage  would  be  the  same  on  other  things. — A.  The 
most  of  the  items  I have  referred  to  are  caused  by  the  collection  of  the 
custom-house  duties. 

Q.  I mean  it  costs  just  as  much  for  passing  an  entry  in  the  custom- 
house, whether  there  is  a duty  on  the  goods  passed  or  not.  If  that  item 
includes  brokerage  it  is  not  a necessary  part  of  custom-house  expenses- 
— A.  I can  tell  you  just  what  it  includes.  [Reading.]  “ Custom-house 
fees,  bond,  owner’s  oath,  and  brokerage;”  these  are  the  items. 

Q.  What  is  the  total  amount  of  the  charge  for  brokerage  ? — A.  The 
brokerage  is  $4 ; the  custom-house  fees  were  $1.40. 

Q.  That  $4  was  paid  to  your  custom-house  broker  and  not  to  the  cus- 
tom-house. You  say  that  if  these  goods  could  be  shipped  right  through 
it  would  save  delay? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  reason  why  they  cannot  be  shipped  right  through  under 
the  immediate  transportation  act ; have  you  ever  had  any  goods  arrive 
here  in  that  way  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I tried  to  get  them  here  in  that  way  but 
could  not  succeed.  We  understood  that  this  was  a port  of  entry  and  the 
duties  could  be  paid  here ; but  the  goods  were  not  forwarded  and  could 
not  be.  The  only  time  when  we  tried  to  have  our  goods  come  direct  to 
Rochester  was  when  they  were  sent  to  the  store-house  in  New  York  and 
kept  for  about  a month. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  reason  why  they  were  kept  there  so  long  ? — A. 
No,  sir,  1 could  not  tell  you  the  reason  for  it. 

Q.  Was  it  not  owing  to  your  failure  to  have  the  proper  papers? — A. 
No,  sir;  we  had  all  our  papers  and  everything,  the  consul’s  certificate 
and  all,  attached. 

Q.  Did  this  occur  at  the  New  York  custom-house? — A.  Yes,  sir.  We 
have  been  importing  goods  for  forty  years  and  we  know  what  is  required 
to  be  done-in  order  to  secure  the  passage  of  goods  quickly. 

Q.  Do  not  some  of  the  merchants  of  Rochester  import  goods  directly 
to  this  city  and  pay  their  duties  here  ? — A.  I do  not  know  ; I think  they 
do,  but  they  are  duties  on  goods  not  so  perishable  and  it  does  not  mat- 
ter whether  they  lie  over  a week  or  two  in  New  York  or  not,  and  they 
make  no  particular  complaint  about  it,  I suppose,  if  they  do.  But  trees 
and  plants  are  perishable,  and  we  have  tried  in  every  way  in  our  power 
to  get  our  goods  sent  through  without  detention,  but  we  find  that  to  be 
utterly  impossible. 

Q.  Do  you  think  if  they  were  put  on  the  free  list  that  would  help  the 
matter  ? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; we  think  so,  because  the  custom-house  officials 
have  always  claimed  that  the  assessment  of  the  duties  was  the  cause  of 
delay. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  the  brokers  have  always  urged  that  as  the  cause? — 
A.  Yes,  sir ; and  we  think  it  is  true,  because  they  are  honorable  men, 
discharging  their  duties  to  their  clients,  and  it  is  to  their  interest  to 
facilitate  matters. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  It  takes  just  as  long  to  pass  an  entry  of 
free  goods  through  the  custom-house  as  of  dutiable  goods,  especially 
where  it  is  a simple  duty  of  twenty  per  cent.  It  does  not  take  much 
longer  to  write  down  the  word  “ free  ’’  than  it  does  to  write  down  the 
words  “20  per  centum.’’  I do  not  see  where  there  would  be  any  ad- 
vantage in  that  respect.  All  the  goods  have  to  be  examined  and  in 


PATRICK  RA1UIY.] 


PLANTS. 


735 


spected  just  the  same,  to  see  whether  they  are  free  goods  or  not,  or 
whether  they  are  subject  t©  a rate  of  duty. 

The  Witness.  If  we  could  get  our  goods  through  the  custom-house 
rapidly  we  should  not  care  about  the  amount  of  duty  so  much. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  But  I do  not  understand  why  the  question 
whether  they  are  free  or  dutiable  goods  should  affect  the  matter  of  rapid 
transmission  through  the  custom-house. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  on  the  consumer — the  purchaser — if  the 
duty  was  taken  off  these  goods  ? — A.  I do  not  think  it  would  affect  the 
price  of  the  article  to  any  extent.  If  their  importation  could  be  facili- 
tated it  perhaps  might  make  a difference.  In  that  way  the  price  might 
be  reduced. 

Q.  What  is  the  total  amount  of  dutiable  plants  and  trees  imported 
annually  into  the  several  parts  of  the  United  States  ? — A.  I could  not 
say.  I do  not  think  the  amount  is  very  large.  Our  own  imports  some 
years  have  amounted  to  $5,000  or  $10,000,  but  this  last  year  or  two  they 
have  been  very  light.  I do  not  suppose  the  importation  of  trees  and 
plants  into  this  country  would  amount  altogether  to  a million  dollars, 
or  perhaps  not  half  of  that  sum. 

Q.  If  it  amounted  to  a million  of  dollars  the  duty  would  be  $200,000, 
and  to  make  them  free  would  be  to  take  from  the  government  just  that 
amount  of  revenue  l — A.  The  government  does  not  get  all  the  duty.  It 
costs  a great  deal  of  it  to  collect  it,  does  it  not  ? 

Commissioner  Underwood.  No,  not  very  much  of  it. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  there  not  a class  of  plants  grown  abroad  which  are  not  grown 
so  largely  in  this  country  ; Dutch  bulbs,  for  instance? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
but  they  do  not  come  under  the  head  of  green  plants ; they  come  under 
the  head  of  seeds.  The  seedmen  will  probably  speak  in  their  own  in- 
terest before  the  commission. 

Q.  Take  what  are  called  the  American  plants,  the  rhododendrons, 
&c. ; are  they  not  imported  largely  from  abroad  % — A.  Yes,  sir ; they 
are  imported  somewhat,  but  not  extensively.  There  may  be  a few  gen- 
tlemen living  in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston  who  import  a few, 
but  the  nurserymen  do  not  import  many.  Mr.  Parsons,  a nurseryman 
of  Long  Island,  grows  and  propagates  these  rhododendrons.  I have 
received  a letter  from  him  saying  that  he  hopes  the  tariff  law  will  be 
amended  imposing  a duty  of  50  per  cent.,  instead  of  20  per  cent.,  on  the 
foreign  article.  That  is  simply  because  he  grows  a class  of  plants  which 
are  imported  in  competition  with  him.  But  I think  the  nurserymen  of 
the  country  generally  would  be  in  favor  of  having  trees  and  plants 
admitted  free,  especially  if  it  would  result  in  getting  rid  of  these  vexa- 
tious delays  at  the  custom-house.  One  of  your  commissioners  has  said 
that  the  delays  are  not  caused  by  the  assessment  of  the  duty.  I have 
always  had  the  impression  that  was  the  cause  of  it,  but  I may  be  mis- 
taken. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I gave  you  a reason  for  my  statement.  I 
say  it  does  not  take  any  longer  to  compute  a 20  per  cent,  duty  than  it 
does  to  write  the  word  u free”  on  the  invoice,  and  that  is  the  only  differ- 
ence between  the  two.  The  operation  of  the  law  is  precisely  the  same. 
And  more  than  that,  at  all  custom-houses,  by  order  of  the  Treasury 


736 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[PATRICK  BARRY. 


Department,  perishable  goods  have  the  preference  over  other  goods  in 
passing. 

The  Witness.  I am  glad  to  know  that  is  so,  but  it  does  not  accord  at 
all  with  our  experience.  Whenever  we  have  written  to  the  custom-house 
officials  about  it  the  answer  has  always  been  that  they  knew  of  no  such 
order ; that  one  man’s  goods  were  the  same  as  another’s  to  them.  I 
think  perishable  goods  ought  to  have  precedence. 


T.  L HENLY.J 


FLAX. 


737 


T.  L.  HENLY. 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  August  29,  1882. 

The  following  paper,  received  from  Mr.  T.  L.  Henly,  of  the  French- 
town  (N.  J.)  Flax  Works,  was  read  and  ordered  to  be  printed: 

In  reply  to  Messrs.  Finlaysou,  Bonsfield  & Co.’s  statements  in  regard 
to  the  admission  of  flax  fiber  into  this  country  free  of  duty,  we  desire 
to  state  a few  facts.  The  statement  has  been  made: 

1st.  “That  flax  is  not  grown  in  America  to  any  extent  ior  textile 
manufacturing  purposes.” 

Answer.  To  admit  foreign  flax,  duty  free,  would  preclude  its  being 
grown  at  all  in  those  parts  of  the  country  where  the  fiber  really  is  good 
enough  for  textile  manufacturing  purposes.  In  this  portion  of  New 
Jersey  flax  fiber  sells  at  an  average  of  10  cents  per  pound.  It  costs 
about  8J  cents  to  prepare  it  for  market,  so  that  the  profit  is  not  large  ; 
but  it  pays  the  farmer  better  than  any  other  crop,  whether  he  sells  his 
straw  to  the  manufacturer  or  works  it  up  himself,  and  the  money  value 
thereof  is  thus  kept  in  the  country,  in  place  of  enriching  other  nations 
at  our  cost. 

2d.  “ That  linen  manufacturing  does  not  receive  encouragement  by 
having  the  raw  material  grown  at  home,  and  would  therefore  not  de- 
velop, but  cease  to  exist  unless  supplied  from  abroad.” 

Answer.  How  can  this  be  if  plenty  of  material  were  forthcoming  in 
this  country  ? If  the  flax  industry  is  properly  encouraged  it  will  event- 
ually rival  the  cotton  trade  in  magnitude  and  importance,  for  there  is  a 
far  wider  area  in  this  country  suitable  for  flax  than  there  is  for  cotton, 
and  linen  goods,  if  cheap  enough,  will  always  take  the  lead  for  general 
purposes. 

3rd.  “That,  the  development  of  manufacturing  is  the  only  means  of 
encouraging  the  production  of  superior  flax.” 

Answer.  True,  by  the  foreigner ; but  why  kill  a trade  we  can  build  up 
at  home,  in  the  production  of  flax  fiber  of  medium  quality,  to  insure  this? 

4th.  “That  the  manufacturing  of  linen  can  best  be  encouraged  by  the 
introduction  of  raw  material  free  of  duty.” 

Answer.  True.  But  the  manufacturing  of  flax  fiber  will  be  injured 
in  proportion. 

5th.  “That  a handsome  profit  could  be  realized  by  proper  treatment 
out  of  straw  now  destroyed.” 

Answer.  Not  so,  if  converted  into  fiber  for  textile  manufacturing  pur- 
poses. With  a bounty,  such  as  this  State  confers,  it  will  pay ; but  with- 
out this,  flax  straw,  as  produced  out  West,  is  only  fit,  when  converted, 
for  stuffing  chairs  and  sofas. 

6th.  “That  the  quality  of  flax  fiber  is  so  dependent  on  favorable 
conditions  of  soil,  water,  and  climate,  that  it  is  questionable  if  any  one 
country  can  produce  the  entire  range  of  qualities  necessary  for  the  manu- 
facture of  linen  threads  and  fine  linen.” 

Answer.  True;  but  why  kill  a trade  that  can  be  done,  because  it  can- 
not do  impossibilities  ? 

8th.  “ That  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances  it  must  take  many 
years  before  the  best  results  could  be  obtained,  and  that  linen  manu- 
facturers must  have  quality  at  any  cost.” 

H.  Mis.  G 17 


738 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


{T.  l.  hexly. 


Answer.  True.  But  this  is  no  argument,  to  my  thinking,  why  foreign 
flax  produced  by  cheap  labor  should  be  admitted  duty  free  to  the  cer- 
tain ruin  of  a very  important  industry  in  this  country.  The  manufact- 
urer of  linen  can  well  afford  to  pay  a duty  on  the  finest  descriptions  of 
flax,  and  the  higher  value  of  such  would  stimulate  the  production  of  it 
over  here,  which  is  by  no  means  an  impossibility,  but  depends  in  a very 
great  measure,  although  not  entirely,  upon  the  extra  care  and  labor  be- 
stowed upon  it.  America  will  eventually  export  flax  largely  if  due  en- 
couragement be  given  to  the  grower,  beside  supplying  her  home  manu- 
facturers with  nearly  all  they  may  require. 


HIRA1I  SIBLEY.  1 


SEEDS. 


739 


HIRAM  SIBLEY. 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  August  29,  1882. 

Mr.  Hiram  Sibley,  of  Rochester,  nurseryman,  addressed  the  Com- 
mission as  follows : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : As  a certain  firm  of 
seedsmen  have  addressed  you,  advocating  an  increase  to  100  per  cent, 
of  the  duty  on  imported  seeds,  we  beg  leave  to  submit : 

First.  That  there  are  probably  less  than  one  hundred  persons  who 
make  a business  of  growing  seeds  in  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
wages  of  the  one  or  two  thousand  employes  of  the  seed-growers  and 
seed -dealers  are  in  no  way  influenced  by  either  a high  or  low  tariif  on 
imported  seeds,  as  they  are  not  grown  to  any  considerable  extent  in 
America. 

Second.  The  assertion  that  seeds  in  Europe  are  grown  by  pauper  la- 
bor is  a mistake,  as  the  most  skilled  farm  workmen  of  Europe  are  em- 
ployed by  the  seed-growers,  and  the  work  is  done  as  a rule  more  care- 
fully and  better  than  in  this  country.  The  assertion  that  the  home 
industry  is  “ capable  of  supplying  in  a superior  form  all  the  wants  of 
the  country,  with  the  exception  of  a few  unimportant  articles,”  is  incor- 
rect. Climate  has  an  important  influence  on  the  development  of  seeds, 
and  many  kinds  cannot  be  grown  to  perfection  in  this  country ; further, 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  get  farmers  to  grow  seeds,  even  of  the  varie- 
ties which  may  be  grown  to  perfection  in  the  varied  climate  of  the 
States.  All  vegetable  seeds,  with  the  exception  of  beet,  carrot,  lettuce, 
onion,  parsnip,  and  turnip,  are  grown  in  greater  perfection  in  Europe, 
and  hence  more  for  the  interests  of  American  farmers ; and  the  same  is 
true  of  all  flower  seeds. 

Third.  The  assertion  that  the  climate  of  Europe  is  more  favorable  to 
the  production  of  seed  is  true;  but  from  the  above  statement  of  facts 
this  is  evidently  an  argument  against,  rather  than  for,  a high  tariff,  as 
it  is  in  the  interests  of  American  farmers  and  not  prejudicial  to  Ameri- 
can seed-growers. 

Fourth.  The  assertion  that  American  grown  seeds,  by  reason  of  their 
acclimation,  are  better  adapted  to  American  needs  and  are  preferred 
by  American  cultivators,  is  a mistake,  except  in  case  of  the  varieties 
above  mentioned. 

Therefore  we  advocate,  in  the  interests  of  American  farmers  and  seed- 
dealers,  the  abolition  of  import  duties  on  all  flower  seeds  and  all  vege- 
table seeds  except  beet,  carrot,  lettuce,  onion,  parsnip,  and  turnip,  upon 
which  there  is  no  objection  to  a low  tariff  of  10  to  20  per  cent.  We 
assert  that  it  is  not  right  to  impose  a high  tax  upon  seven  million  seed 
users  for  the  benefit  of  one  hundred  seed-growers. 

The  policy  of  a tariff  upon  imported  seeds  seems  at  war  with  the 
policy  of  the  government,  which  now  distributes  seeds  of  food  crops 
freely  among  growers.  Again,  the  present  discrimination  against  cer- 
tain grains  for  seed  in  favor  of  grains  for  food  is  unjust;  if  any  dif- 
ference is  made  it  should  be  in  favor  of  the  seed,  according  to  the 
present  policy  of  the  government,  which  admits  live-stock  for  breeding 
purposes  duty  free. 

I am  ready  now  to  answer  any  questions  that  the  members  of  the 


740 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[Hill AM  b I BLEY. 


Commission  may  desire  to  ask  in  explanation  of  these  matters.  I am 
a very  large  farmer,  and  may  possibly  say  something  of  the  farming 
interest  generally,  but  I do  not  propose  to  detain  you  with  a set  speech. 
Of  course,  this  matter  of  agricultural  productions  involves  very  large 
interests  and  is  somewhat  complicated. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  If  there  are  any  points  which  require  further  elucidation 
you  are  liberty  to  state  them. — Answer.  We  make  a point  in  regard  to 
the  general  policy  which  the  government  has  seen  fit  to  adopt  in  the 
free  distribution  of  valuable  seeds.  The  government  is  spending  a large 
amount  of  money  in  this  way.  The  duty  imposed  upon  seeds  is  very 
much  larger  where  the  seed  is  valuable  and  imported  for  propagation 
than  where  it  is  used  for  consumption.  It  seems  very  strange  that  while 
the  government  is  spending  so  much  money  trying  to  introduce  valuable 
seeds  in  this  country  it  should  turn  around  and  assess  twice  the  duty  on 
the  same  article  used  for  seed  that  it  assesses  on  it  when  used  for  con- 
sumption. For  instance,  the  English  have  developed  very  valuable 
varieties  of  pease.  The  duty  on  pease  is  20  per  cent,  when  used  for  seed, 
but  when  used  for  consumption  it  is  only  10  per  cent.  And  a conflict 
is  all  the  time  arising  between  the  government  and  the  importer  as  to 
whether  seeds  are  to  be  used  as  seeds  or  for  consumption.  We  import 
seeds  for  both  purposes.  We  import  a valuable  seed,  and  when  we  find 
it  is  not  worth  as  much  as  we  expected,  then  we  sell  it  for  consumption. 
We  have  imported  seeds  and  paid  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  upon  them,  and 
have  afterwards  sold  them  for  consumption.  The  government  in  carry- 
ing out  this  policy  has  provided  that  the  seeds  distributed  by  the  De- 
partment of  Agriculture  shall  be  sent  free  through  the  post-office.  The 
government  buys  seeds  from  us,  puts  them  in  packages,  and  sends  them 
free  through  the  post-office.  But  when  we  want  to  send  seeds  through 
the  post-office  we  are  forced  to  send  them  to  Canada,  pay  a 10  or  20  per 
cent,  duty  to  get  them  in  there,  and  then  put  them  into  their  post-office 
to  send  them  50  miles  from  here.  The  seedsmen  of  this  town  now  send 
through  the  mail  valuable  seeds  to  their  customers  50  miles  from  here, 
and  they  can  send  them  with  profit  to  Canada,  pay  the  duty  of  20  per 
cent.,  pay  the  postage  in  Canada,  and  get  them  sent  to  their  customers 
50  miles  from  here  cheaper  than  they  can  mail  them  here.  That  may  be  a 
subject  for  you  to  examine  in  connection  with  the  transmission  of  goods 
through  the  mails.  I mention  it  as  one  of  the  absurdities  growing  out 
of  the  tariff  question.  Certainly  it  is  within  your  province,  and,  I sup- 
pose, consistent  with  your  wishes,  to  make  the  policy  of  the  government 
harmonize  on  these  questions.  The  government  is  a large  customer  of 
ours  and  buys  large  quantities  of  seeds  from  us  on  which  we  have  to 
pay  a heavy  duty,  and  then  they  distribute  those  seeds  free  through  the 
post-office  to  people  all  over  the  United  States. 

Q.  About  what  quantity  of  land  do  you  devote  to  the  growing  of  seeds 
for  propagation  % — A.  I have  over  3,000  acres  devoted  to  that  business. 
I grow  more  seeds  probably  than  anybody  else  in  the  country.  My  land 
is  mainly  and  largely  devoted  to  the  growing  of  field  seeds,  grasses,  and 
pease.  My  farms  are  located  in  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  New  York. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  You  advocate  that  all  grains  and  seeds  be  put  upon  the  free  list! — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I would  not  say  that  seeds  of  all  kinds  should  be  placed 
on  the  free  list.  We  have  excepted  certain  seeds  that  are  not  grown  by 
the  American  farmer.  We  see  no  special  object  in  taxing  the  consumer, 


HIRAM  SIBLEY.] 


SEEDS. 


741 


unless  that  tax  is  to  operate  favorably  upon  the  American  grower. 
The  tax  on  such  seeds  as  will  not  grow  with  profit  here  had  better  be 
abolished  in  the  interest  of  the  consumer. 

Q.  You  grow  pease  extensively? — A.  Yes,  sir 5 very  largely. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  do  not  object  to  the  policy  which  the  government  has  adopted 
of  distributing  gratuitously  these  seeds,  do  you? — A.  Yo,  sir;  I think 
that  it  is  of  the  first  importance  to  the  farmer  that  he  should  have  good 
seed,  and  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  the  government  ai$o.  But  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  present  tariff  on  seeds  is  at  war  with  that  policy 
which  the  government  has  adopted  in  the  distribution  of  seeds. 


742 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


|H.  C.  ROBERTS. 


H.  0.  ROBERTS. 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  August  29,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Mr.  H.  0.  Roberts,  president  of 
the  Charlotte  Iron  Works,  was  read  and  ordered  to  be  printed: 

To  the  members  of  the  Tariff  Commission : 

We  desire  to  call  your  especial  attention  to  the  duty  on  foreign  iron 
ore,  which  is  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Should  it  not  be  placed  on  the 
free  list  ? 

1st.  It  is  raw  material  in  the  most  crude  form.  The  government,  to 
protect  our  forests,  has  placed  telegraph  poles,  railroad  ties,  and  saw- 
logs  on  the  free  list,  all  of  which  can  be  reproduced,  but  iron  ore  cannot 
be  reproduced,  and  is  an  irreparable  loss  to  any  country  exporting  it. 

2d.  Our  native  ores  are  very  lean,  averaging  only  about  38  per  cent., 
and  largely  impregnated  with  phosphorous,  and  when  used  alone,  make 
a rather  cold  short  iron,  unfit  for  foundry  use.  To  remedy  this  we  are 
obliged  to  use  a mixture  of  better  grade  ores. 

3d.  Lake  Superior  ore  being  so  far  distant,  the  cost  of  transportation 
prohibits  its  use,  and  Champlain  ore,  as  a rule,  contains  too  much  phos- 
phorous. 

4th.  Canada  ore  fully  answers  our  purpose,  being  perfectly  free  from 
sulphur  and  phosphorous ; but  the  duty  prevents  the  use  of  it,  except  in 
small  quantities. 

5th.  At  present  the  Bessemer  rail  mills  in  Eastern  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York  are  importing  Bessemer  pig.  If  this  ore  was  on  the  free  list 
we  could  compete  successfully  for  this  trade. 

6th.  The  ore  cast  in  a ton  of  consumable  iron,  worth  averaging  $50 
per  ton,  is  only  from  $8  to  $10,  the  balance  of  cost  being  mostly  labor. 
Therefore,  would  it  not  be  for  the  general  welfare  to  let  the  raw  material 
in  free  ? 

Very  respectfully, 


H.  C.  Roberts, 

President . 


L.  STRAUS  &.  80N8.] 


POTTERY  AND  GLASSWARE. 


743 


L.  STRAUS  & SONS. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August , 30,  1882. 
The  following  communication  from  Messrs.  L.  Straus  & Sons,  of  New 
York  City,  importers  of  china,  pottery,  and  glassware,  was  read  and 
ordered  to  be  printed : 

To  the  honorable  Tariff  Commission : 

Gentlemen:  In  compliance  with  your  circular  dated  Washington, 
July  11,  1882,  we  herewith  beg  to  return  to  you  the  blank  which  you 
forwarded  to  us,  duly  filled  out  as  requested.  A committee,  represent- 
ing our  line  of  business  having  arranged  to  appear  before  you,  we  desire 
to  submit,  in  addition  to  their  statements,  the  following  points: 

One  of  the  main  objects  we  had  in  view  in  our  suggestions  as  to  a 
change  in  the  present  tariff  of  goods  in  our  line  was  to  have  an  uniform 
one,  in  so  far  as  to  remove  all  possible  conflict  of  opinion  as  to  whether 
the  goods  come  in  under  one  rate  of  duty  or  under  another.  These 
questions  frequently  arise,  and  have  been  erroneously  decided  by  the 
examiners  here  in  compelling  the  payment  of  duty  on  an  article  as  china 
which  the  trade  was  convinced  was  not  china,  as  well  as  other  similar 
unpleasantnesses,  which  can  be  avoided  by  a uniform  tariff. 

In  addition  to  this  reduction  in  the  rates  of  duty,  as  we  suggest,  we 
would  ask  the  entire  abrogation  of  duty  on  packing  expenses,  inland 
freights,  commissions,  &c.,  which  on  these  lines  aggregate  particularly 
onerous.  Take,  for  instance,  the  lower  grades  of  white  and  printed  earth- 
enware, majolica  and  Bohemian  glassware,  which  nominally  pay  a duty 
of  40  per  cent. ; the  actual  duty  on  the  goods  themselves  is  in  reality  from 
70  to  80  per  cent.  On  many  articles  the  present  duties  are  in  fact  pro- 
hibitive, and,  unless  reduced,  might  as  well  be  100  as  35  to  40  per  cent., 
if  it  be  not  the  object  to  have  a prohibitive  tariff.  By  a simple  study  of 
statistical  figures  as  to  the  amount  of  earthenware  that  is  being  import- 
ed, whether  in  number  of  packages  or  in  value,  compared  with  what 
was  imported  10  years  ago,  an  erroneous  conclusion  is  arrived  at.  Then 
fully  95  per  cent,  of  all  importations  of  earthenware  consisted  of  plain 
or  white  ware,  but  since  then  home  manufacturers  grew  up  to  produce 
the  goods  for  less  than  they  possibly  could  be  imported  at,  and  importers, 
finding  a large  portion  of  their  business  gradually  slipping  away,  natur- 
ally sought  another  channel  to  make  good  this  loss. 

This  has,  in  a great  measure,  been  the  means  of  the  introduction  into 
this  country  of  colored  earthenware,  known  as  printed  ware  and  majolica, 
and  if  it  were  not  for  this  change  in  the  character  of  the  business  and 
the  importations  being  confined  to  the  same  class  of  goods  as  were  im 
ported  10  years  ago,  the  importations  of  earthenware  from  Great  Britain, 
which,  in  round  numbers,  were  something  over  100,000  packages  then, 
and  are  about  the  same  now,  would  probably  not  reach  50,000  packages, 
or  less  than  half,  with  a corresponding  decline  in  value;  the  falling  off 
being  attributable  entirely  to  that  class  of  goods  which  are  manufactured 
in  this  country  at  less  price  than  they  could  possibly  be  imported  for. 

To  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  trade  and  come  in  contact  with 
American  manufacturers,  it  must  be  apparent  how  profitable  American 
potting  must  be  under  the  present  protection  when  it  is  observed  that 
in  many  cases  the  money  was  supplied  at  the  start  by  capitalists,  who 


744 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  STEAUS  & SONS. 


only  had  in  view  the  aim  of  making  good  returns  on  their  investment 
and  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  practical  potters,  who,  in  most  instances, 
have,  through  the  enormous  profits,  been  enabled  to  pay  off  and  buy 
out  the  original  capitalists,  and  are  capitalists  themselves  to-day.  The 
absence  of  statistical  figures  prevents  our  placing  these  facts  in  a tabu- 
lated form ; but  they  are  facts  which  are  patent  to  every  one  who  comes 
in  contact  with  the  manufacturers  in  question. 

If  there  are  any  exceptions  to  this  rule,  the  exceptions  are  certainly 
as  few  as  they  are  under  any  general  rule.  In  fact,  there  is  no  class  of 
business  men  or  manufacturers  where  so  large  a percentage  of  those 
engaged  have  been  successful  and  so  small  a percentage  have  been  un- 
successful. If  properly  investigated  it  will  become  apparent  that  those 
of  the  latter  category  either  did  not  give  their  entire  attention  to  the 
business  or  they  were  not  experienced  potters,  but  were  led  to  launch 
therein  from  the  lucrative  returns  they  so  amassed. 

Every  experienced  potter  who  associated  himself  with  a man  who  un- 
derstood the  routine  and  the  rules  of  business,  a man  possessed  of  only 
the  ordinary  sagacity  required  of  a business  man,  has  been  successful; 
and  it  seems  preposterous  for  an  industry  which  has  been  built  up  and 
wliich  has  thrown  off  such  large  profits  under  the  present  tariff,  where 
i t had  to  encounter  the  difficulties  and  the  intricacies  of  a new  under- 
taking and  to  grapple  with  the  mysterious  freaks  of  nature  in  the  mix- 
ing of  chemicals  and  clays,  should  now,  after  all  these  obstacles  have 
been  surmounted  and  reduced  to  a science,  come  forward  for  additional 
protection,  where,  if  we  understood  it  aright,  the  creation  of  your  hon- 
orable commission  was  prompted  by  the  aim  to  investigate  what  reduc- 
tions are  in  order,  because  the  tariff  worked  injuriously  and  was  a war 
tariff,  and  hence  oppressive  in  many  respects. 

Very  respectfully, 

L.  Straus  & Sons. 


New  York,  August  26, 1882. 


Present  tariff  designation  or  commercial  name  of  article. 


Earthenware 

China,  white 

China,  decorated 

Glassware,  plain  and  pressed 

Glassware,  cut,  colored,  and  decorated 

Parian  statuary 

Bisque  and  chiua  statuary 


© 

c3 

* £ 

s 

a>  3 
o'3 

© 

© © 

o® 

£ 

£ 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

40 

30 

45 

30 

50 

30 

35 

25 

40 

25 

45 

10 

50 

10 

W.  N.  J0NE8.] 


SUMAC. 


745 


W.  N.  JONES. 


Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Mr.  W.  N.  Jones,  of  Petersburg, 
Va.,  secretary  of  the  Sumac  Manufacturers’  Association  of  Virginia,  was 
read  and  ordered  to  be  printed : 


The  Honorable  Tariff  Commission  : 

In  behalf  of  the  Sumac  Manufacturers’  Association  of  Virginia,  I beg 
to  respectfully  submit  herewith,  for  the  consideration  of  your  honora- 
ble Commission : 

1st.  A petition  recently  made  to  Congress  by  said  association,  asking 
an  increased  duty  on  11  Sicily  sumac,  and  its  extract,”  and  on  u tanned 
.sheep  and  goat  skins  ” 

2d.  Some  statistics  and  other  information,  which  I have  been  enabled 
hurriedly  to  get  together. 

We  trust  it  will  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Commission  to  carefully  con- 
sider this  subject,  and  recommend  sugh  relief  as  they,  in  their  wisdom, 
may  devise.  We  would  prefer  a specific  tax  on  imported  sumac  of  twenty 
-dollars  per  ton,  in  lieu  of  an  ad  valorem  tariff.  In  the  matter  of  u East 
India  tanned  goat  and  sheep  skins,”  we  beg  to  second  the  movement 
that  the  Morocco  Manufacturers’ Association  have  already  made  in  that 
matter  beiore  your  Commission. 

If  it  should  be  the  pleasure  of  your  Commission  to  hear  further  argu- 
ment in  this  connection,  our  association  will  appoint  a delegate  to  ap- 
pear before  your  honorable  body. 

Very  respectfully, 


W.  N.  Jones, 

Secretary  Sumac  Manufacturers ’ Association. 


Petersburg,  Va.,  August  28,  1882. 


To  the  Honorable  Committees  of  Finance 

of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States: 
We.  the  sumac  grinders  of  America — which  are  mostly  confined  to 
Virginia — do  most  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  following  prin- 
ciples, in  the  regulation  of  our  tariff,  which,  in  general,  we  think  are  true, 
and  as  to  our  particular  business  we  A mow  to  be  facts: 

The  grinding  of  sumac  in  this  country  was  induced  by  the  war.  The 
war  so  increased  our  currency  (greenbacks)  as  to  act  as  a heavy  duty 
on  foreign  sumac.  Of  course  the  foreign  article  had  to  be  sold  for 
gold  value,  which  caused  it  to  bring  a large  price  in  greenbacks,  thus 
giving  home  industry  a chance. 

The  energy  and  enterprise  of  our  people  availed  themselves  of  this 
opportunity  ; and  just  here  let  us  say,  that  the  idea  of  monopoly  is  a mere 
fallacious  one,  for  no  one  party  can  monopolize  a business  in  this  coun- 
try, with  all  its  capital  and  enterprise.  On  the  other  hand,  by  en- 
couraging home  manufactures,  prices  have  been  materially  decreased 
by  competition  among  ourselves.  We  think  this  is  a statistical  fact 
in  regard  to  iron;  and  more  recently,  the  silk  manufacturers  of  this 
country  have  greatly  reduced  the  price  of  a good  article,  under  a very 
heavy  duty,  which  they  could  not  have  done  had  there  not  been,  from 
the  necessities  of  the  war,  a heavy  duty  placed  upon  silk,  which  justified 


746 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  N.  JONES* 


the  investing  of  the  capital  necessary  for  the  u plant”;  also  the  want 
of  experience,  which  has  to  be  paid  for  as  readily  as  the  very  “ plant’7 
itself. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  business  of  sumac  grinding.  The  imported  ar- 
ticle was  worth  more  before  and  daring  the  war  than  it  has  been  since* 
because  the  country  was  depending  entirely  upon  the  foreign  article ; 
they  could  ask  us  what  they  pleased,  and  we  had  no  alternative  but  to 
pay  ifc.  Now,  while  their  article  in  some  respects  is  better  than  ours — 
because  they  can  afford  by  their  cheap  labor  to  cultivate  it  and  give 
more  attention  to  the  manipulation  of  it,  &c. — we  have  been  able  by  su- 
perior skill  and  industry  to  produce  an  article  that  will  in  a great 
degree  substitute  it  for  nearly  half  its  cost,  while  we  have  to  pay  from 
three  to  four  times  as  much  for  labor. 

Seeing  this,  the  foreign  article  has  been  gradually  reduced  in  price* 
until  it  has  become  almost  impossible  for  us  to  maintain  our  trade: 
and  we  ask  a x^rotective  tariff  on  foreign  sumac  and  tanned  sheex)  and 
goat  skins  for  the  good,  we  think  all  must  admit,  of  the  whole  country, 
insomuch  that  labor  is  honorable  and  should  be  well  paid  in  this 
country  of  free  and  equal  rights  to  all,  and  not  brought  into  competition 
with  the  oppressed  and  x^auper  labor  of  Europe,  and  recently,  more  par- 
ticularly, with  that  of  China  and  East  India  generally,  to  wit : 

Whereas  sheep  and  goat  skinsb  are  admitted  into  this  country  with 
twenty  per  cent,  less  duty  without  the  wool  on  them — has  induced  the 
practice  of  foreign  tannage  in  the  rough,  which  greatly  curtails  the  con- 
sumption of  our  sumac,  as  they  are  only  finished  up  here,  this,  with 
other  causes  stated,  has  reduced  the  value  of  our  goods  in  the  market  fully 
fifty  x>er  cent.  Therefore  we  most  respectfully  ask  that  a greater  duty 
be  levied  upon  tanned  skins — goat  as  well  as  sheep — for  English  caxu- 
talists  are  really  tanning  goat  skins  in  British  India  by  clieax)  cooly 
labor,  and  sending  them  here  to  comx>ete  with  our  well-paid  labor. 
Labor  is  the  foundation  of'all  wealth,  and  should  be  honored  and  pro- 
tected. All  we  ask  is  singly  to  equalize  labor,  and  that  in  part  only, 
for  we  can  accomplish  more  than  any  other  people,  under  similar  cir- 
. cumstances,  but  cannot  afford  to  x>ay  $1  a day  lor  labor  which  can  be 
obtained  in  China  for  at  most  10  cents,  and  compete  with  foreign  goods. 

Furthermore,  we  ask  an  increased  duty  on  sumac  and  extract  of  sumac 
imported  into  this  country,  for  the  reason  above  given — mainly  the  differ- 
ence in  labor  between  Southern  Eurox>e  and  the  Sicilian  Island  (from 
the  latter  of  which  most  of  our  importations  of  ground  sumac  and  ex- 
tract come)  and  America.  This  will  enable  us  to  better  x>erfect  our 
article,  and  to  pay  afair  and  remunerative  price  for  the  crude  leaves,  which 
are  gathered  solely  by  the  poorer  classes  of  country  x>eople,  who  can 
barely  subsist  at  the  x>rices  now  £>aid  for  gathering.  This  has  become 
the  more  necessary  since  the  equalization  of  gold  and  currency,  which 
has  deprived  us  of  the  x^rotection  that  this  difference  really  afforded. 

The  grinding  of  leaf  sumac  in  Virginia  has  grown  from  the  insignifi- 
cant business  of  about  100  tons  per  annum,  in  1865,  to  the  very  consider- 
able business  of  about  8,000  tons  in  1881,  which  represented  $240,000 
X^aid  directly  to  the  i>oorer  classes  of  people  in  Virginia,  consisting  for 
the  most  x>art  of  thousands  of  colored  x^eople,  which  is  their  princixml 
support;  and  this  amount  of  money  is  kept  in  this  country,  which  other- 
wise would  be  exported  to  pay  for  foreign  labor,  to  the  neglect  of  our 
own  industries. 

We  have  made  our  statement  in  general  terms,  and  partly  in  supple- 
ment to  the  more  full  and  statistical  address  which  the  morocco  manu- 
facturers will  submit  to  your  consideration — but  not  less  impressive  we 


W.  N.  JONES.] 


SUMAC. 


747 


trust — for  the  principles  generally  will  apply  to  all  home  manufacturers 
when  they  come  into  competition  with  foreign  importations. 

Hoping  you  may  appreciate  the  merits  of  our  humble  petition,  we  are, 
gentlemen,  most  respectfully  yours — 


Wm.  T.  King,  Richmond,  Va. 

J.  G.  Hurcamp,  Fredericksburg, 

Ya. 

German  Smith,  Winchester,  Va. 

J.  D.  Shotwell  & Co.,  Manches- 
ter, Ya. 

W.  N.  Smith,  Columbia,  Ya. 

Warner  Moore,  Richmond,  Ya. 

Martin  Bros.  & Baker,  Man- 
chester, Ya. 

W.  N.  Jones,  & Co.,  Petersburg, 
Va. 


Chiles  & Levy,  Louisa  Court- 
House,  Ya. 

J.  M.  Williams,  Petersburg,  Ya. 

R.  J.  Young,  Richmond,  Ya. 

E.  Rosenthal,  Alexandria,  Ya. 

W.  W.  Boswell  & Co.,  Lunen- 
burg, Ya. 

Epes  & Kelly,  Bellenfonte,  Not- 
toway County,  Ya. 

Lynchburg  Mfg.  Co.,  Lynch- 
burg, Ya. 

Macafee  & Bro.,  Front  Royal, 
Ya. 


Jno.  H.  Bryant  & Co.,  Rich- 
mond, Ya. 

December,  1881. 

The  following  extracts  are  taken  from  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Reporter^ 


SUMAC. 


This  article  comes  principally  from  Sicily.  It  is  used  in  tanning  morocco  leather, 
and,  to  some  extent,  in  dye-works.  The  American  sumac,  with  which  this  comes  in 
competition,  is  grown  and  ground  principally  in  Virginia,  and  the  product  there  is 
8,000  tons,  or  17,920,000  pounds,  a year.  The  duty  on  foreign  sumac  is  10  per  cent. 
The  importations  were,  for — 


Years. 

j Pounds. 

Value. 

1881 

13,  667,  892 
21,  895,  670 
12,  981,  675 
15,  068,  581 

$409,  400 
588, 911 
394,  631 
508,  427 

1880 

1879 

1878 

Tanned  goat  and  sheep  skins  (tanned,  but  not  finished)  pay  a duty  of  10  per  cent. 
These  skins  are  tanned  in  Madras  with  gambier,  &c.,  where  labor  costs  only  8 cents 
a day,  or  in  Marseilles  with  French  sumac,  and  where  labor  costs  75  to  80  cents  a day, 
and  come  in  at  half  the  tariff  put  on  the  finished  article.  Morocco  manufacturers 
aver  this  is  detrimental  to  their  interests.  The  value  and  duties  of  tanned  skins  were,, 
for — 


Years. 

Value. 

Duties. 

1881  

$1, 101,  249  00 
1,  991,  546  00 
393,  676  00 
378,  094  70 

$110, 124  90 
199, 154  60 
39,  367  60 
37, 809  47 

1880  . ...  

1879  

1878 

Upper  leather  of  all  kinds,  morocco,  calf,  kid,  finished  sheepskins,  and  such  goods, 
pay  a duty  of  20  per  cent.  French  and  German  glazed  kid  is  the  principal  leather 
imported  under  this  head,  about  two-thirds  of  the  amount  being  of  this  description. 
The  value  and  duties  were,  for — 


1881 

1880 

1879 

1878 


Years. 

Value. 

$2,  633,  795  31 
2,  617,  717  15 
1,  590,  020  85 
1,  554,  373  74 

Duties. 


$526,  759  06- 
523,  543  43 
318,  004  17 
j 310, 874  74 


748 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  N.  JONE-*  , 


All  leather  and  skins  tanned,  not  otherwise  specified,  pay  25  per  cent.  duty.  It  is 
hard  to  tell  what  kinds  of  leather  this  can  refer  to,  hut  the  custom-house  officers  seem 
to  find  some  each  year.  The  value  of  such,  and  duties  paid,  were,  for — 


Years. 

Value. 

Duties. 

1881 

$16,  540  18 
19,  647  84 
15,  633  06 
24,  723  64 

$4, 135  03 
4,911  96 
3,  908  27 
6, 180  91 

1880 

1879 

1878.  

DISCRIMINATING  DUTY  REPEALED. 


The  following  discriminating  duty  in  the  tariff  has  been  repealed  by  Congress: 
“Sec.  2501.  There  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid  on  all  goods,  wares,  and 
merchandise  of  the  growth  or  produce  of  the  countries  east  of  the  Gape  of  Good  Hope 
(except  wool,  raw  cotton,  and  raw  silk,  as  reeled  from  the  cocoon,  or  not  further  ad- 
vanced than  tram,  thrown,  or  organzine),  when  imported  from  places  west  of  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  a duty  of  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem  in  addition  to  the  duties  imposed 
on  any  such  articles  when  imported  directly  from  the  place  or  places  of  their  growth 
or  production/’ 

The  President  approved  the  act  to  repeal  this  section  May  4.  Its  immediate  effect 
on  our  trade  will  be  to  reduce  the  cost  of  tanned  goods  from  the  East  Indies  purchased 
in  London  for  the  American  markets.  These  have  hitherto  paid  20  per  cent.  It  will 
also  be  likely  to  affect  our  direct  trade  with  Calcutta  and  Madras,  as  the  tanned  skins 
will  be  purchased  selected  at,  the  London  trade  sales,  and  brought  in  here  for  the 
same  duty  as  though  imported  direct. 

Statistics  of  imports  of  sumac  into  the  United  States. 

[In  pounds,  and  gross  value  at  place  of  export.] 


Years. 

1 Quantity. 

Value. 

1866 

Pounds. 
13,  500,  000 
10,  634,  342 

$355, 198 
494,  251 
536,  085 
572,  578 
418,  919 
420,  823 
383,  570 
463,  780 
511,  941 
533,  713 
024, 169 
736,  390 
508.  247 

1867 

1868  

1869  . . 

11,  468,  509 
9,  634,  367 

10, 141,  787 
10,  028,  912  . 
13, 160, 114 
16,  718,  678 

16,  542,  548 

17,  642,  960 
21,  430,  641 
15,  068,  581 

12,  981,  675 

1870  . 

1871  

1872  

1873  

1874  . 

1875 

1876  

1877 

1878  

1879  . 

394,  681 
588,911 
409,  400 

1880 

21,895,670  1 
13,667,892  ' 

1881 

J.  F.  SCHOELLKOPF.  ] 


ANILINE  DYES. 


74$ 


J.  F.  SCHOELLKOPF. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30, 1882. 

Mr.  J.  F.  Schoellkopf,  jr.,  of  Buffalo,  manufacturer  of  aniline  (lyes, 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Gentlemen:  In  addition  to  my  communication  of  July  27,  1882,  I 
desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  circumstances : Coal  tar 

is  procured  from  bituminous  coal ; benzole,  the  raw  material  for  aniline 
oil,  is  gained  from  coal  tar  by  distillation.  Now,  benzole  pays  a duty 
of  40  cents  per  gallon,  whereas  aniline  oil  comes  in  free.  These  facts 
certainly  must  have  been  misrepresented  at  the  time  the  present  tariff 
was  framed,  for  it  is  evident  that  if  the  raw  material,  benzole,  is  pro- 
tected, the  manufactured  article,  aniline  oil,  is  justly  entitled  to  the 
same  privilege.  Aniline  oil,  which  is  used  directly  for  printing  black 
(on  cotton),  cannot  be  manufactured  as  cheaply  here  as  in  Europe, 
owing  to  higher  labor  and  high  prices  for  acids  (sulphuric  and  nitric 
acids)  used  in  its  manufacture. 

I have  learned  that  New  York  and  Boston  parties  are  circulating  a pe- 
tition among  the  larger  consumers  of  anilinedyes,  with  the  intention  of 
reducing  the  duty  on  such  dies  to  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  only.  This 
would  leave  domestic  manufacturers  virtually  without  protection.  We 
must  have  an  absolute  protection,  and  this  can  only  be  realized  by  a 
specific  duty.  I would  suggest  the  raising  of  the  specific  duty  25  or 
50  cents  per  pound  and  dropping  the  ad  valorem  duty  altogether.  This 
would  enable  home  manufacturers  to  compete  with  foreign  producers. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  Would  not  that  operate  inequitably  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  there  is  a great  difference  in  these  dyes?  Some  of  them,  I under- 
stand, are  cheap  and  others  are  expensive. — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  they  range  in  price? — A.  From  $1  to  $5  per  pound ; the 
principal  colors. 

Q.  I would  suggest  that  a specific  duty  per  pound,  to  afford  any  pro- 
tection at  all  on  the  $5  article  would  be  too  much  on  the  cheaper  arti- 
cle.— A.  But,  as  I mentioned  in  my  former  communication,  if  we  have 
protection,  the  domestic  competition  will  reduce  the  price  to  a proper 
level.  There  are  only  five  manufacturers  of  aniline  dyes  in  the  United 
States  at  the  present  time. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  any  rate  that  operated  as  a protection  on  the 
$5  article  would  amount  to  a prohibition  on  the  article  that  costs  $1? 
— A.  It  does  not  seem  so,  for  they  are  still  importing  fuchsine,  which 
is  a color  worth  from  $2  to  $2.50  a pound. 

Q.  Did  you  mention  any  specific  amount  of  duty  per  pound  which  you 
think  would  be  proper? — A.  Yes,  sir ; the  rate  of  duty  now  is  50  cents 
a pound,  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  I suggest  dropping  the  ad 
valorem  rate  and  raising  the  specific  rate  25  or  50  cents  per  pound. 

Q.  You  mean,  raise  it  25  or  50  cents  above  the  present  duty  of  50 
cents  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  would  amount  to  a duty  of  100  per  cent,  on  $1  dyes,  and  a 
duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  $5  dyes  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; but,  as  I mentioned  in 
my  former  communication,  under  these  ad  valorem  duties  imported  dyes 
are  liable  to  be  undervalued. 


750 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f J.  F.  SCHOELLKOPF. 


Q.  Are  they  generally  undervalued  ? — A.  I do  not  know,  but  I think 
they  are,  because  it  cannot  very  well  be  detected.  I suggest  this  high 
duty  in  order  to  give  the  home  manufacturers  a start.  After  five  or  ten 
years  it  would  not  matter  if  the  duty  were  taken  off  $ but  we  must  have 
a large  protection  to  enable  us  to  start.  When  I was  in  Europe  this 
spring  I was  told  that  if  the  duty  was  not  taken  off  in  this  country  the 
manufacturers  there  would  start  establishments  in  this  country,  so  that 
we  would  have  plenty  of  competition. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Will  you  please  repeat  that  statement  ; do  you  say  that  the  foreign 
manufacturers  themselves  would  begin  the  manufacture  in  this  country  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir.  The  president  of  the  largest  manufactory  in  Europe,  the 
Badische  Aniline  Factory,  at  Mannheim,  told  me  personally  that  if  the 
duty  was  not  taken  off  they  would  be  obliged  to  start  factories  over  here. 
I think  that  shows  that  the  price  to-day  in  this  country  is  as  cheap  as 
it  can  be. 

Q.  How  many  dyes  does  that  establishment  now  make1? — A.  They 
make  almost  all  the  known  colors.  Dyes  can  be  made  here,  in  time,  as 
cheaply  as  in  Europe ; but  we  must  have  a chance  to  start  the  business. 


■C.  G.  VOLTZ.l 


MALT  AND  BARLEY. 


751 


C.  G.  YOLTZ. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30, 1882. 

Mr.  0.  G.  Voltz,  of  the  firm  of  C.  G.  & J.  S.  Voltz,  maltsters,  of  Buf- 
falo, ST.  Y.,  made  the  following  statement : 

While  mainly  agreeing  with  Mr.  Manning  and  the  committee  of  malt- 
sters in  the  views  they  have  presented  to  the  Commission,  I differ  wdth 
them  materially  as  to  the  method  of  reaching  the  degree  of  protection 
for  which  we  ask.  The  compromise  measure  of  25  cents  per  bushel,  it 
is  true,  has  been  adopted  by  the  Brewers7  Association  of  the  United 
States.  The  maltsters,  as  we  now  stand,  are  being  discriminated  against 
as  manufacturers,  especially  when  barley  is  low  in  price,  as  it  will  turn  out 
to  be  during  the  present  season.  But  the  brewers  of  the  United  States 
are  now  petitioning  for  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  barley,  claiming  that 
they  are  laboring  at  a very  great  disadvantage,  as  the  law  now  stands. 
Beer  has  become  a staple  article  of  use  for  the  laboring  class,  and  a 
luxury  for  the  professional  man ; and  I believe  by  reducing  the  price  of 
the  material  entering  into  the  manufacture  of  beer  it  will  be  made  of  better 
quality  than  is  always  the  case  at  present.  Inferior  materials  are  be- 
ing used  extensively,  to  the  detriment  of  the  health  of  the  people,  and 
I believe  it  is  against  the  interest  of  the  government  to  uphold  a high 
tariff'  on  malt  and  barley,  for  the  reason  that  it  restricts  their  importa- 
tion. The  West  has  an  excess  of  five  million  bushels  of  barley  more 
than  last  year.  This  barley  is  of  low  value,  and  with  a high  tariff  the 
importation  of  barley  and  malt  from  Canada  will  cease,  and  the  govern- 
ment revenues  will  suffer.  That  being  the  case,  I believe  it  is  for  the 
interest  of  the  government  to  reduce  by  50  per  cent,  the  specific  duty 
on  barley.  Our  own  State  is  a large  producer  of  barley.  The  West  is 
increasing  its  acreage  and  quality  of  barley,  and  I believe  unless  the 
duty  on  barley  is  reduced  at  least  50  per  cent,  it  will  eventually  restrict 
and  prohibit  the  importation  of  both  barley  and  malt.  Although  the 
brewers  have  compromised  on  this  measure,  yet  they  are  opposed  to  an 
increase  of  duty  on  malt.  Beer  is  being  taxed  excessively,  to  the  extent 
of  a cent  a pound  on  the  malt  that  enters  into  its  manufacture.  The 
brewer  has  a hard  struggle,  and  endeavors  to  get  along  by  substituting 
a poorer  article  of  beer.  Therefore,  I think  it  is  for  the  interest  of  the 
public  and  the  government  that  the  material  used  should  be  brought 
down  to  the  lowest  limit  of  cost.  As  to  the  protection  for  the  farmer, 
this  duty  of  15  cents,  with  the  expenses  of  brewing,  the  barley,  the 
freight,  wastage,  &c.,  is  equal  to  an  average  protection  of  22  cents  to 
the  farmer.  But  it  does  not  protect  the  farmer,  for  the  reason  that  New 
York  State  produces  equally  as  good  barley,  although  Canadian  barley 
has  a better  reputation  than  the  barley  raised  in  this  State.  I think  the 
barley  produced  in  New  York  State  is  equally  as  good,  while  a great 
deal  of  the  Canadian  barley  is  positively  inferior  in  quality. 

By  the  President. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  the  effect  of  the  reciprocity  treaty  ? — 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  reciprocity  treaty  barley  was  admitted  free? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Then  a duty  was  imposed  after  the  repeal  of  that  treaty ; what 


752 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fC.  G.  VOLTZ. 


was  the  effect  on  the  price  ? — A.  During  the  war,  when  gold  was  at  a 
high  premium,  that  did  not  affect  us ; at  an  ad  valorem  duty  we  were 
still  in  a condition  to  compete  with  the  Canadians. 

Q.  Has  it  not  been  asserted  by  Canadian  statesmen,  in  the  discussion 
of  the  subject,  that  the  Canadians  paid  the  duty ; have  you  heard  that 
asserted? — A.  With  a large  crop  here,  they  suffer;  but  when  it  is  a 
scarce  article,  we  pay  for  their  barley  and  help  enrich  the  Canadian 
farmer.  In  the  past,  in  our  own  State,  barley  has  not  been  cultivated 
to  the  extent  it  is  now. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  a duty  of  15  per  cent,  a bushel  on  barley  is  no 
protection  to  the  farmer  ? —A.  It  is  a protection,  locally  considered,  with 
the  freight  and  other  expenses  added.  At  Buffalo  here  it  is  equal  to 
about  2 cents;  but  I claim  that  the  farmer  is  not  being  benefited  to  that 
extent. 

Q.  Why  not  ? — A.  Because  the  State  barley  that  enters  into  consump- 
tion is  as  good  as  Canadian  barley,  and  yet  we  pay  a lower  price,  be- 
cause the  Canadian  barley  issupposed  to  be  better,  although  unjustly  so. 

Q.  How  does  it  acquire  that  reputation,  then  ? — A.  Through  the  malt- 
sters, who  have  a monopoly  in  this  country. 

Q.  And  they  are  asking  for  protection? — A.  Yes,  sir;  as  manufact- 
urers and  tax-payers. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  have  been  engaged  for  sometime  in  this  business? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  as  salesman  and  maltster  for  twenty  years. 

Q.  You  consider  yourself  a good  judge  of  barley,  I suppose  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  make  the  statement  that  the  American  barley  raised  in 
New  York  is  equal  to  that  which  is  raised  in  Canada  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; in 
some  years  it  is. 


JEROME  JONES.  J 


EARTHENWARE. 


753 


JEEOME  JONES. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30, 1882. 

Mr.  Jerome  Jones,  of  the  firm  of  Jones,  McDuffee  & Stratton,  of 
Boston,  Mass.,  importers  and  dealers  in  pottery,  addressed  the  Commis- 
sion as  follows : 

I have  been  an  importer  and  dealer  in  pottery  goods  for  twenty-nine 
years  continuously,  and  am  familiar  both  with  the  imported  goods  and 
also  with  the  American  ware,  as  we  deal  largely  in  both.  Our  house  is 
one  of  a dozen  houses  in  Boston  that  do  business  in  that  line.  The  facts 
in  the  case,  so  far  as  I understand  them,  have  been  so  thoroughly  given 
to  the  Commission  by  Mr.  Wright  that  I hardly  know  what  1 can  say  in 
addition.  I have  examined  the  figures  submitted  by  Mr.  Wright,  and 
heard  the  statement  made  by  him,  and  I do  not  believe  there  has  been 
a word  said  to  which  I cannot  subscribe,  or  even  swear,  to  its  accuracy. 

One  of  the  Commission  has  referred  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a dis- 
crepancy between  the  statements  made  before  the  Commission  previous 
to  this  time  on  this  subject  and  those  made  to-day.  I think  those  dis- 
crepancies may  come  honestly  from  misunderstanding  each  other.  It 
has  occurred  to  me  since  I have  been  here  that  there  is  an  explanation 
which  can  be  given  on  that  point.  You  will  all  remember  that  the  pre- 
mium on  gold  went  up  during  the  war  to  such  an  extent  that  every  thing 
assumed  a fictitious  value.  I have  no  doubt  that  if  any  one  could  get 
hold  of  the  prices-current  in  1866,  when  gold  was  at  a premium  of  175 
to  200,  and  work  upon  those  figures  and  compare  them  with  the  selling 
prices  to-day,  this  great  difference  could  be  accounted  for ; it  would  ac- 
count, perhaps,  for  the  immense  percentage  of  difference.  I can  see  no 
fairer  way  if  you  are  going  to  make  a comparison  of  values,  than  to 
take  the  gold  dollar  as  a standard  of  value.  If  you  have  any  other 
standard,  you  have  to  go  into  many  figures  and  get  lost  in  the  calcula- 
tion. 

I believe  this  firmly,  and  it  is  a conviction  of  mine  that  if  the  tariff' 
on  earthenware  was  reduced  the  consumption  would  be  largely  in- 
creased, and  where  now  the  poorer  classes  have  to  use  tin  plates,  tin 
cups,  and  the  cheax^est  kind  of  utensils,  as  well  as  broken  plates,  cups, 
and  saucers,  they  would  then  be  able  to  use  better  ware,  have  a more 
comfortable  home,  and  would  be  largely  benefited  in  their  surround- 
ings. At  present  the  American  product  is  brought  up  in  price  as  near 
to  the  tariff  as  it  can  be,  as  is  always  the  case.  I have  heard  it  stated 
that  where  a combination  can  be  made  competition  ceases,  and  just  so 
high  as  the  duty  is  on  crockery  ware,  so  the  American  product  is  brought 
up  to  that  figure.  Therefore,  if  you  reduce  the  duty  on  earthenware  to 
where  it  was  prior  to  the  war,  you  will  increase  its  consumption,  enable 
the  masses  of  the  people  to  use  a better  quality  of  earthenware,  and 
the  revenue  of  the  country  will  not  be  materially  diminished.  If  you 
reduce  the  duty  on  earthenware  it  will  bring  the  American  manufact- 
urer to  study  the  economies  of  the  business;  he  will  prosper,  the  dealer 
will  prosper,  the  community  will  get  better  ware,  and  no  one  will  be 
compelled  to  use  the  tin  dishes  and  cheap  ware  which  the  poorer  man 
seems  now  compelled  to  use. 

H.  Mis.  6 18 


754 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JEROME  JONES. 


By  the  President  : 

Question.  I am  aware  of  the  very  large  scale  upon  which  you  carry 
on  your  business  in  Boston,  and  of  the  very  prominent  position  that  your 
house  holds.  I will  therefore  ask  you  this  question : Has  there  been  any 
improvement  in  the  production  of  manufactures  of  American  goods  ?■ — 
Answer.  Yes,  decidedly.  The  manufacturers  began  at  almost  nothing 
in  1860,  and  they  have  now  very  respectable  manufactories  in  New  Jer- 
sey, East  Liverpool,  and  Baltimore,  as  well  as  in  several  other  places. 
They  are  making  a great  deal  of  ware,  and  all  these  centers  are  adding 
kilns  to  their  plant,  and  so  far  as  I know  are  prospering. 

Q.  What  is  the  quality  of  their  ware? — A.  The  quality  of  their  ware 
to-day  has  not  attained  in  most  of  the  potteries  what  you  would  call  a 
reliable  standard.  The  trouble  has  been,  so  far  as  I have  been  able  to 
judge,  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  crazing.  Some  potters  have  been  able 
to  entirely  overcome  that  defect,  and  I think  all  have  steadily  improved. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  How  long  have  these  American  potteries  been  in  existence? — A. 
The  manufacture  of  yellow  or  Kockingham  ware  commenced  somewhere 
about  the  year  1850.  That  portion  of  the  business  has  increased  from  that 
time  until  the  present,  so  that  now  we  are  not  importing  any  of  that 
ware  at  all  ; the  tariff  duty  prohibits  it. 

Q.  These  American  wares  have  approximated  to  the  English  stand- 
ard and  have  nearly  reached  it,  and  have  grown  up  under  the  encour- 
agement given  them  by  the  tariff,  have  they  not  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  if  they  cannot  successfully  compete  with  the  foreign  ware  by 
reason  of  a low  duty  they  will  have  to  go  out  of  the  business,  and  the 
people  will  be  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  foreign  manufacturers  ? — A.  I 
think  a duty  of  30  per  cent,  will  enable  every  kiln  burning  to-day  to 
continue  in  the  business  and  prosper.  The  geographical  protection  and 
a 30  per  cent,  duty  would  give  them  an  enormous  protection,  larger  than 
that  enjoyed  by  any  kind  of  merchandise  I know  of,  unless  it  be  silks 
or  liquors. 

Q.  But  that  is  not  the  question;  that  is  a question  between  the  im- 
porter and  the  producer.  My  question  was,  if  they  could  not  continue 
that  busiuess,  as  they  say,  without  a larger  tariff,  we  would  then  be  en- 
tirely at  the  mercy  of  the  foreign  manufacturer? — A.  Of  course,  if  they 
could  not  continue  in  the  business  we  would  have  to  be  dependent  ou 
the  foreign  manufacturer. 

Q.  And  in  that  event  we  should  have  to  pay  even  higher  prices  than 
we  are  now  paying? — A.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  already  our  manu- 
facturers have  progressed  so  that  not  a crate  of  yellow  Kockingham 
ware  comes  into  this  country ; the  tariff'  is  entirely  prohibitory.  From 
what  I have  learned  by  talking  with  English  and  American  potters,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  with  a 30  per  cent,  duty,  together  with  the  geograph- 
ical protection,  the  manufacturers  of  potteries  in  this  country  can  suc- 
ceed and  prosper. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  there  is  not  to-day  any  importation 
of  yellow  Kockingham  ware  into  the  country  ? — A.  I do  not  know  of  a 
crate  coming  into  this  country,  whereas  large  quantities  were  heretofore 
imported. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  price  of  that  ware  now  and  in  1860? 
— A.  I do  not  think  there  is  a variation  of  5 per  cent. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  relative  pi  ices  in  England  between  the  years 


JEROME  JONES.  1 


EARTHENWARE. 


755 


1850  and  1860  and  now  ? — A.  I think  the  price  is  higher  in  England 
now  than  it  was  then,  and  a little  lower  in  this  country  than  it  was  then ; 
about  5 per  cent,  lower. 

Q.  I understand  3 011  to  agree  to  the  statement  that  the  white  ware  is 
actually  higher  now  ; that  it  costs  more  now  to  import  white  ware  than 
it  did  between  the  years  1850  and  I860,  and  your  own  idea  is  that  the 
difference  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  former  witnesses 
took  the  prices  existing  during  the  war,  when  gold  was  at  a high  pre- 
mium'?— A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  only  possible  way  in  which  I think 
they  could  make  the  increase.  1 agree  with  Mr.  Wright  in  that  respect, 
that  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  price  of  foreign  ware. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  give  us  the  price  of  wares,  relatively,  to  the  re- 
tail dealer  then  and  now  ? — A.  The  figures  that  I went  over  before  I 
left  home  were  only  in  regard  to  sales  to  smaller  country  buyers,  and  I 
could  not  find  that  the  prices  are  any  cheaper  now  than  then.  I account 
for  the  ware  costing  more  now  by  the  fact  that  railway  transportation 
and  the  commercial  traveler  system  have  reduced  the  prices  on  all  sorts 
of  merchandise;  the  competition  is  greater.  Every  large  house  sends 
out  its  commercial  travelers  to  compete  against  each  other,  which  was 
not  the  case  twenty  years  ago. 

Q.  Whatever  the  reason  is,  you  agree  that  the  ware  is  now  as  cheap, 
or  perhaps  a shade  cheaper,  than  it  was  in  the  period  between  1850  and 
1860? — A.  I should  say  on  the  seaboard  it  was  about  the  same. 

Q.  But  is  it  a fact  in  the  same  time  the  prices  in  Staffordshire  have 
increased? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  have  increased. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Suppose  it  was  desired  to  put  the  American  manufacturer  on  an 
equality  with  the  foreign  manufacturer;  do  you  think  the  rate  of  duty 
recommended  by  Mr.  Wright  would  do  that? — A.  I think  it  would  give 
him  35  per  cent,  geographical  protection,  and  30  j)er  cent,  tariff  pro- 
tection. 

Q.  Admitting  that,  would  it  put  him  on  a plane  of  equality  with  the 
foreign  manufacturer? — A.  It  would  give  the  American  manufacturer 
a great  advantage. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that  at  present,  at  Trenton  or  at  other  points  where 
these  manufactories  are  located,  the  business  is  prosperous? — A.  So  far 
as  I know,  it  is.  I have  heard  of  but  two  failures  in  the  last  year. 
There  have  been  fewer  failures  than  in  almost  any  other  manufacturing 
business  in  the  United  States.  I only  know  that  the  American  potters 
who  want  to  sell  us  goods  comj^ete  against  one  another  with  just  the 
same  apparent  zeal  that  the  English  manufacturers  do,  and  I hear  of 
no  more  complaints  from  the  one  than  from  the  other.  I have  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  there  is  less  money  being  made  by  the  American  than 
by  the  English  potters. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  there  a combination  among  the  American  manufacturers? — A. 
Most  of  the  time  there  has  been  a combination  amongst  them;  whether 
that  exists  to  day  or  not  I do  not  know.  I know  they  have  a protective 
association,  and  in  selling  their  goods  to  us  they  have  intimated  that 
they  can  give  a 3 per  cent,  discount  for  cash,  but  have  added  that  they 
did  not  want  anything  said  about  it,  for  it  would  make  trouble.  There- 
fore, 1 suppose,  there  must  have  been  some  understanding  of  that  kind 
among  them. 


756 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JEROME  JONEB. 


Q.  Have  you  observed  anything  of  the  kind  among  the  English  pot- 
ters!— A.  I have  no  evidence  of  it.  If  they  make  the  price  any  better 
than  the  regular  rates  they  do  not  seem  to  make  any  secret  of  it. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Are  goods  generally  brought  to  Boston  on  consignment,  or  are 
they  purchased! — A.  I think  90  per  cent,  of  the  goods  coming  to  Boston 
are  actually  purchased. 

Q.  Your  house  purchases  the  goods  you  deal  in!— Yes,  sir,  entirely; 
we  have  no  consignments  whatever. 


B.  B.  GLENNY. J 


POTTERY  MANUFACTURES. 


757 


B.  B.  GLENNY. 


Buffalo,  Y.  Y.,  August  30,  1882. 

Mr.  B.  B.  Glenny,  of  the  firm  of  W.  H.  Glenny  & Co.,  of  Buffalo,  N. 
Y.,  importers  and  dealers  in  pottery,  addressed  the  Commission  as  fol- 
lows : 

I am  a member  of  a firm  which  has  been  existence  since  1840.  I have 
been  myself  actively  engaged  in  this  business  for  fifteen  years,  and  have 
visited  most  of  the  potteries  in  this  country  and  in  England,  and  am 
acquainted  with  their  methods  of  doing  business.  While  I have  not 
prepared  any  special  data  on  this  subject,  I have  gone  over  Mr.  Wright’s 
figures  carefully,  and  want  to  state  that  they  are  thoroughly  in  accord 
with  our  own  experience,  and  I desire  in  every  way  to  corroborate  what 
he  has  said. 

In  relation  to  the  potteries  of  this  country,  I will  say  that  we  heard 
nothing  about  their  having  such  a hard  time  until  this  question  of  duty 
came  up.  They  gave  every  evidence  of  prosperity  before  that  time. 
There  have  been  new  kilns  erected,  and  more  are  being  erected  to-day; 
and  in  every  way,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  visiting  the  factories, 
they  aiv  in  a prosperous  condition.  {Some  firms  in  our  line  of  business 
have  abandoned  the  importing  of  English  goods,  and  gone  into  the  man- 
ufacture of  American  goods  of  late  years,  with  full  knowledge  of  all  the 
questions  that  are  at  issue.  Generally  speaking,  I believe  that  the  re- 
duction proposed  to  30  per  cent.,  and  the  reduction  that  would  be  fur- 
ther made  by  having  no  duty  on  packages  or  inland  charges,  would 
result  in  a benefit  to  the  American  manufacturer. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  How  would  it  result  in  an  advantage  to  the  American 
manufacturer? — Answer.  Immediately  after  the  war,  and  during  the  war, 
the  high  tariff  and  the  high  rate  of  premium  on  gold,  stimulated  the 
manufacture  of  pottery  in  this  country  to  an  unhealthy  degree,  and  I 
think  the  business  would  be  benefitted  under  the  proposed  reduction, 
because  it  would  tend  to  drive  out  certain  factories  that  are  not  carrying 
on  the  manufacture  in  a business-like  way ; and  the  other  factories  would 
be  free  from  that  competition. 

Q.  It  would  give  a better  opportunity  for  the  application  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  u survival  of  the  fittest,”  I suppose  ? — A.  The  point  is  that  there 
are  people  engaged  in  the  business  of  manufacturing  pottery  who  do 
not  have  the  necessary  skill  or  training  in  the  business  to  enable  them 
to  do  it  with  credit,  and  they  are  dragging  along  an  existence  which 
should  be  terminated  ; and  the  reduction  proposed  would  lead  to  that 
result,  and  I think  the  whole  trade  would  be  benefited.  For  a year  or 
two  there  might  be  afalling  off  in  production,  but  the  final  result  would 
be  advantageous.  There  are  potteries  established  in  this  country  doing 
a good  business,  under  proper  conditions,  and  such  a reduction  of  duty 
would  not  interfere  with  them  seriously. 

Q.  The  pottery  business  is  comparatively  a new  industry  in  this 
country  f — A.  Yes,  sir  ; it  is. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  indicate  these  potteries  that,  in  your  judgment,  are 
not  carried  on  with  proper  skill? — A.  No , sir;  and  I should  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  indicate  them  if  I could. 


758 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[B.  B.  G LENNY. 


Q.  And  you  are  not  able  to  indicate  them  either? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Your  business  consists  in  selling  to  the  retail  trade? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  the  price  paid  by  the  retail  merchants  for  white 
granite  goods,  for  instance ; say  the  average  price  from  1850  to  1860  ? — 
A.  I cannot  do  that ; I did  not  go  into  the  business  myself  until  1867. 

Q.  What  was  the  price  of  those  goods  then  ? — A.  The  price  then  was 
more  than  it  is  now.  There  has  been  a reduction  in  prices  since  I have 
been  in  the  business ; there  was  a high  gold  premium  at  that  time. 

Q.  After  the  gold  premium  ceased,  was  there  still  a reduction  in  price? 
— A.  Yes,  sir ; there  has  been  some  reduction  since,  but  it  is  immaterial 
in  amount,  and  I cannot  state  the  figures. 

Q.  Was  there  a continual  reduction  from  1878  until  within  the  last 
three  or  four  years? — A.  Yres,  sir. 

Q.  Yon  agree  with  Mr.  Wright,  that  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the 
foreign  price  for  the  same  goods  by  the  addition  of  10  per  cent,  to  their 
price  lists? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  As  a fact,  then,  foreign  goods  cost  more  now  than  they  did  when 
you  went  into  business? — A.  No,  sir;  foreign  goods  do  not  cost  more  now 
than  they  did  in  1867.  There  was  a heavy  premium  on  gold  at  that  time, 
and  the  cost  of  goods  was  greater  than  at  iiresent. 

Q.  All  you  know  is  that  in  a general  way  there  has  been  a continual 
reduction  in  the  prices? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  within  a few  years.  My 
remembrance  of  the  business  does  not  go  back  before  the  war. 

Q.  You  only  speak  of  your  knowledge  of  the  business  since  1867. — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Abram  French,  of  the  firm  of  Abram  French  & Co.,  Boston, 
Mass.,  importers  of  earthen  and  china  ware,  said: 

I concur  in  the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Wright  and  Mr.  Glenny  in 
regard  to  the  rates  of  duties  which  should  be  imposed  upon  imported 
earthenware,  and  I have  nothing  to  add  to  their  statements,  except  that 
I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  importance  of 
the  business  done  by  the  importers  of  earthen  and  china  ware  in  the 
United  States.  Nearly  all  our  larger  cities  have  houses  engaged  in  the 
importation  and  distribution  of  earthenware.  These  houses  distribute 
as  large  an  amount  of  earthenware  goods  as  the  manufacturers  of 
Trenton  do;  and  therefore  I think  they  are  entitled  to  as  much  consider- 
ation. We  sell  some  American  goods,  but  the  majority  of  the  goods 
which  we  sell  are  imported.  We  think  we  are  deserving  of  equal  con- 
sideration with  the  potters,  and  all  we  ask  is  reasonable  protection  of 
our  interests. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Can  you  give  an  estimate  of  the  amount  of  business  done  in  Boston 
in  your  line? — A.  I think  the  importers  there  distribute  goods  amount- 
ing to  two  and  a half  million  dollars  a year.  New  York  distributes  a. 
large  amount;  Buffalo  and  Chicago  a very  large  amount.  I cannot 
give  yon  any  figures  that  would  be  accurate,  but  I think  the  amount  of 
goods  distributed  must  be  larger  than  those  made  by  all  the  pottery 
manufacturers  in  the  United  States. 


WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT.  J 


EARTHENWARE. 


759 


WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30,  1882. 

Mr.  William  R.  Wright,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  president  of  “the  As- 
sociation of  Dealers  in  Pottery  in  the  United  States,’’  addressed  the 
Commission  as  follows : 

I represent  the  Association  of  Dealers  in  Pottery  of  the  United  States, 
and  have  the  honor  to  be  president  of  that  association.  It  is  an  organi- 
zation formed  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  facts,  and  placing  this  whole 
matter  of  the  tariff  on  earthenware  before  your  body. 

The  present  duty  on  all  earthen,  stone,  or  crockery  ware,  white, 
glazed,  edged,  painted,  dipped,  cream-colored,  or  printed,  composed  of 
earthy  or  mineral  substances,  and  not  otherwise  provided  for,  is  40  per 
cent.  We  propose  that  the  duty  shall  be  reduced  to  30  per  cent.  On 
China,  porcelain,  and  parian  ware,  gilded,  ornamented,  or  decorated  in 
any  manner,  the  present  duty  is  50  per  cent.  We  propose  that  it  shall 
be  reduced  to  40  per  cent.  On  China,  porcelain,  and  parian  ware,  plain 
white,  and  not  decorated  in  any  manner,  the  present  duty  is  45  per  cent. 
We  propose  that  it  shall  be  reduced  to  35  per  cent.  According  to  the 
law,  at  present,  duty  is  assessed  on  packages,  inland  freight,  and  ship- 
ping charges,  with  2J  per  cent,  commission  in  making  up  the  dutiable 
value.  We  propose  that  no  duty  shall  be  assessed  thereon.  We  esti- 
mate that  the  revenue  will  not  be  materially  changed,  as  the  increased 
consumption  will  offset  the  reduction  in  the  rates  and  mode  of  assess- 
ment. 

Our  reasons  for  proposing  these  changes  are  as  follows  : 

Because  a 40  per  cent,  duty  on  earthenware  as  now  assessed  is  an 
actual  duty  of  50  per  cent,  on  the  goods,  and  affords  a protection  of  85 
to  90  per  cent,  to  the  American  manufacturers. 

Because  earthenware  is  an  article  of  necessity  for  the  comfort  and 
convenience  of  the  masses  of  the  people,  which  they  should  be  enabled 
to  purchase  cheaply. 

Because  the  present  highly  protective  rate  of  duty  on  pottery  ware 
limits  consumption  and  makes  an  article  of  necessity  a luxury  to  the 
masses  of  people. 

Because  the  present  duty  is  a war  duty,  and  the  necessity  for  its  im- 
position has  passed. 

Because  a lower  rate  of  duty  would  cause  an  increased  consumption, 
and  would  not  seriously  reduce  the  revenue. 

Because  the  importation  and  distribution  of  pottery  is  as  legitimate 
a business  as  is  its  manufacture  here,  and  the  interests  of  those  engaged 
in  it  as  worthy  of  consideration. 

Because  these  highly  protective  rates  of  duty  on  pottery  ware  benefit 
the  manufacturers  only,  and  are  a detriment  to  the  workmen  employed 
in  the  business. 

Because,  by  assessing  duty  as  at  present  on  packages,  inland  freight, 
and  shipping  charges,  an  onerous  and  unjust  discrimination  is  made 
against  the  lower  giade  of  goods  which  are  consumed  by  the  masses. 

Because,  with  the  proposed  reduction,  there  will  remain  ample  pro- 
tection to  the  American  manufacturers,  and  they  will  share  the  increased 
consumption  and  be  able  to  furnish  more  steady  employment  for  their 
workmen. 


760 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILIIAM  R.  WRIGHT. 


Because,  until  American  manufacturers  and  artisans  cease  to  rely 
upon  government  aid  for  the  advancement  of  their  industries  they  will 
never  be  able  to  showr  what  their  genius  can  achieve. 

In  regard  to  the  first  reason,  “Because  a 40  per  cent,  duty  on  earth- 
enware as  now  assessed  is  an  actual  duty  of  50  per  cent,  on  the  goods, 
and  affords  a protection  of  85  to  90  per  cent,  to  the  American  manu- 
facturers,” I would  say  that  I have  taken  100  crates  of  earthenware  as 
at  present  imported,  and  I have  figured  them  carefully  at  the  discounts 
current  to  day,  and  I obtain  the  following  result: 


A. — Calculations  on  one  hundred  crates  earthenware , being  a fair  average  of  the  goods  as 

imported. 


[Same  assortment  as  on  B.] 

If  bought  in  1882  under  a 40  per  cent,  tariff  they  net  the  foreign 


manufacturer $3,019 

Geographical  protection : 

Per  cent. 

Packages,  stra  w,  packing,  iron  bands,  <fce 397  13 

Inland  freight,  shipping  charges,  &c 204  6$ 

Marine  insurance,  consul’s  certificate,  &c 54  11- 

Interest,  say  thirty  davs,  on  $ >,000,  at  6 per  cent 18  f 

Marine  freight,  5,500  teet,  at  10s.  aud  10  per  cent 362  12 

1, 035  

34 

Tariff  protection : 

Total  cost  of  goods  on  shipboard $3, 671 

Commission,  2-j  per  cent 92 

3,763 


Duty,  40  per  cent 1, 505  50 

Customs  fees,  entry,  oaths,  and  brokers,  30  cents  per  package  . 30  1 

1,535  

51 


Total  cost  and  protection  at  seaboard 5,589  85 

The  inland  manufacturers  are  still  further  protected  by  railroad  freight  and  break- 
age. The  gross  price  list  has  been  advanced  and  the  discount  reduced  since  the  tariff 
was  24  per  cent. 

B. — One  hundred  crates  same  goods. 


(Same  assortment,  &c.,  as  on  A.] 


If  bought  in  1857  to  1861,  under  a 24  per  cent,  tariff,  they  would  have  netted 


the  foreign  manufacturer 

Geographical  protection : 

Packages,  straw  packing $259 

Inland  freight,  shipping  charges,  &c 156 

Marine  insurance,  certificates,  &c.* 60 

Interest,  ninty  days,  on  $3,000* 45 

Ocean  freight,  by  sail,  5,500,  at  7 s.  and  5 per  cent 243 

Tariff  protection  : 

Total  cost  of  goods  on  ship $2, 949 

Commission,  2-J  per  cent 73 


$2, 534 


763 


3,  022 


Duty,  24  per  cent 725 

Custom  fees,  entry,  oaths,  and  broker’s  fees,  30  cents  per  package 30 

755 


Total  cost  under  24  per  cent,  tariff  at  seaboard 4, 052 


* Goods  coming  by  sail,  both  interest  and  insurance  higher. 


WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT.]  EARTHENWARE. 


761. 


C. — Calculation  showing  what  would  he  duty  paid  and  protection  afforded  under  proposed 

tariff. 


Cost  of  goods  at  foreign  market  $3, 019 

Geographical  protection : 

Per  cent. 

Packages,  straw,  &e $397  13 

Inland  freight,  &c 204  Of 

Marine  insurance,  certitiaates,  &c 54  l| 

Interest,  thirty  days,  on  $3,600,  at  6 per  cent 18  $ 

Marine  freight,  5,500  feet,  at  10s.  and  10  per  cent 362  12 

1,035  

34 

Tariff  protection : 

Cost  of  goods $3, 019 


Proposed  duty  30  per  cent 906  30 

Custom  fees,  oaths,  &c 30  1 

936  

31 

Total  cost  and  protection 4,  990  65 


Under  24  per  cent  tariff,  foreign  manufacturers  netted  $2,534.  To-day,  under  present 
tariff,  they  would  cost  here,  duty  paid,  $5,589,  being  an  advance  of,  say,  116  per  cent. 

Under  proposed  tariff  they  would  cost,  say,  $4,990,  being  an  advance  of  96  per  cent. 

So  that,  adding  to  the  tariff  protection  the  geographical  protection 
which  the  American  manufacturers  enjoy,  and  which  is  a protection 
that  cannot  be  changed,  we  find  that  they  have  protection  to-day  of 
between  85  and  90  per  cent,  on  their  wares. 

I propose  to  speak  next  to  the  reason  that  “ The  present  duty  is 
a war  duty,  and  the  necessity  for  its  imposition  has  passed.”  The 
tariff’  on  these  goods  from  1857  to  1861  was  24  per  cent.  In  1861  it  was 
raised  to  25  per  cent,  and  remained  there  for  about  a year.  In  186*2,  the 
government  finding  large  sums  of  money  necessary  for  the  prosecution 
of  the  war,  Congress  passed  an  act  entitled  “ An  act  increasing  tem- 
porarily the  duties  on  imports,  and  for  other  purposes.”  Under  this 
act,  in  which  the  word  u temporarily”  is  used,  the  tariff  on  earthenware 
was  increased  from  25  to  35  per  cent.  In  1864,  under  our  internal-rev- 
enue laws,  domestic  manufacturers  were  taxed  5 per  cent,  on  their  pro- 
duct, and,  to  make  things  even,  the  tariff  on  earthenware  was  increased 
5 per  cent,  gross,  or  from  35  to  40  per  cent.  This  was  in  1864.  It  has 
remained  from  that  day  to  this  at  40  per  cent.,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  all  the  increase  above  25  per  cent,  was  eminently  a war  increase, 
and  was  so  stated  at  the  time.  It  was  evidently  not  the  intention  of 
Congress  that  this  increase  should  be  permanent,  for  they  used  word 
“ temporarily  ” in  the  act. 

Soon  after  the  war  the  domestic  manufacturers  had  this  internal 
revenue  tax  of  5 per  cent,  removed.  So  that  I can  safely  claim  that 
all  of  the  tariff  above  25  per  cent,  on  earthenware  was  a was*  measure 
only,  and  was  passed  as,  and  was  intended  when  it  was  passed  to  be, 
a temporary  measure,  to  be  repealed  when  the  necessity  which  called  it 
into  existence  had  passed  away. 

I next  propose  to  speak  on  this  head:  “By  assessing  duty  as  at 
present  on  packages,  inland  freight,  and  shipping  charges,  an  onerous 
and  unjust  discrimination  is  made  against  the  lower  grade  of  goods 
which  are  consumed  by  the  masses.” 

The  price  of  packages  in  Staffordshire,  England,  where  the  great 
bulk  of  the  foreign  goods  come  from,  varies  but  slightly  in  accordance 
with  the  grade  of  the  goods ; in  other  words,  on  very  cheap  goods  used 


762 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT. 


by  the  very  poorest  class  of  people,  the  packages  are  not  more  than  10 
per  cent,  lower  than  the  prices  of  the  higher  grades  of  goods.  Conse- 
quently the  transportation  expenses  are  exactly  the  same  on  one  grade 
of  goods  as  on  the  other.  Goods  brought  to  this  country  are  charged 
by  measurement — so  much  per  ton  of  forty  cubic  feet.  Therefore  the 
poor  man’s  goods,  when  they  reach  this  country,  have  paid  a protection 
on  the  packages  and  charges  of  freight  a much  higher  percentage  than 
the  man  who  uses  the  better  class  of  goods  pays.  In  that  way  we  feel 
that  the  law  requiring  a duty  to  be  laid  on  packages  and  charges  is  an 
unjust  discrimination  against  the  laboring  classes  of  the  country.  The 
price  of  packages  abroad — I may  say,  owing  to  the  scarcity  of  wood 
there,  which  is  getting  year  by  year  more  scarce,  and  the  high  price  of 
straw — has  increased  very  materially  since  the  tariff  was  24  per  cent. 
The  price  of  packages  and  straw  in  all  the  manufacturing  centers 
abroad  is  33  to  50  per  cent,  higher  than  it  was  when  the  tariff  was  24 
per  cent.  Besides  that,  we  require  a better  and  stronger  kind  of  pack- 
age. We  require  the  manufacturers  to  put  two  iron  bauds  around  each 
crate  and  to  seal  the  hogsheads  to  prevent  robberies  on  the  way,  which 
adds  very  much  to  their  cost. 

I propose  next  to  speak  to  this  reason:  u Because  these  highly  pro- 
tective rates  of  duty  on  pottery  ware  benefit  the  manufacturers  only, 
and  are  a detriment  to  the  workmen  employed  in  the  business.”  That 
applies,  so  far  as  I know,  only  to  pottery  ware ; it  is  not  intended  to 
be  a general  statement.  But  I am  to  confine  my  remarks  entirely 
to  the  subject  I have  under  discussion.  And  in  regard  to  that  I would 
say  that,  in  all  the  arguments  adduced  to  support  the  pottery  manu- 
facturer’s claim  for  an  increase  in  the  rates  of  duty  on  pottery,  much 
prominence  is  given  to  the  enhanced  rate  of  wages  they  have  to  pay  as 
compared  to  what  is  paid  in  England.  This  is  simply  to  say  that  they 
are  doing  business  in  the  United  States,  where  a highly  protective  policy 
makes  a nominally  high  rate  of  wages  an  absolute  necessity.  But 
when  the  actual  condition  of  pottery  artisans  and  laborers  in  the  two 
countries  is  fairly  weighed,  we  find  that  the  higher  cost  of  labor  in  the 
United  States  is  more  than  compensated  by  the  higher  rate  of  protec- 
tion afforded  under  the  present  rates  of  duty,  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  duty  is  assessed. 

In  a complicated  manufacture  like  that  of  pottery,  with  its  numerous 
branches,  any  tabulated  statement  of  the  prices  pai  d for  labor  would 
be  of  but  little  value  to  any  but  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  techni- 
calities and  details  of  the  business,  and  it  would  be  out  of  place  to 
occupy  your  time  with  such  intricate  statements. 

As  bearing  on  this  question  of  labor,  it  may  be  stated  here  that  the 
English  pottery  operative  is  better  paid,  and  lives  in  more  comfort,  than 
the  average  of  English  workmen,  and  we  are  assured  on  competent 
authority  that  wages  in  the  Staffordshire  potteries  have  increased  40 
per  cent,  during  the  last  thirty  years,  while  the  rate  of  taxation  and  the 
cost  of  living  have  been  much  decreased. 

With  the  most  sincere  desire  to  get  at  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  con- 
dition of  labor  at  our  home  potteries  we  have  found  it  difficult  to  get  the 
desired  information.  We  gather,  however,  the  following  facts : The  price 
of  labor  was  only  increased  10  per  cent  during  the  war,  when  the  gold 
premium  ruled  so  high  and  manufacturers,  by  their  own  statements,  were 
reaping  rich  harvests  of  profit.  Shortly  after  the  war  this  increase  was 
taken  off,  and  now  wages  of  Trenton  pottery  operatives  are  lower  than 
they  were  before  the  war,  when  the  duty  was  only  24  per  cent. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  intelligent  pottery  operatives  that  an  increase  in 


WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


7Gb 

the  rate  of  duty  would  not  result  in  any  increase  of  wages,  and  they  aver 
that  the  petition  which  they  sent  to  Congress  in  March,  1878,  and  of 
which  the  following  is  a copy,  fairly  expresses  their  views  at  the  present 
time : 

“ To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  : 

“We,  the  operative  potters  of  the  city  of  Trenton,  being  convinced 
by  experience  that  a high  rate  of  duty  on  crockery-ware  yields  no 
benefit  financially  to  the  workingman,  aud  is  inimical  to  his  interests  in 
its  effects  in  increasing  the  price  of  living  generally,  respectfully  peti- 
tion your  honorable  bodies  for  such  a revision  of  the  tariff  as  will  reduce 
the  rates  on  crockery  to  a revenue  basis. 

“We  respectfully  submit  that  the  only  plea  upon  which  a high  pro- 
tective tariff  can  be  justified,  is  that  it  enables  the  manufacturer  to  pay 
better  wages  to  the  laborer  than  he  receives  in  European  countries,  and 
that  the  artisan  thus  shares  in  the  benefit  of  a higher  price  which  pro- 
tection allows  the  manufacturer  to  obtain.  This  not  being  the  case,  a 
tariff*  levied  in  the  name  of  ‘‘protection  to  American  industry ’ is  a false 
pretense  and  a delusion. 

‘fit  is  highly  injurious  to  the  workingman  when  his  fair  share  of  its 
benefits  are  withheld  and  all  its  benefits  are  appropriated  by  the  manu- 
facturer, because  it  strengthens  the  task  master1,  while  its  indirect  results 
being  to  increase  the  price  of  all  necessaries,  it  weakens  the  task-doer. 

“ In  its  practical  operation  it  is  monopoly  for  the  benefit  of  the  few 
at  the  expense  of  the  many. 

“ Such  being  our  experience,  and  believing  that,  with  the  exception 
of  the  privileged  few,  who  reap  its  fruit,  a high  tariff  entails  disadvan- 
tages for  which  it  offers  no  compensation,  we  respectfully  ask  for  such  a 
reduction  as  will  destroy  monopoly  and  encourage  healthy  competition 
and  your  petitioners  will,  as  in  duty  bound,  ever  pray,  &c.” 

The  statement  so  persistently  made  by  the  home  potters,  in  their  peti- 
tion to  Congress  and  elsewhere,  that  90  per  cent,  of  the  whole  cost  of 
production  is  labor  is  misleading,  and  is  a sort  of  conjuring  with  figures. 
The  facts  are  that  45  per  cent,  is  the  average  paid  by  pottery  manufact- 
urers in  the  shape  of  wages  on  the  amount  of  their  production.  To 
reckon  the  labor  needed  to  produce  the  necessary  materials,  fuel,  trans- 
portation, &c.,  is  deceiving  and  conveys  an  entirely  erroneous  impression. 

With  all  the  pottery  manufacturers’  concern  for  their  workmen,  they 
lose  no  opportunity  to  reduce  their  wages,  nor  do  they  hesitate  to  bring 
out  foreign  labor,  when  it  siv's  them  to  do  so,  and,  high  protectionists 
as  they  are,  do  not  object  to  the  importation  of  foreign  labor  on  free- 
trade  principles. 

I propose  now  to  speak  to  this  reason : u Because,  with  the  proposed 
reduction,  there  w 11  remain  ample  protection  to  the  American  manu- 
facturer, and  they  will  share  the  increased  consumption  and  be  able  to 
furnish  more  steady  employment  for  their  workmen.” 

The  proposed  reduction  will  still  leave  a protection  to  the  manufact- 
urer of  earthenware  in  America  of  G7>  to  70  per  cent.,  as  compared  with 
the  85  to  90  per  cent,  they  now  enjoy,  which,  taking  into  consideration 
the  advance  in  the  list  and  reduction  in  discounts  since  the  tariff  was 
24  per  cent.,  will  afford  them  a protection  of  over  90  per  cent,  on  prices 
obtained  by  the  foreign  manufacturers  during  the  period  of  the  24  per 
cent,  tariff. 

I will  occupy  but  a very  few  minutes  more  of  your  time.  The  gentle- 
men who  have  appeared  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  and 


764 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  E.  WRIGHT. 


before  your  honorable  body  have  constantly  made  complaints  of  a com- 
bination among  the  foreign  manufacturers  to  keep  up  or  depress  the 
price  of  earthenware  with  a view  to  influencing  this  market.  I have 
visited  the  leading  maikets  of  Europe  almost  every  year  for  the  last 
fifteen  years,  and  I have  failed  to  find  the  slightest  combination  as  re- 
gards prices  there  among  them.  There  is  no  class  of  men  I have  ever 
met  among  whom  the  competition  is  so  eager  or  who  are  so  jealous  of 
each  other  as  the  manufacturing  potters  of  Great  Britain  ; and  as  to 
there  being  any  combination  among  those  potters,  or  between  them  and 
the  dealers  on  this  side,  it  is  entirely  out  of  the  question. 

I call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  remarks  you  have  heard 
on  this  subject  there  has  been  no  mention  of  the  fact  of  the  gross  price 
being  advanced  10  per  cent,  in  1872,  nor  of  the  fact  of  the  discount  being 
10  per  cent,  less  to-day,  and  therefore  the  cost  20  per  cent,  higher  than  it 
was  under  the  24  per  cent,  duty ; in  other  words,  foreign  manufacturers 
get  18  to  20  per  cent,  more  for  their  goods  now  than  they  did  under 
the  24  per  cent,  tariff.  That  I do  not  say  is  applicable  to  other  for- 
eign goods,  but  it  certainly  is  to  earthenware.  On  the  contrary,  all  the 
arguments  we  have  heard  from  the  other  side  of  the  question  have 
tended  to  create  the  impression  that  the  foreign  manufacturers  have 
greatly  reduced  their  selling  prices  since  the  tariff  was  changed  from  24 
to  40  per  cent.  We  desire  to  challenge  that  statement.  We  have  heard 
it  intimated  that  a scheme  for  specific  duties  would  be  promulgated. 
We  think  it  is  impracticable ; but  if  such  a plan  can  be  discovered  we 
shall  consider  it  a very  valuable  discovery. 

In  conclusion,  gentlemen,  I hope  that  I have  been  able  to  impress  you 
with  the  fact  that  earthenware  is  one  of  the  most  heavily-protected  arti- 
cles of  prime  necessity  that  comes  into  the  country  at  the  present  time; 
that  it  is  one  of  those  articles  in  which  the  poorer  classes  of  the  people  are 
perhaps  as  deeply  interested  as  in  almost  any  other.  We  have  not  gone 
before  Congress  and  asked  for  this  reduction.  As  soon  as  this  Com- 
mission was  created  we  considered  that  the  proper  place  to  make  our 
appeal  was  here,  and  we  did  not  go  before  Congress  or  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee.  Our  opponents  chose  a different  course.  They  went 
before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  after  your  confirmation  by  the 
Senate,  and  tried  in  the  expiring  days  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  to 
get  a bill  rushed  through  increasing  the  duties  on  earthenware  50  per 
cent.  In  other  words,  raising  it  from  40  to  60  per  cent. ; and  it  struck 
us  as  being  the  more  inexcusable  to  slight  this  Commission  from  the 
fact  that  instead  of  corning  out  and  saying,  “This  is  a bill  to  increase 
duties  on  earthenware,”  it  was  entitled  “An  act  to  correct  decisions 
and  simplify  the  tariff  on  china  and  earthen  ware”.  I respectfully 
refer  the  Commission  to  the  House  of  Representatives  bill  No.  6713, 
introduced  by  Hon.  Mr.  Brewer  (himself  a master  potter)  July  3,  read 
twice,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  of  which  I 
have  a copy. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  You  object  to  the  rate  of  duty,  and  first  to  the  commissions 
and  charges  on  the  packages.  Do  you  object  in  any  way  to  the  classi- 
fication under  the  tariff  of  the  articles  that  you  speak  of?  Is  the  classifi- 
cation in  the  present  tariff  satisfactory  to  you  ? — Answer.  The  classifica- 
tion as  it  stands  in  the  tariff  to-day,  is,  I thiuk,  about  correct. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  I would  like  to  make  a few  inquires  based  upon  Tie  difference  in  the 
statements  made  by  yourself  and  those  made  before  us  by  Mr.  Brewer 


WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


765 


and  others.  And  first  let  me  ask  you  this  : You  speak  of  this  matter 
of  geographical  protection  and  you  have  given  us  the  rates ; are  you 
able  to  give  us  the  items  of  the  geographical  protection  on  an  average 
crate  of  ware? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  take  an  average  crate  and  tell  us  what  it  is. — A.  The  geo- 
graphical protection,  as  I have  made  it  out  here,  is  on  100  crates.  In 
the  first  place,  the  cost  of  the  packing — straw  and  package  on  that 
100  crates — amounts  to  about  $400,  or  about  13  per  cent. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  about  $4  a crate  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Of  course,  when 
the  goods  come  here,  we  have  to  pay  40  per  cent,  duty,  which  brings  it 
up  to  nearly  $6. 

Q.  Is  that  a matter  within  your  own  knowledge,  or  do  you  get  it  by 
hearsay? — A.  That  is  a statement  within  my  own  knowledge,  from 
daily  experience  in  the  business  for  twenty  years. 

Q.  Are  you  now  engaged  in  this  business?— A.  Yes,  sir;  and  have 
been  for  twenty  years  -past. 

Q.  What  is  the  next  item  of  cost  ? — A.  The  next  item  is  inland  freight 
and  shipping  charges  from  the  potteries  down  to  the  sea  port,  and  the 
expenses  in  the  sea  port,  which  amounts. to  $2.05,  or  about  6§  per  cent. 
So  that  the  cost  of  the  package,  the  inland  freight,  and  shipping  charges 
altogether  amount  to  about  20  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  wares  on 
the  average  invoice.  On  very  cheap  wares  it  is  much  more,  and  on 
high-priced  wares  less.  But  I am  taking  an  average  100  freights  as 
they  are  cousumed  in  the  country  to  day,  and  that  is  a fair  average 
statement.  The  next  item  is  consul’s  fees.  They  are  small,  to  be  sure, 
and  amount  to  one-half  or  five-eighths  of  1 per  cent,  on  the  value  of 
the  earthenware  imported.  The  next  item  is  marine  insurance. 

Q.  What  is  the  rate  paid  for  marine  insurance  ? — A.  I suppose  1 per 
cent,  would  be  a fair  rate.  Perhaps  in  winter  it  is  higher,  while  it  is 
sometimes  less  in  summer;  but  we  estimate  it  the  year  round  at  1 per 
cent,  as  a fair  rate.  The  next  item  is  the  interest  on  the  goods  from  the 
time  we  have  to  pay  for  them,  which  is  when  the  goods  are  made,  to 
the  time  when  we  can  land  them  on  these  shores.  I have  taken  a very 
small  average  of  thirty  days.  It  takes  a week  or  ten  days  generally  to 
get  the  goods  packed  and  sent  down  to  the  port  of  shipment.  The 
average  ocean  steamer  will  not  bring  them  over  in  less  than  fifteen 
days,  and  before  we  can  get  them  into  our  store  in  a condition  for  dis- 
tributing, thirty  days  are  consumed  altogether.  The  next  item  is  ocean 
freight  on  these  100  crates,  which  amounts  to  $3.00  a crate.  I have 
taken  a very  low  rate  of  ocean  freight.  The  rate  ruling  during  the  past 
twelve  months  has  been  12s.  Gd.,  and  10  per  cent,  for  forty  cubic  feet. 
But  I have  taken  a lower  rate  than  that  so  as  to  be  within  the  actual 
facts,  and  so  that  if  I am  called  upon  to  prove  any  of  my  statements  I can 
convince  you  that  I have  confined  myself  within  the  facts  and  have  not 
gone  beyond  them.  Ocean  freight  is  assessed  by  measurement,  forty 
cubic  feet  counting  a ton,  and  on  steamers  it  is  always  customary  to 
add  10  per  cent,  to  that  for  primage.  My  house  is  largely  interested 
in  steamships,  and  I am  thoroughly  conversant  with  this  matter  of 
freight,  and  the  rate  I have  given  yon  of  $3.60  for  freight  is  a very  fair 
rate.  We  have  the  management  of  the  only  American  line  of  steamers 
crossing  the  Atlantic,  and  we  have  a thorough  knowledge  of  these  rates 
of  ocean  transportation. 

Q.  That  makes  how  much? — A.  That  makes  $1,035,  geographical 
protection. 

Q.  These,  then,  are  the  items,  all  included,  in  what  you  call  geo- 
graphical protection? — A.  Yes,  sir;  $1,035  per  100  crates. 


766 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT. 


Q.  That  does  not  include  the  duty? — A.  No,  sir;  the  duty  is  the  next 
item.  The  duty  on  these  goo :1s  is  51  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the 
goods,  in  reality,  because  to  the  40  per  cent,  duty  must  be  added  11  per 
cent,  as  duty  on  the  packages,  and  charges  and  commissions. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  same  whether  it  is  American  or  English  manufact- 
ure ; I mean  the  duty  on  the  packages  '? — A.  I am  very  glad  you  asked 
me  that  question,  for  I omitted  to  touch  on  that  subject.  We  consider 
the  packages  are  a proper  geographical  protection  for  this  reason,  that 
in  this  country  our  domestic  manufacturers  get  back  a large  proportion 
of  their  packages  as  “empties.”  The  consumer  merely  pays  the  freight 
and  returns  the  package,  and  the  price  of  the  package  is  deducted  on  a 
large  proportion  of  the  goods.  Another  large  proportion  of  the  goods 
are  packed  in  car-loads,  in  bulk,  without  any  packages,  and  the  cost  of 
packages  is  saved.  They  are  shipped  in  that  way  by  cars  which  are 
loaded  right  alongside  of  the  packing-rooms  of  the  potters,  and  they  are 
shipped  1,000  to  1,200  miles  away ; carry  perfectly  well  and  get  there 
without  any  cost  for  packages  whatever. 

Q.  What  class  of  goods  are  those? — A.  The  class  of  goods  that  we 
are  asking  a reduction  from  40  to  30  per  cent,  on — earthenware. 

Q.  There  is  no  expense  for  packing,  then,  except  the  straw? — A.  No, 
sir;  the  only  goods  packed  that  way  in  past  years  were  what  we  call 
stoneware ; they  have  always  been  packed  in  that  manner.  But  they 
are  now  packing  common  ware  and  white  granite  ware  that  way.  They 
pack  them  in  East  Liverpool  and  ship  them  to  points  in  the  West. 

Q.  Do  they  also  ship  them  in  that  way  from  Trenton? — A.  I do  not 
know  what  the  fact  is  in  regard  to  the  Trenton  potters,  but  the  dealers 
in  the  West  who  buy  their  goods  at  East  Liverpool  have  them  shipped 
in  this  way.  I have  no  direct  knowledge  of  its  being  done  at  Trenton, 
although  1 have  not  any  doubt  that  it  is  done  there.  I know  that  in 
regard  to  the  goods  they  sell  in  Philadelphia  and  the  neighboring  cities, 
the  consumer  pays  nothing  for  the  package,  but  ships  it  right  back  and 
deducts  the  amount.  They  only  charge  $2  and  $2.50  in  Trenton  for  the 
packages,  and  if  a man  chooses  to  keep  his  package  and  make  a turkey, 
coop  of  it,  he  can  do  so.  But  I can  assure  you  that  a foreign  package 
cannot  be  imported  that  does  not  cost  between  $5  and  $G,  and  nearer 
$6  than  $5  ; the  charges  and  duty  on  it  bring  it  to  that. 

Q.  That  is  the  charge  at  which  the  package  is  put  in  there,  with  the 
duty  added? — A.  They  are  charged  so  many  shillings  a package,  and 
that  is  all  we  pay  directly  for  the  packages.  But  when  we  come  to  get 
that  sterling  charge  here  and  pay  40  per  cent,  duty  on  it,  it  costs  us  be- 
tween $5  and  $6.  Then  there  is  another  point  in  regard  to  these  pack- 
ages; they  only  cost  the  manufacturer  here  a tithe  of  what  they  cost 
abroad.  In  the  first  place,  wood  is  very  much  cheaper  in  this  country, 
while  it  is  one  of  the  dearest  things  they  have  in  England,  and  the  rn’an- 
ufacturer  here  can  buy  sugar  hogsheads  and  different  kinds  of  packages 
at  a nominal  price.  As  for  the  straw,  I need  hardly  say  to  a Western 
man  that  it  is  more  abundant  in  this  country  than  Great  Britain.  Oat- 
straw  is  especially  high  in  England.  It  is  nearly  all  brought  from  the 
Continent  to  Great  Britain,  and  the  charge  for  it  there  is  something 
enormous.  Therefore,  the  foreign  packages  must,  of  necessity,  cost  very 
much  more  than  the  domestic  packages.  And  in  regard  to  the  way  in 
which  they  pack  their  goods  in  this  country,  getting  the  “empties”  back 
and  getting  the  goods  in  car-loads,  I think  we  are  perfectly  entitled  to 
consider  that,  too,  as  a geographical  protection. 

Q.  You  mentioned  Philadelphia  as  a point  from  which  they  were  re- 
turned.— A.  Yes,  sir;  from  Philadelphia,  New  York,  Baltimore,  and 


WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


767 


neighboring  cities.  I suppose  if  the  Trenton  manufacturer  sells  his 
goods  in  New  Orleans  or  Chicago,  the  freight  would  prevent  the  ship- 
ping back  of  the  empty  package;  but  there  is  an  offset  to  that.  I have 
made  no  mention  in  my  remarks  of  any  breakage  on  foreign  goods. 
There  is  a breakage  on  foreign  goods,  before  they  land  in  this  country, 
and  it  is  considered  not  excessive  to  estimate  the  amount  of  breakage 
at  5 per  cent.  That  5 or  3 per  cent,  breakage  on  goods  will  considerably 
more  than  offset  any  u empties”  that  may  not  be  returned,  and  leave  us 
a clear  right  to  claim  the  entire  cost  of  the  foreign  package  as  a geo 
graphical  protection.  We  believe  we  are  fairly  entitled  to  consider  the 
foreign  packages  as  entirely  a geographical  protection. 

Q.  But  there  is  also  a breakage  on  domestic  packages? — A.  So  there 
is  on  foreign  goods  after  they  reach  this  country.  1 am  speaking  about 
the  breakage  of  the  goods  before  th^y  land  on  our  shores.  Of  course, 
in  handling  them  in  foreign  countries  before  they  reach  shipboard  some 
breakage  occurs,  and  after  they  are  aboard  the  ship  the  motion  of  the 
vessel  at  sea  causes  considerable  breakage.  After  they  are  landed,  I 
grant  you,  the  domestic  manufacturer  runs  the  same  risk  as  to  breakage 
as  do  imported  goods. 

Q.  Is  the  percentage  of  breakage  greater  or  less  on  the  foreign  or 
domestic  goods? — A.  That  is  a difficult  question  to  answer,  because  we 
cannot  separate  the  breakage  before  it  reaches  this  country  from  the 
breakage  after  it  reaches  tliis  country.  But  I am  satisfied  that  the 
breakage  is  about  the  same  on  goods  after  they  reach  this  country,  where 
they  are  shipped  to  different  points.  There  is  a difference  in  the  lines 
of  transportation.  Some  of  them  handle  goods  carefully,  and  some 
smash  them.  Domestic  manufacturers  find  the  same  difficulty. 

Q.  I do  not  know  that  I fully  understood  you;  but  I gathered  the 
idea  from  your  remarks  that  foreign  potters  were  really  as  well  paid  as 
those  in  this  country  ? — A.  I did  not  say  so. 

Q.  I was  not  quite  sure  that  I understood  you,  and  that  is  the  reason 
I called  your  attention  to  it. — A.  My  idea  on  that  subject,  as  far  as  I 
ha  ve  been  able  to  get  at  the  facts,  is  that  they  pay  higher  wages  in  this 
country  than  abroad. 

Q.  About  what  is  the  difference  in  jiercentage? — A.  I should  say  that 
where  they  pay  $1  abroad,  the  same  man  for  doing  the  same  work  in 
this  country  would  earn  $1.45  to  $1.50. 

Q.  You  think  that  is  the  extent  of  the  difference  ?— A.  I think  that  is 
a full  allowance. 

Q.  The  testimony  we  have  heard  on  the  subject  would  indicate  that 
the  percentage  was  much  larger. — A.  We  have  gone  very"  carefully 
into  that  matter,  and,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  the  foreign  manufact- 
urer gets  his  labor,  in  making  the  same  article,  at  about  that  difference 
of  percentage.  I am  not  speaking  of  wages  by  the  day  or  week,  but  of 
the  rate  paid  per  dozen.  Take  the  article' of  plates,  that  cost  $1.50  in 
Trenton  to  make,  and  the  foreign  manufacturer  would  have  to  pay 
about  $1  for  the  same  work,  or  33^  per  cent.  less.  The  difference  be- 
tween the  Staffordshire  price  and  the  American  price  is  about  33^  per 
cent,  in  favor  of  the  Staffordshire  manufacturer. 

Q.  Your  idea  is  that  that  is  more  than  counterbalanced  in  the 
enhanced  price  that  the  workman  has  to  pay  for  what  he  eats  and 
wears? — A.  That  is  our  idea,  and  it  is  shared  by  the  workmen  here,  as 
shown  by  the  petition  which  I have  read  to  you. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  is  a fact  or  not  that  the  American  work- 
men, say  those  at  Trenton,  live  better  than  they  do  on  the  other  side  of 
the  water? — A.  1 have  heard  it  stated  as  a fact.  My  knowledge  of  how 


768 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT. 


the  workmen  live  in  Trenton  is  exceedingly  limited.  But  from  what  I 
have  seen  of  them,  I think  the  potters  in  Staffordshire,  who  are  cer- 
tainly the  best  paid  artisans  in  Great  Britain,  live  as  well  as  they  do  in 
this  country.  In  other  words,  I believe  that  $1  a day  wages  in  Eng- 
land enables  a workman  to  live  as  well  as  $1.50  wages  in  this  country 
does. 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  that  in  point  of  fact  the  price  of  goods  sold 
in  Staffordshire  has  increased  since  1859? — A.  Yes,  sir;  between  15  and 
20  per  cent. 

Q.  We  have  been  led  to  suppose  differently  from  statements  indicating 
there  was  a reduction. — A.  There  has  been  no  reduction.  Goods  have 
never  been  as  cheap  as  they  were  between  1857  and  1801,  when  the  tariff' 
was  24  per  cent.,  and  are  not  as  cheap  to-day  by  18  to  20  per  cent. 

Q.  As  I understood  from  Mr.  Brewer’s  statement,  there  is  a scale  or 
list  by  which  sales  are  made? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  1 understand  you  that  that  scale  has  been  increased  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  fully  10  per  cent. 

Q.  When  was  it  increased? — A.  In  1872. 

Q.  What  was  the  rate  of  discount  from  the  scale  in  1859? — A.  The 
rate  of  discount  on  common  goods  was  37J  percent,  on  one  kind  and  40 
per  cent,  on  the  other. 

Q.  What  is  it  now? — A.  On  the  cheapest  goods  I have  heard  of,  30 
per  cent.  On  the  bulk  of  our  goods  we  are  getting  27 £ per  cent.,  while 
during  the  24  per  cent  tariff  we  got  a discount  of  37 h to  40  per  cent,  on 
the  same  goods.  I am  speaking  of  common  goods,  known  as  C O goods. 
They  are  under  the  40  per  cent,  class. 

Q.  Does  the  same  rate  run  through  the  scale,  that  is,  on  the  higher- 
priced  goods? — A.  On  the  higher-priced  goods  there  is  a difference,  but 
it  is  not  so  marked  as  on  these  goods.  The  higher-priced  goods  are 
dearer  now  than  then,  but  not  as  much  dearer  as  the  lower  grades  of 
goods. 

Q.  Could  you  give  us  the  percentage? — A.  I could  figure  it  out  in  a 
minute  or  two.  I will  state  it  in  general  terms.  The  higher  priced  goods, 
that  is,  white  granite  ware,  is  about  5 per  cent,  higher  than  the  same 
goods  would  have  been  between  1*57  and  1861. 

Q.  You  speak  of  the  price  to  the  importer?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I speak  of 
the  price  the  manufacturer  gets  for  his  goods. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  us  what  the  comparative  jirices  are  to  the  retail 
dealer  then  and  now  ? — A.  Only  from  hearsay ; I have  not  any  knowledge 
on  that  point. 

Q.  If  you  have  a business  knowledge,  or  are  able  to  give  an  approx- 
imate statement,  I would  be  glad  to  have  it. — A.  I should  suppose  that 
the  prices  at  the  sea  port  or  place  of  importation  would  be  the  only  cri- 
terion, because  during  the  24  per  cent,  tariff  the  transportation  to  the 
interior  was  very  different  from  what  it  is  now,  and  would  show  a different 
result.  I suppose  the  difference  there  to  the  retailer  is  about  the  same 
as  the  difference  is  to  the  manufacturer  abroad — about  15  or  20  per  cent. 

Q.  And  that  difference  an  increase? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  statement  was  made  to  us  that  there  was  a large  reduction, 
and  we  wanted  to  understand  how  that  was. — A.  We  directly  contradict 
that  statement,  and  challenge  it. 

Q.  You  say  that  instead  of  a reduction  there  has  been  an  actual  rise  ? — 
A.  I know  of  my  own  knowledge  that  the  manufacturer  is  getting  from 
18  to  20  per  cent,  more  for  his  goods  to-day  than  he  was  under  the  24  j er 
cent,  tariff'.  I think  the  statement  that  was  made  by  the  other  side  re- 


WILLIAM  R.  WRIGHT.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


769 


ferred  to  the  price  of  goods  when  gold  was  up  to  200  or  300  per  cent., 
and  not  to  the  24  per  cent,  tariff. 

Q.  The  gentleman  seemed  to  give  us  the  price  both  before,  during, 
and  since  the  war.  The  claim,  as  I understand,  was  made  distinctly 
that  there  had  been  this  decrease,  and  I think  he  gave  us  what  was 
termed  the  scale  then  and  the  price  list  then  and  the  discounts,  although 
I may  be  mistaken. — A.  If  the  gentleman  made  that  statement  he  was 
entirely  mistaken  in  his  figures. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  I understand  that  you  are  an  importer  and  not  a manufacturer  of 
these  goods? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I am  not  a manufacturer;  but  I understood 
that  you  wished  to  hear  both  sides  of  the  question. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  So  we  do,  and  we  have  heard  both  sides. 

The  Witness.  There  is  one  point  I omitted  to  speak  upon,  and  that 
is  the  duty  the  government  got  under  the  24  per  cent,  tariff  and  the 
duty  it  gets  under  the  40  per  cent,  tariff.  On  these  100  European  crates 
the  government  to-day  collects  $1,484.  Under  the  24  per  cent,  tariff, 
at  the  prices  then  current,  the  government  only  collected  $725,  showing 
that  the  government  to-day  under  a 40  per  cent,  tariff  is  getting  a little 
more  than  double  what  it  did  under  a 24  per  cent,  tariff.  In  other 
words,  it  is  getting  more  now  than  if  the  tariff  was  48  per  cent,  at  the 
time  when  it  was  24  per  cent.,  and  the  difference  between  those  figures 
is  the  duty  on  the  increased  value  of  the  goods  imported — the  same 
goods. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Is  this  class  of  goods  generally  purchased  abroad  or  consigned  ? — 
A.  All  I know  of  are  purchased  abroad.  We  purchase  all  our  own 
goods,  and  I think  these  gentlemen  who  will  follow  me  purchase  all 
theirs.  I mention  this  fact  to  show  the  great  increase  of  protection 
that  is  now  enjoyed. 

H.  Mis.  6 49 


770 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[D.  LANDRETH. 


D.  LANDRETH. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Messrs.  D.  Landreth  & Sons,  of 
Philadelphia,  Pa.,  was  read  and  ordered  to  be  printed : 

To  the  Commission  on  Tariff  Revision : 

The  undersigned  respectfully  represent  that  they  are  growers  or  pro- 
ducers of  and  dealers  in  seeds  of  garden  vegetables,  and  in  the  produc- 
tion of  which  many  persons  are  engaged. 

The  competition  in  the  sale  of  seeds  induces  many  who  are  not  pro- 
ducers, but  dealers  merely,  to  cheapen  prices,  which  they  are  enabled 
to  do  by  importations  from  Europe  at  much  less  cost,  the  20  per  cent, 
duty  of  the  present  taritf  being  added,  than  the  article  can  be  produced 
for  in  the  United  States. 

We  beg  leave  to  request  by  the  Commission  a consideration  of  the 
subject  in  the  light  of  these  facts  : 

First.  The  industry  in  this  country  requires  the  use  probably  of 
30,000  acres  of  land,  and  gives  employment  to  thousands  of  people  both 
in  the  fields  and  in  workshops  and  offices. 

Second.  That  the  pauper  labor  of  Europe  comes  in  direct  competition 
with  a home  industry  capable  of  supplying,  in  a superior  form,  all  the 
wants  of  the  country,  with  the  exception  of  a few  unimportant  articles. 

Third.  That  the  humid  climate  of  the  seed-growing  section  of  Europe, 
by  enabling  the  production  of  a larger  yield  per  acre  than  can  be  grown 
here  (at  the  same  time,  however,  producing  seed  of  less  vital  power),  is 
an  additional  factor  to  that  of  wages  in  cheapening  the  cost  of  the  foreign 
article. 

Fourth.  That  American  grown  seeds,  by  reason  of  their  acclimatiza- 
tion, are  better  adapted  to  the  American  climate  than  the  foreign,  and  are 
preferred  by  all  cultivators  of  experience ; they  are  also  purer  in  qual- 
ity, being  grown  by  more  intelligent  people. 

Fifth.  It  is  impossible  to  detect  any  difference  by  inspection  in  the 
quality  of  the  seeds  of  the  foreign  and  American  grown  article,  which 
fact  permits  the  sale  of  the  foreign  as  American,  and  which  can  be  and 
is  done  at  a less  price  than  the  latter  can  be  produced. 

And  we  therefore  urge  that  the  rate  of  duty  of  the  present  tariff  is 
inadequate  as  a protection  to  an  important  American  industry,  and  that 
the  Commission  recommend  an  increase  to  a rate  of  100  per  cent. 

D.  Landreth  & Sons. 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  August  12,  1882. 


JOHN  B.  MANNING.] 


MALT. 


771 


JOHN  B.  MANNING. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30, 1882. 

Mr.  John  B.  Manning,  of  Buffalo,  addressed  the  Commission  as  fol- 
lows : 

I would  state  that  at  a meeting  held  by  the  maltsters  of  the  city  of 
Buffalo  recently  a committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Daniels,  Crafts,  and 
myself,  were  requested  and  instructed  to  appear  before  you  and  submit 
certain  facts  which  we  think  will  convince  you  that  more  injustice  is 
being  done  to  our  industry,  which  is  one  of  the  largest  in  this  country, 
than  is  suffered  by  any  other  important  interest,  by  reason  of  the  pres- 
ent duty  on  malt  as  compared  with  the  duty  on  barley.  We  submit  the 
following  statement  of  our  case: 

The  undersigned  maltsters  and  brewers  of  the  city  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y., 
do  most  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  following  facts : 

During  the  existence  of  the  reciprocity  treaty  malt  was  subject  to  a 
duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the  same  as  now,  while  barley  was  ad- 
mitted free.  When  that  treaty  terminated,  in  18GG,  a duty  of  15  cents 
per  bushel  was  placed  on  barley,  and  the  duty  on  malt,  through  an 
oversight  on  the  part  of  our  government,  was  allowed  to  remain  un- 
changed. The  result  of  this  is  that  many  times  during  the  past  few 
years  the  Canadian  maltsters  have  entered  and  paid  duty  on  their  manu- 
factured article  at  a less  cost  per  bushel  than  the  American  maltster  has 
been  obliged  to  pay  on  the  raw  material,  barley. 

As  the  law  stands  now  it  practically  discriminates  against  the  home 
manufacturer  and  in  favor  of  the  foreign.  Surely  the  framers  of  the 
new  law  never  contemplated  such  a state  of  things. 

The  maltsters  of  this  country,  after  bearing  this  injustice  for  a number 
of  years,  petitioned  Congress  to  redress  their  grievance,  and  had  a bill 
introduced  in  1878  to  change  the  duty  on  malt  from  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  to  35  cents  specific.  This  met  with  opposition  from  some  brew- 
ers. The  result  was  that  a conference  was  held  in  the  city  of  New  York 
during  the  winter  of  1878,  composed  of  the  executive  committee  of  the 
United  States  Brewer’s  Assbciation  and  a number  of  prominent  malt- 
sters, and  a compromise  was  effected,  viz,  25  cents  per  bushel  specific. 
The  action  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  brewers  was  ratified  and 
confirmed  without  a dissenting  voice  at  the  United  States  brewers’  con- 
gress, held  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  in  1878,  and  a committee  was  ap- 
pointed of  five  of  their  number  to  act  with  a committee  of  five  malt- 
sters, with  instructions  to  repair  to  Washington  and  urge  the  passage 
of  a bill  changing  the  duty  to  25  cents  per  bushel  specific.  Owing  to  the 
late  stage  of  the  session,  the  bill  was  not  reported  by  the  committee. 

After  the  compromise  was  agreed  upon,  the  only  opposition  manifested 
to  the  bill  came  from  Canadian  maltsters  and  commission  men  who  sold 
their  malt  on  this  side,  together  with  the  very  few  brewers  who  buy 
their  malt  of  Canadians. 

At  the  United  States  brewers’  congress,  held  in  this  city  in  the  mouth 
of  May,  1880,  the  question  was  again  brought  up,  and  again  the  con- 
gress reaffirmed  its  former  action,  with  only  two  dissenting  votes  (both 
buyers  of  Canadian  malt),  and  also  at  the  United  States  brewers’  con- 
gress held  in  the  city  of  Chicago  last  summer.  The  compromise  bill 
passed  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the  month  of  June,  1880,  unan- 
imously, was  sent  to  the  Senate,  referred  to  the  Finance  Committee, 
and  by  said  committee  reported  favorably ; but,  owing  to  the  late  stage 
of  the  session,  it  failed  to  pass. 


772 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


JOHN  B.  MANNING. 


The  friends  of  the  measure,  finding  that  many  brewers,  through  mis- 
apprehension, had  been  induced  to  unite  with  a few  brewers  who  pur- 
chase Canadian  malt  in  remonstrating  against  the  bill,  deemed  it  ad- 
visable to  have  the  bill  recommitted  for  the  purpose  of  affording  an 
opportunity  to  all  interested  parties  to  discuss  its  merits  and  to  show  to 
those  brewers  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  subject  that  in  this  matter 
the  brewers  and  the  maltsters  of  this  country  have  a joint  interest.  This 
for  the  following  reasons : 

First.  It  is  a compromise  measure  between  the  brewers  and  maltsters, 
and  they  are  honorably  bound  to  support  it,  not  only  on  the  ground  of 
fairness,  but  that  their  interests  are  so  closely  identified  with  each  other 
that  what  seriously  affects  the  one  must  of  necessity  affect  the  other. 

Second.  It  is  the  interest  of  the  maltster,  as  well  as  that  of  the  bre  wer, 
to  further  and  protect  the  brewing  interests,  which  he  certainly  would  do 
by  promoting  the  proposed  change  in  the  duty  on  malt,  for  now  a very  few 
brewers,  probably  not  to  exceed  20  out  of  3,300  in  the  United  States,  get 
their  supply  of  malt  from  Canada;  and  with  what  result  to  the  trade  at 
large?  Those  20  are  enabled  to  buy  their  malt  for  cash  (the  Canada 
maltster  invariably  sells  for  cash)  at  10  to  15  cents  per  bushel  less  than 
their  neighbors,  and,  as  a result,  they  are  enabled  to  undersell  them. 
Unhealthy  competition  follows,  bringing  ruin  and  disaster  in  its  wake. 
If  this  change  is  effected,  it  will  only  place  our  maltsters  on  an  equality 
with  the  Canadian,  as  he  buys  his  barley  direct  from  the  farmer,  while 
our  maltsters  are  obliged  to  buy  Canada  barley  after  it  has  passed 
through  several  hands,  and  the  cost  is  thereby  enhanced  from  5 to  8 
cents  per  bushel.  The  cost  of  labor  and  living  is  less  in  Canada  than 
in  this  country,  and  consequently  the  cost  of  manufacturing  less,  al- 
together amounting  from  10  to  12  cents  per  bushel  in  favor  of  the  Can- 
ada maltster,  while  the  change  asks  for  only  about  7 cents  per  bushel 
advance  on  the  average  duty  paid  for  a number  of  years,  as  conceded 
by  its  opponents.  Thus  you  will  see  that  Canada  maltsters  would  still 
be  able  to  compete  with  the  home  manufacturer;  but,  as  there  are  some 
350  maltsters  in  this  country,  it  would  seem  that  there  was  sufficient 
competition  to  protect  our  brewing  interests  without  seeking  it  from 
abroad. 

Third.  As  American  manufacturers,  we  are  entitled  to  protection  from 
our  government  as  well  as  other  manufacturers  and  interests. 

The  brewer  is  protected  by  a prohibitory  duty , viz,  20  cents  per  gal- 
lon on  beer  in  barrels  or  casks,  and  35  cents  per  gallon  in  bottles,  amount- 
ing to  $6.20  per  barrel.  The  farmer  is  protected  by  a duty  of  15  cents 
on  barley,  and  the  hop-grower  8 cents  per  pound  on  hops. 

In  the  face  of  these  facts,  does  it  not  seem  strange  that  men  have  the 
assurance  to  claim  that  u the  maltsters  of  this  country  would  become 
monopolists  by  this  change  of  duty?  Prices  would  be  raised,  which 
would  either  ruinously  cut  down  the  brewers’  profits  or  force  them  to 
make  inferior  beer.” 

Why,  if  the  whole  increase  of  duty  as  proposed  should  be  paid  by  the 
brewers,  it  would  be  only  14  cents  per  barrel ; less  than  a half  cent  per 
gallon  to  the  brewer  buying  Canadian  malt;  and,  for  the  reason  set 
forth  above,  the  only  effect  it  would  have  on  the  brewers  at  large  would 
be  to  place  them  on  an  equality  with  their  more  wealthy  competitors, 
thereby  helping  the  poor  and  struggling  brewer. 

But  any  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  effect  of  the  tariff  on  barley 
knows  very  well  that  the  duty  of  15  per  cent,  is  virtually  paid  by  the 
Canadian  farmers ; so  would  the  increased  duty  on  malt  be  paid,  not 
by  the  consumer  on  this  side,  but  by  the  manufacturer  who  exports  it 
to  this  country.  And  why  ? For  the  simple  reason  that  Canada  has 


JOHN  B.  MANNING.] 


MALT. 


773 


no  market  for  either  its  surplus  barley  or  malt  but  this  country,  and 
when  sent  here  it  must  be  governed  by  the  market  values  on  this  side. 

The  maltsters  of  this  country  unanimously  ask  that  the  duty  on  malt 
be  changed  to  25  cents  per  bushel  of  34  pounds ; the  brewers  of  this  city 
all  favor  it ; our  board  of  trade  on  three  different  occasions  passed  reso- 
lutions urging  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  to  use  their 
influence  to  secure  said  change,  and  the  largest  and  most  prominent 
brewers  in  our  country  have  lately  petitioned  Congress  in  favor  of  it. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  custom-house  officers  alon  g our 
frontier  ask  for  its  passage,  knowing  full  well  that  it  will  not  diminish 
the  revenue  of  our  country,  but,  on  the  contrary,  would  increase  the  rev- 
enue by  preventing  undervaluation  and  fraud,  such  as  has  been  perpe- 
trated during  the  last  five  years. 

In  this  connection  we  append  an  extract  of  report  made  by  B.  H.  Hinds, 
special  agent  Treasury  Department,  Washington,  D.  C.,  March  15, 1881. 

In  Canada  there  is  a malt  tax,  and  every  malt-house  is  a bonded  ware- 
house. It  appears  that,  under  some  regulation  of  the  inland  revenue 
authorities,  the  manufacturer  is  allowed  to  withdraw  for  consumption 
2%  per  cent,  more  than  the  quantity  on  which  he  pays  excise  duty.  On 
so  flimsy  a pretext  as  this  have  the  Canadian  shippers  for  years  been 
claiming  and  receiving  discounts  of  per  cent,  from  the  total  amounts 
of  their  invoices  at  the  various  frontier  ports. 

In  the  United  States  such  a discount  is  entirely  unknown,  so  far  as  I 
c&n  learn,  except  in  New  York  city ; and  I am  informed  by  American 
maltsters  that,  on  account  of  this  discount  from  regular  prices  at  New 
York,  malt  is  always  quoted  and  sold  in  that  market  about  2J  per  cent, 
in  advance  of  other  markets  ; so  that  even  there  the  allowance  is  merely 
nominal,  and  the  purchaser,  iu  fact,  receives  no  benefit  from  such  local 
custom. 

The  impropriety,  therefore,  of  allowing  it  on  entries  made  by  foreign 
shipers  is  obvious,  since  the  American  purchaser  does  not  receive  the 
benefit  of  this  discount. 

From  January  1 to  September  30,  1880,  there  were  imported  into 
the  various  frontier  ports  the  following  quantities  of  malt,  which  were 
entered  and  paid  duties  at  the  prices  and  with  the  allowances  indicated. 
In  these  tables  I have  reduced  all  importations  to  the  American  bushel 
of  34  pounds,  and  varied  the  invoice  prices  to  conform  to  such  standard. 
I have  also,  for  convenience,  in  cases  where  the  discount  of  2 J per  cent, 
has  been  made  on  the  quantity,  reduced  such  allowance  to  bushels  and 
taken  the  value  of  the  amount  so  deducted  at  the  invoice  prices: 


Port. 

Bushels  entered. 

Dutiable  value. 

Value,  less  2\  per 
cent,  commission. 

Average  invoice 
price. 

Deduction  for  dust. 

Amount  of  allow- 
ance for  dust. 

Port  Huron 

77,  560 

$57,  985 

$56,  571 

Cents. 

72.9 

Per  cent. 

2h 

$1,  515  05 

Detroit 

34, 284 
58,  500 

25,  710 
44,  627 

25,  084 
43,  541 

73. 1 

N one. 

Buifalo 

74.5 

2J 

346  00 

Niagara 

576,  433 

443,  511 

432, 699 

74.5 

2h 

10,  549  87 

Oswego 

29, 435 

21,  346 

20,  820 

69.0 

2* 

597  00 

Cape  Vincent 

27,  611 

18,  777 

18,  325 

66.4 

2i 

186  00 

Oswegatohie  

16,  597 

12,  853 
3,  758 
5,  078 

12, 540 

3,  676 

4,  958 

75.  5 

None. 

Champlain 

4,  698 
6,  246 

78.2 

None. 

2| 

Vermont 

80.0 

123  95 

831, 364 

618,  214 

13,  317  87 

General  average  price,  74.36  cents  per  bushel  of  34  pounds. 


774 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  B.  MANNING. 


I come  now  to  the  question  of  what  was  the  true  market  value  of  the 
malt  imported,  as  per  foregoing  table,  taking  into  consideration  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Canadian  barley  market  during  the  season  of  1879-’80.  1 am 

informed  by  parties  who  were  large  purchasers  of  Canadian  barley  dur- 
ing the  fall  and  winter  of  1879  and  the  spring  of  1880  that  the  average 
price  of  No.  2 Toronto  did  not,  during  those  months,  vary  much  from 
65  cents  per  bushel. 

I should  here  state  that  all  malt  imported  into  this  country  from  Can- 
ada, so  far  as  I have  been  able  to  learn,  is  consigned  by  the  Canadian 
manufacturer  and  owner  either  to  a railroad  broker  for  the  purpose  of 
entry,  or  to  the  party  to  whom  it  has  been  sold.  It  is  universally  sold 
by  sample,  at  an  agreed  price  delivered  in  this  country;  and  the  pre- 
tense that  there  are  recognized  grades  in  Canadian  malt,  as  most  of  the 
invoices  would  seem  to  imply  from  the  statement  that  a particular  lot 
is  No.  2 or  No.  1,  is  not  warranted  by  the  facts. 

The  largest  brewers  in  Milwaukee,  who  purchase  large  quantities  of 
the  malt,  inform  me  that  they  always  buy  by  sample,  and  know  noth- 
ing about  grades  in  either  American  or  Canadian  malt. 

I have  to  state  that  in  October  last  one  of  the  largest  maltsters  in 
Toronto  informed  me  that  his  prices  for  malt  had  been  during  the  sea- 
son 90  cents  per  bushel  of  36  pounds,  which  was  as  low  as  he  could  af- 
ford to  sell  it. 

In  the  testimony  taken  before  the  consuls  in  Canada  it  was  shown 
that  during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1880,  while  shippers  to  the  United 
States  were  invoicing  their  malt  at  from  70  to  80  cents  per  Canadian 
bushel,  these  witnesses,  who  were  brewers,  were  paying  for  the  same 
quality  of  malt  from  90  to  95  cents  per  bushel,  exclusive  of  the  inland 
tax. 

These  several  kinds  of  evidence,  coming  as  they  do  from  such  various 
and  independent  sources,  concurring  and  corroborating  each  other  in 
such  an  unmistakable  manner,  point  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  that 
a bushel  of  malt  is  fairly  worth  about  25  cents  more  than  a bushel  of 
the  barley  from  which  it  is  made.  It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  the  esti- 
mate submitted  by  me  allows  that  the  small  Canadian  manufacturer 
can  produce  malt  nearly  3 cents  per  bushel  cheaper  than  the  largest  and 
best-equipped  American  establishments,  and  even  then  the  market  value 
of  the  malt  is  shown  to  be  from  21.9  cents  to  25.3  cents  in  advance  of 
the  average  cost  of  the  barley,  according  as  we  estimate  the  manufact- 
urer’s profit  at  10  or  15  per  cent. 

Applying  these  calculations  to  the  importations  from  January  1 to 
September  30, 1880,  and  reducing  the  price  from  90  cents  for  36  pounds  to 

85  cents,  to  conform  to  the  American  bushel  of  34  pounds,  we  find  that 
while  the  actual  market  value  was  85  cents,  the  average  invoice  price, 
as  shown  by  table,  was  only  74.3  cents,  requiring  an  advance  of  more 
than  14  per  cent,  to  make  the  true  market  value.  It  is  true  that  some 
shipments  were  not  undervalued  to  this  extent  ; but,  on  the  other  hand, 
many  must  have  been  invoiced  from  20  to  30  per  cent,  below  their  true 
market  value,  and  I have  therefore  taken  the  average  percentage.  As 
the  value  of  the  importations  at  the  average  price  per  bushel  is  $618,214, 
and  as  this  was  14  per  cent,  less  than  the  true  aggregate  value,  or  only 

86  per  cent,  of  such  correct  value,  it  follows  that  the  full  value  of  these 
importations  must  have  been  $718,853,  and  that  the  difference  between 
these  amounts,  which  is  $100,639,  escaped  the  payment  of  the  20  per 
cent.  duty. 

I became  convinced  during  the  autumn  of  last  year  that  large  and 


JOHN  B.  MANNING.] 


MALT. 


775 


systematic  undervaluations  were  being  practiced  by  the  shippers  of 
malt,  and  I therefore  ascertained,  in  a few  cases,  the  prices  at  which  it 
had  been  delivered  in  this  country  and  the  expenses  attending  the  ship- 
ment. By  comparing  these  with  the  invoice  prices,  the  percentage  of 
the  undervaluation  in  each  shipment  could  be  approximately  ascertained. 
I will  submit  a few  instances  by  way  of  illustration : 

James  Slater,  of  London,  during  the  early  winter  and  spring,  shipped 
some  60,000  bushels  to  the  Best  and  Schlitz  Brewing  Companies  at  Mil- 
waukee at  prices  varying  from  $1.10  to  $1.05,  and  at  the  close  of  the 
season,  in  August,  he  disposed  of  the  remainder  of  the  stock  a*t  $1. 
He  invoiced  this  at  an  average  of  75-J  cents  per  American  bushel,  with 
2J  per  cent,  discount,  which  brings  it  to  73.3  cents.  The  cost  of  trans- 
portation I found  to  be  seven  cents  per  bushel,  which,  with  duty  at  20 
per  cent,  on  73.3  cents,  would  be  21.92  cents.  This,  added  to  the  invoice 
price,  should,  in  an  honest  importation,  be  very  nearly  the  selling  price 
delivered.  It  amounts,  however,  to  only  95.2  cents,  while  the  selling 
price  averaged  $1.05. 

J.  McMillan  shipped  in  May,  1880,  3,500  bushels  from  Kingston  to 
the  Best  Brewing  Company  of  Milwaukee,  invoiced  at  66^  cents  per 
American  bushel.  The  shipping  expenses  on  this  lot  were  probably  1 
cent  per  bushel  more  than  on  Slater’s ; so  that  if  his  invoice  price  was 
a correct  one,  and  included  his  profit,  he  could  afford  to  deliver  it  for 
about  88  cents.  I learned  at  the  brewery,  however,  that  they  paid  him 
$1.22J  cents  for  the  whole  lot,  and  that  it  was  an  extraordinarily  fine  lot 
of  malt,  made  from  Bay  of  Quinte  barley,  which  was  worth  at  least  10 
cents  per  bushel  more  than  Toronto  barley. 

I was  informed  in  Buffalo  that  one  of  the  Toronto  shippers,  William 
D.  Matthews  & Co.,  furnished,  under  contract,  125,000  bushels  of  malt 
during  the  season  of  1879-’80  to  Peter  Doelger,  a brewer  in  New  York 
city,  at  an  average  of  $1.18.  Matthews’s  entries  are  made  at  various 
ports  at  the  rate  of  about  73.3  cents  for  the  bushel  of  34  pounds,  includ- 
ing discounts,  and  as  the  expense  of  shipping  cannot  exceed  10  cents 
per  bushel,  it  is  evident  that  the  malt  is  greatly  undervalued  on  the  in- 
voices. 

There  is  too  sharp  a competition  among  manufacturers  of  this  article 
to  justify  the  presumption  that  any  unusual  advance  over  regular  market 
rates  was  obtained  in  any  of  these  transactions,  and  the  conclusion 
therefore  is  that  the  government  was  defrauded  out  of  a very  large 
amount  of  duties  by  means  of  these  undervaluations. 

I have  already  stated  that  all  Canadian  malt  imported  into  this  coun- 
try, so  far  as  I can  learn,  is  consigned  by  the  shipper  or  manufacturer 
at  a stipulated  price  delivered  to  the  purchaser.  In  this  respect  it  bears 
a close  resemblance  to  consignments  made  by  European  manufacturers 
to  their  American  agents,  and  it  has  been  found  that  the  temptation 
to  undervalue  such  goods,  being  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  is  too 
strong  to  be  resisted  by  a large  majority  of  consignors. 

The  fact  that  these  shippers  from  Canada  and  the  continent  of  Europe 
are  not  required  to  make  oath  to  the  correctness  of  their  invoices  before 
any  magistrate  having  local  jurisdiction  seems  to  offer  a still  further  in- 
ducement to  fraud,  since  the  only  oath  taken  during  the  course  of  the 
importation  is  by  an  agent,  to  whom  the  goods  have  been  consigned 
for  the  purpose  of  entry,  and  whose  action  is,  therefore,  of  the  most 
perfunctory  character. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  the  consuls  make  a pretense  of  administering 
oaths  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  shipper’s  declaration  when  they  certify 


776 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  B.  MANNING. 


invoices,  but  as  no  record  of  such  oath  appears  on  the  invoice  or  else- 
where, and  as  an  oath  taken  before  a United  States  consul  cannot  be 
recognized  in  the  courts  of  Canada  as  a basis  for  a prosecution  for 
perjury,  it  does  not  clearly  appear  for  what  purpose  this  ceremony  is 
performed. 

I have  in  several  instances,  both  at  consulates  and  custom-houses, 
found  invoices  and  entries  of  malt  and  barley  made  on  the  same  day  at 
the  same  price. 

B.  H.  HINDS, 

Special  Agent  of  the  Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  G. 
March  15, 1881. 

The  importation  of  malt  in  1875  was  141,487  bushels ; 1876,  286,930; 
1877,  314,139;  1878,  552,656;  1879,  537,995;  1880,  1,023,447;  1881, 

I, 128,089.  The  consumption  of  malt  last  year  in  the  United  States  was 
about  36,000,000  bushels. 

Such  being  the  facts,  we  leave  you  to  judge  how  many  years,  ac- 
cording to  the  above  rates  of  increase  within  the  past  six  years — from 
144,478  bushels  in  1875  to  1,128,689  bushels  in  1881 — it  will  be  before 
our  entire  maltiug  interest  is  destroyed  or  forced  to  locate  in  Canada, 
in  case  this  evil  is  not  remedied. 

By  changing  the  duty  to  25  cents  per  bushel  specific  undervaluation 
and  fraud  will  be  prevented  and  American  revenue  will  be  increased, 
American  industries  will  be  fostered  and  benefited,  and  American  labor 
and  capital  will  be  protected. 

Buffalo,  August  30,  1882. 

John  B.  Manning,  Maltster. 

White  & Crafts,  Maltsters. 

Schaefer  Brothers,  Maltsters. 

Daniels  & Polly,  Maltsters. 

Solomon  Scheu,  Maltster. 

Charles  G.  Curtiss,  Maltster. 

Frank  A.  Sears,  Maltster. 

Thomas  Clark,  Maltster. 

Fischer  Bros.  & Co.,  Maltsters. 

McLeish  Bros.,  Maltsters. 

Edwin  Gilbert,  Maltster. 

Henry  Diehl,  Maltster. 

Joel  Wheeler  & Co.,  Maltsters. 

C.  G.  & J.  S.  Voltz,  Maltsters. 

John  Kam,  Maltster. 

A.  M.  Marsh,  Maltster. 

J.  O.  Meyer,  Maltster. 

Th.  Kleinschmidt,  Maltster. 

Peter  Lehr,  Maltster. 

A.  McPherson  & Co.,  Maltsters. 

Meidenbauer  & Co.,  Maltsters. 

Chas.  Schaeffer,  Maltster. 

John  M.  Weigand,  Maltster. 

Jacob  Weppner,  Maltster. 

Tuthill  & Berriman,  Maltsters. 

Albert  Zeegele,  Brewer. 

Jos.  L.  Haberstro,  Brewer. 

Gerhard  Lang,  Brewer. 


J.  Schuessler,  Brewer. 

George  Rochevot,  Brewer. 

F.  X.  Kaltenbach,  Brewer. 
Charles  Gerber,  Brewer. 
Jacob  Scheu,  Brewer. 

W.  W.  Sloan,  Brewer. 

Geo.  Boos,  Brewer. 

A.  Gieman,  Brewer. 

David  Haas,  Brewer. 

Magnus  Beck,  Brewer. 

Buffalo  Co-operative  Brew- 
ing Co. 

F.  Diskel,  Brewer. 

M.  Heinold,  Brewer. 

Jost  Brewing  Co. 

E.  Schleucher,  Brewer. 

Moffat  & Service,  Brewers. 
John  M.  Luippold,  Brewer. 
Julius  Binz,  Brewer. 

Alois  Schaeffer,  Brewer. 

J.  F.  Schanzlin,  Brewer. 

Philip  Schneider,  Brewer. 
John  Schuyler,  Brewer. 

Wm.  Voetsch,  Brewer. 
Christian  Weyand,  Brewer. 
John  Karn,  Brewer. 

J.  F.  Kuhn,  Brewer. 


JO  UN  B.  MANNING.] 


MALT. 


777 


I remember  reading  a report  of  one  of  the  meetings  of  this  Commis- 
sion held  at  Long  Branch,  in  which  it  was  stated  that  the  question  was 
asked  of  the  maltsters  who  appeared  before  you  there  whether  any 
change  in  the  duty  on  malt  would  not  enhance  the  cost  of  the  beer  to 
the  consumer  and  be  an  additional  burden  upon  the  brewer.  I think 
we  have  answered  this  question  so  fully  in  the  statement  we  have  made 
that  there  is  nothing  left  to  be  said,  and  that  the  figures  we  have  sub- 
mitted will  establish  the  truth  of  our  assertions. 


778 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[PIERCE  & ROBERTSON. 


PIERCE  & ROBERTSON. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30,  1880. 

The  following  communication  from  Messrs.  J.  H.  Pierce  & Robert- 
son, importers  of  earthenware,  Boston,  Mass.,  was  read  and  ordered 
printed : 

To  the  Board  of  Tariff  Commissioners : 

Gentlemen  : In  view  of  the  consideration  now  being  given  by  your 
honorable  body  to  the  subject  of  the  tariff  on  earthenware,  and  the  fact 
that  it  has  been  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  an  increase  in  the  rate  on 
that  class  of  goods  that  they  arenow  being  sold  at  less  rates  than  be- 
fore the  war,  under  a tariff  of  24  per  cent.,  we  beg  to  state  that  an  ex- 
amination into  the  matter  shows  that  the  cost  of  those  classes  of  the 
goods  that  are  used  by  the  great  mass  of  the  community  is  now  at  least 
fifteen  or  twenty  per  cent,  higher  than  it  was  in  1859  and  1860. 

We  therefore  believe  that  a reduction  of  the  rate  of  duty  to  25  per 
cent,  is  highly  important  as  a measure  of  relief  to  the  public,  of  far 
greater  proportions  than  any  detriment  which  could  thereby  be  caused 
to  the  interests  of  any  particular  class  or  locality. 

The  writer  having  succeeded  to  a business  in  this  line  of  goods  es- 
tablished by  his  father  in  1827,  and  having  himself  been  actively  and 
personally  engaged  in  it  for  twenty-five  years,  we  feel  that  we  may  fairly 
claim  a practical  knowledge  of  the  subject,  as  well  as  facilities  for  mak- 
ing a comparison  of  prices  at  the  periods  under  discussion. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

J.  H.  Pierce  & Robertson. 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  18,  1882. 


WM.  C.  J.  HALL.] 


WORSTED  GOODS. 


779 


WILLIAM  C.  J.  HALL. 

Buffalo,  K Y.}  August  30,  1882. 

Mr.  Will  am.  0.  J.  Hall,  of  Jamestown,  H.  Y.,  manufacturer  of 
worsted  dress  goods,  made  the  following  statement: 

I represent  an  industry  which  may  be  considered  a peculiar  one, 
classed  under  the  head  of  the  worsted  dress-goods  industry.  My  own 
firm,  and  the  Broi'dhead  Worsted  Mills,  of  Jamestown,  have  an  invest- 
ment of  about  half  a million  dollars  in  the  business,  and  employ  di- 
rectly about  700  people,  indirectly  giving  employment  to  a large  num- 
ber of  others.  We  are  particularly  affected  by  proposed  changes  in  the 
tariff  in  this  way : There  is  a demand  for  goods  manufactured  after 
French  rather  than  English  modes  at  present.  That  involves  a change 
in  our  machinery.  If  it  is  though c wise  to  remove  the  present  tariff  on 
these  goods,  it  is  certainly  a very  critical  moment  in  the  history  of  our 
trade  to  do  it.  Without  the  protection  of  the  tariff  our  industry  would 
be  entirely  wiped  out  of  existence.  Our  business  is  a comparatively 
new  one,  the  oldest  mill  not  having  been  in  operation  more  than  ten 
years,  and,  of  course,  we  are  now  struggling  with  obstacles  incident  to 
the  transferring  of  an  enterprise  from  a foreign  country  to  our  own.  If 
England  required  protection  for  one  hundred  and  seventy -five  years  to 
develop  its  manufactures,  we  certainly  need  protection  for  a few  years 
to  enable  us  to  manufacture  these  goods,  if  it  is  the  wish  of  the  govern- 
ment to  develop  this  class  of  manufactures. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  You  say  that  a change  in  the  process  of  manufacture  has 
taken  place;  what  change  do  you  refer  to? — Answer.  It  is  a change  from 
the  manufacture  of  what  may  be  called  a hard,  stiff  class  of  goods  with 
a luster,  to  goods  made  entirely  without  luster,  and  of  a thin,  soft  ma- 
terial. 

Q.  Is  not  that  a change  which  is  going  on  all  over  the  world,  in 
England  and  everywhere? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  the  English  are  somewhat- 
in  advance  of  us  in  this  respect. 

Q.  What  kind  of  wool  are  these  hard  goods  made  from  ? — A.  All 
luster  goods  are  made  from  Scotch  wools,  Lincolnshires,  and  the  Eng- 
lish blooded  wools;  wools  derived  from  the  merino  breeds. 

Q.  Hoes  it  require  much  more  labor  and  expense  to  manufacture  this 
new  class  of  goods  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; considerably  more. 

Q.  Is  not  the  manulacture  of  these  soft  merino  goods  a very  large  in- 
dustry in  France  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  it  has  been  for  a long  period. 

Q.  Are  these  staple  goods;  that  is,  have  they  been  imported  regularly 
from  year  to  year  since  they  were  first  made? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  the  raw  material  in  this  country  from  which  to  manu- 
facture these  goods  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; it  is  found  here ; that  is  to  say,  the 
country  is  capable  of  growing  it ; but  the  farmers  need  the  encourage- 
ment of  manufacture  to  lead  them  into  the  growing  of  it. 

Q.  Is  it  a kind  of  wool  that  can  be  grown  here  more  profitably  than 
any  other  ? — A.  It  can  be  grown  in  larger  flocks  than  any  other.  This 
country  is  better  adapted  to  the  growth  of  it. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  any  of  the  Virginia  wools  from  the  Pan  Han- 
dle?— A.  Yes,  sir. 


780 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WM.  C.  J.  HALL. 


Q.  Can  you  state  anything  of  the  value  of  those  wools'? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
they  are  of  the  kind  suitable  to  this  manufacture;  and  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  wools  brought  from  contiguous  parts  of  Ohio,  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Ohio  River.  Our  sources  of  supply  lie  in  that  direction. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  better  wools  in  this  country  than  those  grown 
in  the  Pan  Handle  region  of  Pennsylvania? — A.  I could  hardly  say. 
We  get  small  lots  of  better  wools ; but  when  we  come  to  large  quan- 
tities we  do  not  find  them  any  better. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  I suppose  you  are  aware  that  there  are  several  establishments  in 
France,  employing  as  many  as  10,000  hands,  engaged  in  this  manufact- 
ure?— A.  I know  that  there  are  large  establishments  there,  but  I could 
not  state  the  number  of  hands  employed. 

Q.  Is  not  this  a class  of  goods  in  which  there  is  less  change  on  ac- 
count of  the  fashions;  are  they  not  staple  and  permanent  in  their  char- 
acter?— A.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  staple  goods.  We  make  goods  of  a dif- 
ferent character  also,  where  the  styles  frequently  change.  If  wre  could 
have  a sufficient  protection  on  these  goods  there  would  spring  up  a 
large  manufacture  of  them;  or  if  we  knew  what  the  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment was  going  to  be,  so  that  we  could  depend  upon  a return  for  our 
outlay,  we  should  feel  more  like  investing  large  sums  of  money  in  the 
business,  and  not  be  acting  in  the  dark. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  What  is  the  present  rate  of  duty  on  these  goods  ? — A.  The  general 
duty  is,  first,  for  goods  valued  under  20  cents  a yard,  6 cents  per  square 
yard  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; for  goods  valued  higher,  8 cents 
per  square  yard  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  goods  weighing  4 
ounces  or  over,  per  square  yard,  50  cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent, 
ad  valorem,  I believe. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  it  not  important  that  the  duty,  whatever  it  may  be,  should  be 
stable  and  not  fluctuating ; is  that  not  more  important  to  you  than  the 
rate  of  duty  itself? — A.  Yes,  sir;  far  more  so;  that  is  the  great  point 
in  the  matter.  It  is  this  uncertainty  that  is  damaging  our  trade  so 
much. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  If  the  present  rate  of  duty  were  simplified  and  properly  classified, 
would  that  be  a sufficient  protection  to  enable  the  American  manufact- 
urer to  compete  with  the  foreign  manufacturer  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; but  it 
would  be  no  more  than  sufficient ; it  would  not  give  him  a chance  for 
the  rapid  accumulation  of  a surplus.  The  finer  grades  of  cloth  need 
more  protection,  because  the  question  of  labor  comes  in  there. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  is  the  average  protection  which  you  have  at  the  rates  you 
have  named;  is  it  equal  to  75  per  cent.? — A.  I should  hardly  think  it 
was  as  much  as  that. 

Q.  Is  it  over  70  percent.  ? — A.  I could  not  say. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  it  practically  more  than  35  per  cent? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is,  of 
course.  We  suffer  under  this  ad  valorem  duty  by  reason  of  undervalu- 


. WORSTED  GOODS. 


WM.  C.  J.  HALL.] 


781 


ations.  That  affects  all  the  manufacturers  throughout  the  United 
States. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Is  it  a difficult  matter  to  decide  what  the  value  of  the  article  you 
manufacture  is1? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I have  often  deceived  men  who  have 
made  these  goods  by  changing  the  tickets  attached  to  them,  and  they 
could  not  tell  withiu  five  cents  a yard  the  actual  value  ; which  shows 
that  an  appraiser  is  very  likely  to  be  misled. 

Q.  What  was  the  value  of  the  article  you  refer  to  per  yard  ? — A.  I am 
referring  to  goods  worth  from  50  to  75  cents  a yard.  The  appraiser 
himself  is  liable  to  be  misled,  even  if  he  is  a skilled  man  in  the  busi- 
ness. 

Q.  What  specific  rate  of  duty  would  you  recommend  ? — A.  That  is  a 
question  I should  like  to  have  time  to  consider  and  give  a written  an- 
swer to.  I will  submit  a written  statement  in  regard  to  that  matter. 


782 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JASPER  S.  YOUNGS. 


JASPEE  S.  YOUNGS. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30, 1882. 

Mr.  Jasper  S.  Youngs,  of  Buffalo,  secretary  of  the  Williams  ville 
Quicklime  Company,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Our  firm  is  interested  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  quicklime,  an 
article  which  you  may  say  is  one  of  local  interest;  but  we  have  compe- 
tition from  Canada  to  such  an  extent  that  we  cannot  manufacture  our 
goods  and  receive  enough  from  their  sale  to  pay  us  for  their  cost.  There 
are  several  reasons  for  this.  One  reason  is,  labor  is  cheaper  in  Canada, 
and  wood  can  be  procured  there  at  a lower  rate.  Besides,  the  taxes  we 
pay  in  this  country  are  greatly  in  excess  of  those  paid  in  conducting  the 
same  business  in  Canada.  Our  quarries  are  assessed  at  from  $1,000  to 
$1,200  an  acre  here,  while  in  Canada  the  land  can  be  bought  for  from 
$75  to  $100  an  acre.  Therefore  we  ask  for  a reasonable  rate  of  duty 
which  will  protect  us  in  our  business.  It  is  a lo3al  business  almost  en- 
tirely. Our  trade  does  not  extend  over  100  miles  from  Buffalo,  and  we 
ship  our  goods  within  that  radius.  This  is  an  article  manufactured 
largely  for  home  consumption,  and  not  for  transportation  to  any  great 
distance,  and  we  are  obliged  to  come  in  direct  competition  with  lime 
which  is  brought  over  from  Canada.  I think  we  should  have  a specific 
duty  of  about  25  cents  a barrel  on  our  lime,  and  $5  per  cord  on  lime- 
stone to  enable  us  to  come  into  the  market  even-handed  with  the  Cana- 
dian lime. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Question.  What  is  your  lime  worth  a barrel  here? — Answer.  We  are 
contracting  this  season  to  deliver  lime  for  80  cents  a barrel  of  240  pounds. 

Q.  You  now  have  a protection  of  10  per  cent.? — A.  Yes,  sir;  which 
amounts  to  about  5 cents  a barrel,  as  I understand  from  the  custom- 
house officers. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Lime  is  worth  50  cents  a barrel  in  Canada  as  against  80  cents  here; 
is  that  your  statement? — A.  I do  not  know  what  they  rate  it  at  there. 
I understand  the  duties  and  costs  connected  with  it  amount  to  about  5 
cents  a barrel. 

Q.  How  much  of  it  is  imported  from  Canada? — A.  I could  not  say. 
Our  business  has  fallen  off  very  considerably.  In  1873  and  1874  we 
handled  about  80,000  barrels;  but  the  importations  from  Canada  began 
at  that  time,  and  have  been  quite  extensive,  so  that  our  business  has  run 
down  to  30,000  barrels  a year.  This  year  we  will  probably  manufatture 
45,000  or  50,000  barrels. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  The  prices  which  you  have  named  are  those  charged  for  the  article 
in  bulk? — A.  Yes,  sir.  We  are  paying  $20  a hundred  for  second-hand 
barrels ; we  could  not  afford  to  pack  the  lime  in  new  barrels  at  the  pres- 
ent price  we  receive  for  it. 


WILLIAM  R.  N0RCR0S8,  J 


EARTHENWARE. 


783 


WILLIAM  R.  NORCROSS. 

Buffalo,  K Y.,  August  30,  1882. 

Mr.  William  R.  Norcross,  of  the  firm  of  Norcross,  Mellen  & Co., 
of  Boston,  Mass.,  importers  and  dealers  in  earthenware,  addressed  the 
Commission  as  follows : 

Mr.  Wright  has  gone  into  the  subject  of  the  tariff  on  pottery  so  exten- 
sively and  has  so  exhausted  the  subject  that  I think  it  is  hardly  neces- 
sary for  me  to  say  much  in  addition.  I have,  however,  made  a few 
notes  in  regard  to  this  general  subject,  from  which  I will  briefly  address 
the  Commission. 

In  June  last  the  Hon.  J.  H.  Brewer,  manufacturer  of  earthenware, 
and  United  States  Representative  from  the  city  of  Trenton,  H.  J.,  gave 
his  testimony  before  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  on  the  existing 
tariff  as  applied  to  earthenware,  which  testimony  is  calculated  to  con- 
vey an  erroneous  impression  to  the  minds  of  those  who  are  not  familiar 
with  the  facts ; and,  inasmuch  as  he  represents  the  sentiments  of  Tren- 
ton manufacturers  (as  far  as  we  can  learn),  we  propose  to  review  the 
line  of  argument  adopted  by  him  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  with  the 
hope  of  bringing  light  out  of  the  darkness  in  which  he  leaves  the 
subject. 

Mr.  Brewer  represents  protection  to  American  manufacturers  in  186G 
as  follows:  He  takes  the  sum  of  $100,  deducts  English  discounts, 
20,  5,  and  5,  $27.80,  leaving  a net  cost  of  $72.20.  The  duties  on  $72.20 
is  $28.90,  which  he  simply  calls  protection  without  further  comment, 
leaving  us  to  infer  that  $28.90  represents  protection  on  the  sum  of  $100. 
But  the  actual  protection,  by  his  own  showing,  is  45  J per  cent.,  because 
by  the  existing  tariff  laws  we  are  required  not  only  to  add  packages, 
charges,  and  commissions,  but  also  to  pay  duties  on  these  items: 


Say.... ....  $100  00 

English  discounts,  20,  5,  and  5 27  80 


Net  cost 72  20 

Add  packages,  per  cent,  gross . 5 25 

Add  charges,  2f  per  cent,  gross 2 62 

Add  2%  per  cent,  commissions  on  $80.07 2 00 


82  07 

We  use  Mr.  Brewer’s  discounts,  20,  5,  and  5,  not  recognizing  them  as 
correct,  even  in  a year  when  the  demand  was  an  abnormal  one. 

Forty  per  cent,  duties  is  $32.80,  or  45  J per  cent,  on  net  cost  of  goods  in 
Staffordshire.  Add  to  this  amount  the  packages  and  charges,  $7.87, 
and  we  have  a protection  of  $40.67,  equal  to  56J  per  cent,  on  net  cost  of 
goods. 

Mr.  Brewer  also  states  that  for  the  year  1882  the  protection  on  $100 
is  reduced  to  the  insignificant  sum  of  $15.32. 


Say,  one  hundred  dollars $100  00 

Deduct  English  discounts,  57|,  5,  and  5 61  63 


38  37 

Duties  on  $38.37  at  40  per  cent,  are  $15.32. 


784 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  R.  NORCROSS. 


Let  us  present  this  case  as  it  now  exists : 


Say,  one  hundred  dollars $100  00 

English  discounts,  57£,  5,  and  5 61  63 


Net  cost ' 38  37 

Packages,  5£  per  cent,  gross 5 25 

Charges,  2§  per  cent,  gross . 2 62 

Commission  on  $46.24,  2£  per  cent 1 13 


47  37 

Duties  at  40  per  cent,  are  $18.95,  or  49J  per  cent.  If  we  add  pack- 
ages and  charges,  we  have  a protection  of  $26.82,  equal  to  70  per  cent, 
on  net  cost  of  goods. 

We  now  beg  leave  to  submit  a statement  of  the  cost  and  charges  of  a 
small  invoice  of  white  graniteware  recently  imported  and  passed  through 
the  custom-house  by  our  firm : 


Gross  amount  of  23  crates  white  granite  ware..... £372  7s.  9 d. 

Deduct  57-£,  5,  and  5 229  11  0 


Net  amount  in  Staffordshire 142  16  9 =$695  11 

Crates  and  straw,  17s 19  11  0 

Charges,  8s.  Qd 9 15  6 

Certificate 15  0 


172  18  3 = 841  48 


Duties,  40  per  cent 344  91 

Insurance,  5£  per  £,  at  £ per  cent c 7 12 

Freight  and  w harfage,  at  10  per  cent 90  09 

Truckage  and  labor,  at  1 per  cent 23  00 

Interest,  &c 8 41 


1,315  01 

Actual  cost  of  goods  landed  in  Boston,  $1,315.01;  showing  an  excess 
of  $619  over  the  original  cost;  equal  to  92  per  cent,  advance  on  net  cost 
of  goods  in  Staffordshire,  England.  In  some  cases  the  difference  is  still 
greater,  but  we  take  this  single  instance,  feeling  assured  it  would  be 
sufficient  to  satisfy  you  of  the  enormous  tax  we  are  subjecting  our 
people  to,  in  our  efforts  to  protect  home  manufactures.  You-  are,  no 
doubt,  aware  that  earthenware  (especially  the  lower  grades)  is  largely 
consumed  by  the  poorer  classes,  whose  very  existence,  in  a great  meas- 
ure, depends  on  the  protecting  arm  of  the  United  States  Government. 
It  therefore  seems  to  us  highly  proper  that  this  class  of  goods  should 
be  put  in  the  hands  of  the  consumers  at  the  lowest  possible  cost;  and 
we  would  respectfully,  but  urgently,  recommend  a reduction  of  the  pres- 
ent burdensome  tax  to  25  per  cent.  If  earthenware  does  not  rank  as 
high  as  many  other  productions,  it  is  nevertheless  an  article  of  house- 
hold necessity,  and  every  housekeeper  in  the  land  is  directly  interested. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Question.  Do  I understand  that  the  present  rate  of  discount  is  57 J,  5, 
and  5? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  rate  I have  taken  as  represent- 
ing an  ordinary  crate  of  goods  in  this  country. 

Q.  What  was  the  rate  for  the  last  three  or  four  years  before  the 
war  ? — A.  I think  it  did  not  vary  materially  from  these  rates.  I have 
not  gone  into  the  figures  on  those  points. 

Q.  Were  you  in  business  at  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I have  been  in 
business  ever  since  1840. 

Q.  You  are  not  aware  what  the  discounts  were  at  that  time? — A.  I 
could  not  give  you  the  figures.  The  paper  which  has  been  submitted 


WILLIAM  R.  N0RCR06S.1  EARTHENWARE.  785 

by  Mr.  Wriglit  covers  the  whole  ground,  and  I did  not  deem  it  neces- 
sary to  go  into  further  details. 

Q.  The  reason  I wanted  your  views  upon  the  subject  was,  because  of 
the  great  discrepancy  in  the  statements  that  have  been  made  to  us. — 
A.  My  impression  is  that  the  discounts  did  not  vary  materially  just 
prior  to  the  war  from  those  prevailing  at  the  present  day,  except  on 
some  kinds  of  goods. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  us  what  the  rates  were  about  the  time  that  we 
resumed  specie  payment? — A.  The  rates  of  discount,  I think,  were  some- 
what less  than  at  present;  they  had  not  recovered  from  the  effects  of 
the  war. 

Q.  You  are  not  able  to  give  us  the  discounts  for  any  particular  year? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  know  about  the  increase  of  the  price  lists? — A.  I 
know  it  to  be  a fact  that  the  English  price  lists  have  been  increased. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  us  the  relative  price  to  the  retail  dealer  be- 
fore the  war  and  now? — A.  I am  not  prepared  to  answer  that  question. 
Before  I left  home  I made  some  figures  upon  that  subject,  and  I am  pre- 
pared to  state  here,  with  some  degree  of  confidence,  that  goods  at  the 
present  day  are  being  sold  at  a higher  price  than  they  were  in  1800 
under  the  24  per  cent,  tariff.  I have  a firm  conviction  that  goods  are 
being  sold  now  to  the  consumer  at  a considerably  higher  price  than 
they  were  prior  to  the  war. 

Q.  So  that  it  would  be  your  impression  that  the  rate  was  somewhat 
higher  now,  or  has  been  for  the  last  three  or  four  years  than  it  was  be- 
tween 1850  and  1860? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  that  is  a mere  impression ; you  are  unable  to  give  us  any 
figures  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Do  you  say  the  prices  in  Staffordshire  are  higher  also  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir ; of  course  they  are  higher  too. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  dealt  in  American  pottery  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; to  some 
extent. 

Q.  What  is  the  character  of  the  American  goods  as  compared  with 
the  English  goods? — Y.  They  do  not  rank  as  high  as  those  made  in 
England ; they  are  not  as  reliable.  The  chief  defect  is  in  the  u crazing,’7 
as  we  call  it. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  to  us  that  that  defect  had  been  overcome,  and 
that  the  goods  were  now  as  free  from  crazing  as  English  goods  are. — 
A.  I have  heardthat  statement  made,  and  also  have  heard  the  state- 
ment made,  by  persons  perfectly  competent  to  pass  judgment,  that, 
owing  to  the  peculiar  character  of  the  materials  used  here,  that  was 
almost  an  insurmountable  objection  to  the  American  goods,  and  they 
doubted' whether  the  defect  could  ever  be  effectually  overcome.  I 
merely  state  that  from  hearsay,  although  it  was  told  me  by  persons  I 
think  perfectly  competent  to  express  an  intelligent  opinion. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Your  most  important  commercial  transactions  are  in  foreign  goods  ? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

H.  Mis.  6 50 


786 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  WILSON. 


WILLIAM  WILSON. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  William  Wilson,  of  Cleveland,  representing  the  Wilson  & 
Hughes  Stone  Company,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Gentlemen  : I desire  to  make  a very  short  statement  in  regard  to  our 
interest,  which  is  that  of  producers  of  building  stone  and  grindstones. 

The  Cleveland  stone  companies  desire  that  you  shall  recommend  to 
Congress  that  the  present  duty  on  stone  should  remain  as  it  is,  viz,  $1.50 
per  ton  of  13  cubic  feet,  block  stone,  specific  duty,  and  $2  per  ton  of  13 
cubic  feet  on  grindstones,  specific  duty. 

There  are  about  45,000  tons  of  grindstone  manufactured  in  this  part 
of  Ohio,  about  6,000  feet  of  building  or  block  stone,  and  100,000  feet  of 
sawed  stone.  The  amount  of  money  paid  per  month  to  laborers  is  about 
$45,000.  We  ask  a continuance  of  the  present  rate  of  duty,  and  we 
think  it  is  just  and  equitable  to  all  concerned. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  What  wages  do  you  pay  your  hands  ? — Answer.  From  $1.50 
to  $2.75  a day,  according  to  the  grade  of  the  labor.  Since  Nova  Scotia 
became  attached  to  Canada  our  trade  with  Canada  has  been  cut  off  by 
competition  to  the  extent  of  $2  a ton,  because  that  stone  comes  in  duty 
free  from  Nova  Scotia.  Our  building  stone  is  used  in  Boston,  Philadel- 
phia, New  York,  and  other  places;  it  is  a pure  sandstone. 

Q.  Your  competitor  is  Nova  Scotia? — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  our  Canadian 
trade. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  What  is  the  price  per  ton  asked  for  stone  at  the  present  time  ? — 
A.  The  prices  vary  from  $12  to  $14  or  $15  a ton  at  the  quarries. 

Mr.  L.  Haldeman,  of  the  Ohio  Building  and  Grindstone  Company, 
said: 

We  prepare  about  25,000  tons  of  the  manufactured  article  of  grind- 
stone, and  from  400,000  to  500,000  cubic  feet  of  building  stone  per  an- 
num. I agree  with  the  gentleman  who  has  preceded  me  in  everything 
he  has  said.  I have  no  additional  remarks  to  make  except  to  say  that 
free  trade  would  result  in  a discrimination  against  tlm  American  pro- 
ducts and  against  the  American  laborer.  The  present  rate  of  duty  is 
$2  a ton,  and  the  price  of  grindstone  varies.  The  present  price  is  $2  a 
ton.  We  sell  about  2,000  tons  of  stone  a year  to  Canada ; but  the  Ca- 
nadians come  in  competition  with  us  in  our  Eastern  and  other  trade 
with  about  8,000  tons  of  their  manufactured  product. 


HERMAN  FRASCH.] 


SODA  ASH. 


787 


HERMAN  FRASCH. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  Herman  Frasch,  of  the  American  Chemical  Works,  at  Bay 
City,  Mich.,  made  the  following  statement : 

Our  reason  for  coming  before  you  is,  that  we  feel  we  should  receive 
a protection  to  our  industry  in  the  way  of  a duty  on  imported  soda  ash 
which  will  counterbalance  the  high  wages  we  are  paying  in  this  coun- 
try for  our  labor.  We  have  to  employ  in  our  business  skilled  labor- 
ers, and  pay  them  much  higher  salaries  than  they  would  receive  for  the 
same  work  in  Europe.  Although  we  have  the  same  facilities  here  that 
manufacturers  abroad  have  for  the  production  of  our  goods,  yet,  as  far 
as  the  price  of  labor  is  concerned,  we  are  at  a disadvantage.  We  have 
to  pay  five  or  six  times  the  price  here  that  the  same  labor  can  be  ob- 
tained for  in  Europe.  Our  facilities  in  other  respects  are  about  the 
same.  Coal  is  a little  higher  here,  but  salt  we  get  at  about  the  same 
price  as  abroad.  We  have  to  use  brine,  as  we  have  no  rock  salt,  and 
brine  contains  impurities  which  makes  our  process  somewhat  more  ex- 
pensive than  it  is  abroad.  This  process  that  we  are  working  under  is 
what  is  called  the  “ ammonia  process,”  where  no  sulphuric  acid  is  em- 
ployed. Lime,  ammonia,  coal,  and  brine  are  the  only  materials  that  we 
consume  in  our  manufacture. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Do  you  think  it  is  possible,  under  a wise  protection,  to  ex- 
tend this  manufacture  so  that  all  the  soda  ash  used  in  this  country  can 
be  produced  here'? — Answer.  That  is  our  ambition.  Our  works  at 
present  do  not  contain  more  than  one-tenth  of  the  capacity  that  we  hope 
in  time  to  build  up.  We  do  not  want  to  experiment  on  too  large  a scale, 
and  have  gone  into  the  business  in  a moderate  way  at  first.  We  want 
to  increase  the  product  of  our  manufacture,  and  with  enlarged  facili- 
ties we  can  easily  manufacture  the  whole  product  that  the  country  re- 
quires. We  have  the  necessary  materials  to  enable  us  to  do  it.  For 
the  last  few  years  we  have  expended  a great  deal  of  money  in  making 
necessary  experiments.  In  England,  France,  and  Germany  they  use 
rock  salt,  which  contaius  but  very  small  quantities  of  the  earthy  chlo- 
rides which  have  to  be  removed  to  make  a good  salt — chloride  of  mag- 
nesium and  chloride  of  calcium.  As  we  have  no  rock  salt  in  this  coun- 
try we  have  to  use  brine,  which  contains  other  impurities. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Is  this  process  of  which  you  speak  one  peculiar  to  your  own  estab- 
lishment?— A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  one  which  we  have  reached  by  experiment. 

Q.  You  have  the  monopoly  of  it,  then? — A.  Yes,  sir;  as  far  as  this 
particular  process  is  concerned ; but  the  ammonia  process,  as  such,  is 
carried  on  in  two  factories  in  Europe.  On  account  of  our  having  to 
use  brine  instead  of  rock  salt,  we  had  to  make  some  changes  in  the  pro- 
cess in  this  country.  The  ammonia  process  is  not  a monopoly. 

Q.  No  one  but  yourselves  can  manufacture  under  your  process  ? — A. 
No,  sir;  but  there  are  other  forms  of  the  ammonia  process  which  can  be 
used  by  any  one. 


788 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HERMAN  FRASCH. 


By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  there  are  large  deposits  of  rock  salt  in  Louis- 
ana  and  Texas? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I am ; but  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  locate  our 
factory  where  we  can  get  cheap  supplies  of  coal  and  lime,  and  the  high 
price  of  labor  in  the  South  makes  it  almost  impossible  for  us  to  manu- 
facture there  at  a profit.  We  have  an  advantage  in  being  located  on 
the  lakes  where  there  is  water  communication,  because  we  can  get  our 
coal  and  lime  cheaply.  It  would  be  an  advantage  to  us  if  we  could  use 
the  rock  salt  which  is  found  in  Louisiana,  but  the  other  disadvantages 
of  manufacturing  there  would  counterbalance  that  advantage. 

Q.  Are  you  satisfied  with  the  present  rate  of  duty  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; we 
are. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  sufficient,  or  more  than  enough,  to  put  the 
manufacturers  here  on  the  same  plane  with  the  manufacturers  of 
Europe? — A.  It  does  not  give  us  any  advantage,  and  we  are  not  really 
on  an  equal  footing  with  them ; but  we  are  satisfied  with  the  duty  as  it 
is,  although  an  increase  would  be  very  welcome  to  us  on  account  of  the 
high  prices  which  we  have  to  pay  for  labor.  We  have  to  employ  super- 
intendents and  chemists  at  veiy  high  salaries,  while  abroad  such  ser- 
vices can  be  bad  for  one  quarter  of  what  we  pay.  That  is  an  item  in 
regard  to  wliich  Europeans  have  a great  advantage  over  us.  I suppose 
the  time  will  come  when  we  will  be  able  to  dispense  with  any  protec- 
tion ; but  for  the  present  we  think  that  we  ought  to  receive  a fair  rate 
of  protection. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  to  us  that  the  European  manufacturer  has  a 
very  great  advantage  in  his  business  where  the  employment  of  skilled 
chemical  labor  is  required. — A.  Yes,  sir.  Abroad,  in  Germany  and 
France,  a great  many  young  men  have  adopted  chemistry  as  a profes- 
sion, and  they  are  willing  for  a small  sum  to  work  in  these  factories 
where  their  chemical  knowledge  can  be  made  available;  in  some  cases 
they  are  willing  to  act  as  volunteers  and  work  without  salary  for  the 
sake  of  the  experience  they  gain.  This  is  not  the  case  in  this  country, 
and  we  find  great  difficulty  in  obtaining  persons  who  have  the  neces- 
sary skill  to  adapt  them  to  our  business. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  in  many  of  the  large  manufacturing  establish- 
ments in  Germany  there  are  as  many  chemists  employed  in  the  labora- 
tory as  there  are  clerks  in  the  office? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that,  is  the  fact  to 
a very  great  extent.  There  is  hardly  a manufacturing  establishment 
abroad  that  is  not  guided  in  its  work  by  the  advice  of  one  or  two  ex- 
perienced chemists,  while  in  this  country  such  services  are  not  deemed 
essential  in  many  instances. 


L.  H AVIIITE  ] 


SUGAR  OF  MILK. 


789 


i 


L.  H.  WITTE. 

Cleveland  Ohio,  August  31, 1882. 

Mr.  L.  H.  Witte,  of  Cleveland  Ohio,  addressed  the  Commission  as 
follows : 

I desire  to  state  that  the  article  called  sugar  of  milk  or  lactin  (not 
to  be  confounded  with  ordinary  sugar)  is  one  that  ought  to  be  made  in 
this  country ; that  it  can  and  will  be  made  under  a protective  tariff  of, 
say,  20  cents  per  pound.  The  imports  of  this  article  (see  Treasury  De- 
partment Document  No.  45,  Bureau  of  Statistics,  page  68)  for  year  end- 
ing June,  1878,  were  $16,008;  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 1879,  $22,861; 
for  the  year  ending  June  30, 1880,  $25,430;  which,  although  small,  shows 
an  increase  in  the  yearly  consumption. 

It  is  largely  used  in  the  manufacture  of  pepsin,  it  being  a necessary 
article  to  grind  up  the  pepsin.  It  is  also  used  for  a variety  of  other 
purposes.  The  article  imported  is  always  of  doubtful  or  uncertain  qual- 
ity. In  this  country  it  can  be  made  of  best  quality  to  a certainty  that 
can  always  be  depended  upon.  This  is  owing  to  small  cheese  factories 
in  Europe,  each  producing  a quality  peculiar  to  the  factory.  In  this 
country  cheese  factories  are  large. 

The  article  is  made  by  clarifying  the  whey  of  a cheese  factory  by  boil- 
ing it  down  to  the  crystallizing  point.  This  apparently  simple  process 
requires  skill  that  can  be  only  obtained  by  much  loss  of  time  and 
money.  After  this  skill  is  well  acquired  the  article  can  be  made  at  a 
small  cost,  so  small  that  it  can  be  exported  to  a large  amount. 

In  1876  I was  told  by  one  of  the  firm  of  Roethlisberger  & Gerber, 
importers  of  the  article,  at  144  Chambers  street,  New  York,  that  the 
advancing  price  of  this  article  was  due  not  so  much  to  the  increasing 
demand  as  to  the  growing  scarcity  of  fuel.  I therefore  conducted  ex- 
periments, erected  buildings,  purchased  apparatus,  all  at  an  expense 
of  $8,000,  and  am  about  ready  to  commence  the  manufacture  of  the 
article.  But  here  I am  met  by  a discouraging  decline  in  the  price 
eqyivalent  to  21  cents  per  pound  already. 

In  my  opinion,  with  an  import  duty  of  20  or  25  cents  per  pound,  in 
the  course  of  five  or  six  years  the  necessity  of  importing  the  article  will 
not  only  cease,  but  that  the  exports  will  amount  to  fully  half  of  the 
foreign  consumption,  which  is  believed  to  be  ten  times  the  home  con- 
sumption. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  What  is  this  preparation  which  you  speak  of  made  from?— 
Answer.  It  is  made  by  clarifying  the  whey  of  a cheese  factory  by  bod- 
ing it  down  to  the  crystallizing  point. 

Q.  It  is  only  used  for  mechanical  purposes? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  not  a 
medicine.  The  largest  quantity  is  used  for  making  pepsin.  It  is 
ground  up  with  it,  and  makes  it  soft  and  not  liable  to  cake. 

Q.  It  is  soluble? — A.  It  is,  in  eight  or  ten  parts  of  water. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Is  it  used  in  the  adulteration  of  articles  for  medicinal  use  ? — A. 


790 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  H.  WHITE. 


No,  sir;  it  is  too  expensive  lor  that  purpose.  Its  chief  object  is  to  mix 
with  powders  to  keep  them  in  a powdered  state. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Why  do  you  call  it  sugar  of  milk?  Is  there  any  sugar  in  it? — A. 
No,  sir;  that  was  the  name  given  to  it  some  years  ago,  on  the  same 
principle  that  we  speak  of  sugar  of  lead.  If  you  make  a strong  solu- 
tion of  it  you  can  detect  a little  sweetness  in  the  solution. 


JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS.] 


HOOP  IKON. 


791 


# 


JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  Joseph  D.  Weeks,  of  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  addressed  the  Commis- 
sion as  follows: 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission: 
On  behalf  of  the  hoop-iron  manufacturers  of  the  country  we  respectfully 
ask  from  you  favorable  action  on  the  two  propositions  that  we  here- 
with submit  relative  to  the  duties  on  hoop  iron.  We  ask — 

First.  Such  rates  of  duty  on  hoop,  band,  scroll,  and  other  similar 
iron  as  shall  be  fair  and  equitable,  shall  bear  a proper  relation  to  the 
duties  on  other  classes  of  iron,  and  afford  sufficient  protection  to  the 
labor  and  capital  employed  in  their  manufacture. 

Second.  Such  action  as  shall  secure  the  collection  of  that  rate  of  duty 
not  only  upon  these  irons  in  one  of  their  forms,  but  upon  all  forms,  and 
shall  also  prevent  the  importation  of  any  real  or  pretended  manufact- 
ure of  these  irons  at  the  same  or  less  rate  of  duty  than  that  imposed 
on  hoop  iron,  using  the  term  uhoop  iron’’  to  include  all  these  classes  of 
iron. 

We  submit  for  your  consideration  and  ask  the  adoption  of  the  follow- 
ing schedule  of  duties  on  hoop,  band,  scroll,  and  other  similar  iron: 

$ — . On  all  hoop,  band,  scroll,  or  other  iron,  without  reference  to  length,  and  by 
whatever  nai ^ called,  8 inches  or  less  in  width,  not  thinner  than  No.  10,  wire  gauge, 
If  cents  per  pound;  thinner  than  No.  10,  wire  gauge,  and  not  thinner  than  No.  17,  wire 
gauge,  If  cents  per  pound;  thinner  than  No.  17,  wire  gauge,  If  cents  per  pound. 

These  are  virtually  the  present  rates.  The  gauges  and  widths  have 
been  changed  somewhat  to  suit  the  present  conditions  of  manufacture, 
and  to  afford  a better  and  more  reasonable  classiti cation.  Less  than 
these  rates  will  not  afford  adequate  protection,  and  should  not  be  consid- 
ered. Few,  if  any,  of  the  operations  of  iron-making  require  so  much  or 
so  highly  skilled  labor  as  the  manufacture  of  hoop  iron,  and  in  none  is 
the  disparity  between  the  wages  paid  and  the  labor  cost  in  this  country 
and  abroad  greater. 

As  showing  this  disparity  in  a few  of  the  rates  of  wages  paid  the  la- 
bor in  hoop  mills  in  this  country  and  in  England,  we  give  the  following 
table : 


Classes  of  labor. 

England. 

Pittsburgh. 

Puddling per  ton.. 

Shingling do... 

Rolling  in  puddle  mill do... 

Rolling  and  heating,  1 inch  x No.  18,  hoop do. . . 

Common  labor per  day.. 

$1  94 
0 29 

0 29 

1 80 

$0  56  to  0 72| 

$5  50 
0 77 
0 68| 
4 80 

$1  30  to  1 50 

A comparison  of  these  wages  rates  will  show  the  necessity  to  labor 
of  the  protection  afforded  by  the  rates  of  duty  named  above,  if  labor  is 
to  continue  to  receive  the  wages  now  paid. 

To  show,  however,  the  necessity  of  these  rates  of  duty  to  all  interested, 
we  call  your  attention  to  the  following  statement  of  the  average  selling 


792 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS. 


price  of  this  iron  in  England,  its  cost  laid  down  in  this  country,  and  a 
comparison  of  this  with  American-made  iron:  * 


Hoop  iron. 

Cost  in  England. 

Average  freight 
and  expenses. 

Duty  at  35  per 
cent. 

Cost  laid  down 
in  any  United 
States  port. 

Present  cost  at 
American 
mills. 

Cost  of  English 
iron  at  r.ites 
of  duty  on 
hoop  iron. 

Not  thinner  than 

$28  16 

1 1 

r 

$9  86 

$40  52 

$53  76 

$58  66 

No.  10. 

1 

Thinner  than  No. 

29  38 

1 ! 

10  28 

42  16 

57  28 

65  48 

10,  and  not  thin- 

^  $2  oO s 

ner  than  No.  17. 

1 1 

i 

Thinner  than  No. 

31  60 

1 06 

45  16 

62  72 

73  30 

17. 

to  43  56 

J ' 

i 

to  15  25 

to  61  31 

to  82  82 

to  85  26 

As  to  the  collection  of  these  duties. — Experience  with  the 
present  tariff  law  has  shown  it  to  be  of  vital  importance  to  the  welfare 
and  prosperity  of  this  industry  that  the  law  contain  a provision  that 
will  make  it  certain  that  the  rates  of  duty  prescribed  shall  be  collected. 
The  ingenuity  displayed  in  the  attempts,  sometimes  successful,  at  oth- 
ers not  (more  frequently  successful  than  not,)  under  the  present  law, 
to  import  hoop  iron  at  less  rates  of  duty  than  provided,  has  been  unceas- 
ing, and  these  attempts  form  a most  remarkable  chapter  in  the  history 
of  tariff  decisions.  A simple  change  of  name  has  been  by  importers 
deemed  sufficient  to  take  hoop  iron  out  of  the  category  of. hoop  iron 
and  entitle  it  to  admission  at  a lower  rate  of  duty.  Cutting  it  to  speci- 
fied lengths,  punching  one  or  more  holes  in  it,  flaring  or  splaying  it, 
stringing  on  or  riveting  buckles  to  it,  painting  it,  adding  stu^s  or  rivets ; 
all  of  these,  sometimes  singly  and  sometimes  with  two  or  more  in  com- 
bination, have  been  done  to  hoop  iron,  and  then  a lower  rate  of  duty 
claimed. 

Certainly  every  piece  of  iron  that  can  properly  come  under  the 
classes  of  iron  mentioned  in  this  statement  should  pay  the  rate  of  duty 
provided.  This  is  a proposition  that  admits  of  no  discussion.  . 

We  claim  that  it  is  equally  clear  that  all  manufactures  or  articles 
made  from  these  irons  should  not  only  pay  the  same  but  a higher  rate 
of  duty  than  the  article  from  which  they  are  made.  This  is  the  underly- 
ing principle  of  all  tariff  legislation.  The  nearer  to  crude  or  raw  mate- 
rials, the  less  duty;  the  more  advanced,  the  more  labor  that  has  been 
employed,  the  higher  duty.  This,  it  seems  to  us,  is  so  evident  that  we 
need  not  argue  it.  We  therefore  ask  that  the  following  proviso  be  at- 
tached to  the  rates  of  duty  above  mentioned: 

Provided , That  all  articles,  wh  ther  wholly  or  partially  manufactured,  made  from 
the  hoop,  band,  scroll,  or  other  irons  provided  for  in  this  section,  or  of  which  said 
hoop,  band,  scroll,  or  other  iron  shall  be  the  material  of  chief  value,  shall  pay  one- 
quarter  of  one  cent  per  pound  more  duty  than  that  provided  in  this  section  for  the 
iron  from  which  they  are  made,  or  which  shall  be  such  material  of  chief  value. 

The  chief  effect  of  this  provision  at  the  present  time  will  be  to  prevent 
the  importation  of  hoop  iron  for  barrels  and  for  baling  purposes  at  less 
traes  of  duty  than  those  imposed  upon  hoop  iron. 

As  the  original  use  to  which  hoop  iron  was  put  was  for  hooping  bar- 
rels, tubs,  buckets,  &c.,  it  certainly  should  require  no  argument  to  show 
that  iron  for  these  purposes  should  pay  the  hoop-iron  duty.  If  it  has 
been  somewhat  manipulated  to  fit  it  for  the  barrel,  it  is  more  definitely 


HOOP  IRON. 


JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS.] 


793 


hoop  iron,  and  should  pay  above  the  ordinary  hoop  iron  an  additional 
duty  to  compensate  for  the  extra  labor. 

As  to  hoop  iron  for  baling  purposes.  Strips  of  hoop  iron,  painted  or 
not,  sometimes  with  a buckle  riveted  and  sometimes  with  it  loosely  at- 
tached, are  used  to  a large  extent,  some  30,000  to  40,000  tons  yearly, 
for  baling  wool,  rags,  old  paper,  excelsior,  cotton,  &c.  These  are  some- 
times called  cotton  ties,  baling  ties,  cotton-bale  ties,  strips  for  baling, 
&c.  They  were  first  made  in  quantities  in  this  country  in  1858,  but  did 
not  come  into  general  use  until  after  the  war.  These  u ties  n were  made 
under  patents,  and  the  trade  controlled  exclusively  for  years  by  one 
company — the  American  Cotton  Tie  Company — which  prevented  by 
purchase  or  suits  at  law  any  one  from  interfering  with  their  monopoly, 
and  most  of  the  cotton  ties  used  up  to  1876  were  furnished  by  this  com- 
pany and  were  of  foreign  iron,  the  profits,  we  are  credibly  informed, 
being  enormous.  I am  informed  that  the  American  Cotton  Tie  Com- 
pany made  about  $8,000,000  before  their  patent  expired. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  In  what  length  of  time? — Answer.  In  about 'fourteen  years, 
I think. 

In  1876,  at  great  risk,  some  American  manufacturers  determined  to 
begin  their  manufacture.  Suits  and  injunctions  failing  to  stop  them, 
the  price  of  ties  fell  at  once  from  6|  cents  per  pound  in  1875  to  5^  cents 
per  pound  in  1376.  In  1877  more  American  ties  were  made,  and  the 
price  fell  to  4 cents,  the  Cotton  Tie  Company  purchasing  a portion  of 
their. supply  in  this  country.  Here  the  price  remained  for  two  years, 
when* the  Cotton  Tie  Company  determined  to  drive  out  competition  by 
using  English-made  ties,  imported  under  Treasury  decisions  at  35  j)er 
cent,  ad  valorem,  instead  of  at  the  hoop-iron  duty  of  1J  cents,  and  it 
accordingly  purchased  in  England  ties  enough  to  very  nearly  bale  the 
whole  cotton  crop  of  1881,  and  put  them  on  the  market  at  3 cents  a 
pound,  a price  which  drove  the  American  ties  out  of  the  market.  The 
importation  of  these  ties  at  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  we  claim  to  be  a 
clear  evasion  not  only  of  the  spirit  but  of  the  letter  of  the  law,  as 
they  are  only  hoop  iron  used  for  baling  purposes,  and  are  no  more  en- 
titled to  be  admitted  at  less  than  hoop-iron  duties  than  is  hoop  iron  for 
any  other  purpose.  It  is  to  make  this  impossible  that  we  ask  the  adop- 
tion of  the  above  proviso. 

It  is  asserted  that  this  duty  is  a hardship  to  the  cotton  planter.  This 
we  deny  emphatically.  The  planter  buys  these  ties  at  the  price  of  iron 
and  sells  them  at  the  price  of  cotton,  and  makes  on  them  the  difference 
between  these  two  prices.  It  requires  11  pounds  of  ties  to  a bale  of 
cotton.  The  crop  for  1880  was  6,605,000  bales,  which  would  require 
72,655,000  pounds  of  ties.  The  average  price  of  ties  was  3.7 ; cents  of 
cotton,  11.34  cents.  This  is  a profit  of,  say,  7J,  cents  a pound,  or  $5,449,125 
on  the  crop.  It  is  certainly  no  hardship  to  ask,  in  view  of  this,  that 
the  duty  on  hoop  iron  be  collected  from  these  ties. 

If  it  is  answered  that  these  ties  are  regarded  as  tare,  and  reduce 
really  the  price  of  cotton,  we  deny  it.  No  tare  is  deducted,  and  the 
cotton  is  worth  more  with  the  ties  than  without.  They  reduce  the  size 
of  the  bale,  permit  a large  increase  of  weight  per  bale,  increase  the 
carrying  capacity  of  vessels,  and  reduce  the  cost  of  carriage.  With 
them  insurance  can  be  effected  at  a veiy  much  less  rate  than  it  could 
be  with  the  rope  tie.  In  a word,  baled  with  this  hoop  iron  the  cotton 
sells  for  more  than  it  would  baled  with  any  of  the  other  devices  known, 


794 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS. 


and  it  is  no  hardship  to  ask  that  an  article  on  which  there  is  a profit  of 
over  200  per  cent,  should  pay  the  duty  asked  above. 

As  showing  the  present  and  proposed  rates  of  duty,  we  submit  the 
following: 

PRESENT  RATES  OF  DUTY. 

[Note. — The  numbering  of  the  paragraphs  is 
that  of  the  “Indexed  Tariff,”  published  by  the 
Treasury  Department.] 

78.  All  band,  hoop,  and  scroll  iron,  from 
one-half  to  six  inches  in  width,  not  thin- 
ner than  one-eighth  of  an  inch : one  and 
one-fourth  cents  per  pound. 

79.  All  band,  hoop,  and  scroll  iron,  from 
one-half  to  six  inches  wide,  under  one- 
eighth  of  an  inch  in  thickness,  and  not 
thinner  than  No.  20,  wire  gauge:  one  and 
one-half  cents  per  pound. 

80.  All  band,  hoop,  and  scroll  iron  thin- 
ner than  No.  20,  wire  gauge : one  and  three- 
fourths  cents  per  pound. 

NOT  OTHERWISE  PROVIDED  CLAUSE. 

146.  Manufactures,  articles,  vessels,  and 
wares  not  otherwise  provided  for,  of  brass, 
iron,  lead,  pewter,  and  tin,  or  other  metal 
f except  gold,  silver,  platina,  copper,  and 
steel),  or  of  which  either  of  these  metals 
shall  be  the  component  rqaterial  of  chief 
value : thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  You  say  m your  statement  that  u It  is  asserted  that  this  duty 
is  a hardship  to  the  cotton  planter.”  Is  not  that  the  universal  complaint 
in  the  country  where  cotton  is  raised? — A.  I have  no  doubt  it  is. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  think  the  cotton  planter  has  sufficient  intelligence 
to  understand  his  interests? — A.  That  does  not  necessarily  follow.  I 
think  the  cotton  planter  may  understand  that  it  is  his  interest  to  get  it 
for  nothing,  if  he  can,  and  then  sell  it  as  high  as  he  can. 

Q.  You  understand  that  the  cotton  planter  buys  these  ties  at  the 
price  of  iron  and  sells  them  at  the  price  of  cotton? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  sell  any  cotton  yourself? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  cotton,  when  it  reaches  the  Liverpool  and 
Manchester  markets,  is  stripped  entirely  naked  before  it  is  sold  ? — A.  That 
may  be.  1 understand  there  is  an  allowance  of  G per  cent,  for  tare  made 
in  Liverpool  on  the  cotton,  and  that  is  largely  the  cost  of  the  bagging. 

Q.  And  they  do  not  include  the  iron  at  all. — A.  That  may  be  true, 
but  my  point  is  this : That  with  the  cotton  ties  on,  the  bale  of  cotton  is 
worth  more  than  it  is  with  them  off*.  A great  deal  of  cotton  is  carried 
from  different  ports  of  this  country,  and  the  weight  of  the  bale  can  be 
increased  by  the  use  of  the  iron  cotton-tie — increased  from  .150  to  450 
pounds  of  cotton  to  the  bale,  with  a consequent  reduction  in  the  cost  of 
freight  by  reason  of  the  use  of  that  tie,  and  the  bale  is  worth  more  than 
it  would  be  with  the  old  rope  tie,  which  would  not  allow  of  so  many  bales 
of  cotton  to  the  cargo. 

Q.  Then  you  deny  that  cotton  can  be  compressed  with  a rope  instead 
of  an  iron  tie? — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not.  But  I deny  that  with  the  rope 
tie  the  cotton  can  be  put  in  as  small  a compass  as  with  the  iron  tie. 


PROPOSED  RATES  OF  DUTY. 

$ — . On  all  hoop,  band,  scroll,  or  other 
iron,  without  reference  to  length,  and  by 
whatever  name  called,  eight  inches  or 
less  in  width,  not  thinner  than  No.  10, 
wire  gauge  : one  cent  and  one-fourth  per 
pound  ; thinner  than  No.  10,  wire  gauge, 
and  not  thinner  than  No.  17,  wire  gauge : 
one  cent  and  one-half  per  pound ; thinner 
than  No.  17,  wire  gauge:  one  cent  and 
three-fourths  per  pound:  Provided , That 
all  articles,  whether  wholly  or  partially 
manufactured,  made  from  the  hoop,  band, 
scroll,  or  other  irons  provided  for  in  this 
section,  or  of  which  said  hoop,  band,  scroll, 
or  other  iron  shall  be  the  material  of  chief 
value,  shall  pay  oue-quarter  of  one  cent 
per  pound  more  duty  than  that  provided 
in  this  section  for  the  iron  from  which 
they  are  made,  or  which  shall  be  such 
material  of  chief  value. 


JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS.]  HOOP  IRON.  795 

Q.  Have  you  any  facts  to  prove  that? — A.  It  is  simply  the  statement 
made  to  me  by  parties  living  in  the  South. 

Commmissioner  Underwood.  I live  in  the  South,  and  have  been  ac- 
quainted with  the  process  of  cultivating  and  baling  cotton  ever  since 
the  time  they  baled  it  in  the  old  round  bale.  1 have  seen  it  in  all  its 
forms,  and  I am  here  to  state  that  cotton  can  be  compressed  as  well  with 
a cotton  rope  as  with  an  iron  tie. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  deny  that  it  can  be  compressed  as  well.  My 
point  is  that  you  can  compress  the  bale  closer  and  put  more  cotton  into 
the  same  space  with  an  iron  tie  than  with  a rope  tie.  Another  state- 
ment I wish  to  make  is,  that  there  has  been  considerable  inquiry  as  to 
whether  these  ties  could  not  be  made  of  steel,  in  order  that  the  compres- 
sion could  be  carried  to  a still  greater  extent. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  connected  with  the  manufacture  of  cotton? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I was  in  Lowell,  Mass.,  some  years  ago. 

Q.  That  was  before  they  compressed  cotton  in  this  way  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir ; it  was  before  they  used  the  iron  tie. 

Q.  I suppose  you  are  aware  that  the  compressing  of  cotton  injures 
the  staple  when  it  is  compressed  to  a certain  degree ; it  sells  for  a lower 
price  in  consequence  of  the  very  hard  compression  it  has  received  than  it 
otherwise  would.  But  I deny  th^t  you  cannot  compress  with  a rope  a 
given  number  of  pounds  of  cotton  as  well  as  with  an  iron  tie,  and  put 
the  cotton  in  the  same  space,  using  a cotton  rope  instead  of  an  iron  tie? — 
A.  That  is  not  according  to  the  representations  made  to  the  iron  manu- 
facturers by  parties  who  use  the  ties. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I have  raised  cotton,  and  have  had  it 
compr.essed  and  packed  in  every  form,  and  1 think  I understand  some- 
thing about  it.  It  is  for  the  benefit,  then,  of  the  cotton  planter  that  you 
insist  upon  this  duty? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir;  we  insist  that  when  the  cotton  planter  gets 
this  increased  amount  for  his  cotton,  he  ought  not  to  find  fault  with  us 
about  the  duty. 

Q.  Can  you  produce  a solitary  case  where  the  cotton  planter  ever  got 
any  pay  for  his  ties  in  England  ? — A.  The  cotton  planter  does  not  sell 
his  cotton  in  England ; he  sells  it  to  his  factor. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  Of  course  there  is  a middleman  here  who 
buys  cotton  for  merchants  in  France,  England,  or  Germany,  and  who 
fixes  the  price  with  reference  to  what  he  can  get  for  it  abroad,  or  what 
he  is  authorized  to  give  for  it,  and  tare  is  deducted  on  all  of  it.  Now,  I 
want  to  know  if  your  proposition  is,  that  the  cotton  tie  is  sold  by  the 
cotton  planter  as  cotton,  and  that  he  gets  the  same  price  for  the  tie  that 
he  does  for  the  cotton ; in  other  words,  if  he  pays  4 cents  a pound  for 
cotton  ties,  does  he  get  6 cents  a pound  for  them  and  make  a profit? — 
A.  I mean  to  say  that  when  that  bale  is  weighed  the  cotton  ties  are 
weighed  with  it.  The  weight  of  the  cotton  ties  on  a bale  is  about  11 
pounds,  I believe,  on  the  average,  and  w hen  be  sells  that  cotton  he  sells 
11  pounds  of  iron  ties  and  gets  paid  for  it  at  the  same  price  that  he  gets 
for  his  cotton.  Thai  is  my  proposition. 

Q.  Your  proposition  is,  that  the  man  who  sells  the  cotton  here  sells  it 
without  deducting  for  the  tie,  and  that  it  is  all  weighed.  But  are  you 
not  aware  that  the  price  of  cotton  in  this  country  is  regulated  by  the 
price  of  cotton  in  Europe  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  they  buy  the  cotton  in  Europe  and  strip  it  naked  when  the  cot- 
ton buyer  here  ships  it,  is  there  not  an  allowance  made  for  the  bagging 
and  ties? — A.  Yes,  sir;  there  is  an  allowance  of  6 percent.  That  is  the 
statement  I got  from  the  Memphis  Cotton  Exchange. 


796 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS. 


Commissioner  Underwood.  I am  speaking  of  what  I know.  There 
are  110,000  bales  of  cotton  sold  annually  in  the  little  town  in  Georgia 
where  I live,  and  we  understand  distinctly  that  the  price  of  cotton  there 
is  fixed  by  the  price  of  cotton  in  Europe,  and  that  whenever  we  get  the 
cotton  to  Europe  it  is  stripped  and  the  deduction  is  made  for  the  bag- 
ging and  ties  both.  We  are  not  to  be  made  to  believe  in  our  country  that 
the  cotton  planter  makes  6 cents  a pound  upon  the  cotton  ties  that  he 
buys. 

The  Witness.  But  we  still  insist  that  he  does;  that  he  would  not 
get  so  much  for  his  cotton  without  that  tie  as  with  it  on,  and  if  that  tie 
enables  him  to  get  the  cotton  to  market  cheaper  than  he  did  formerly, 
then  he  gets  the  benefit  of  that.  The  old  proposition  is  that  the  man 
who  goes  to  market  has  to  pay  for  getting  there,  and  the  cotton  planter 
has  to  go  to  market,  and  if  he  reduces  his  cost  of  getting  there  by  the 
use  of  the  iron  tie,  even  though  thejT  strip  it  off  in  England,  then  he 
gets  the  benefit  of  it.  Why  in  the  world  do  they  insist  on  having  iron 
ties? 

Commissioner  Underwood.  Because  they  are  more  convenient. 

The  Witness.  Our  point  is  that  if  it  is  more  convenient  and  reduces 
the  cost  of  carriage,  enabling  the  planter  to  go  to  market  cheaper  than 
before,  he  should  not  object  to  paying  the  duty  that,  we  believe,  the 
law  has  laid  down  that  he  should  pay. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  There  is  where  we  disagree.  I say  he 
does  not  make  anything. 

The  Witness.  All  we  ask  is  that  the  law  shall  be  enforced;  and  for 
years  it  has  not  been  enforced. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  On  that  point  you  are  entirely  correct; 
I want  it  enforced. 

The  Witness.  I do  not  see  why  a man  who  wants  a piece  of  hoop  iron 
to  put  around  a bale  of  cotton  should  have  it  at  a less  rate  of  duty  than 
the  man  who  wants  a piece  of  hoop  iron  to  put  around  a barrel  or  a 
pump  log.  Why  is  the  cotton  planter  of  the  South  entitled  to  his  cot- 
ton tie  at  a less  rate  of  duty  than  the  lumberman  or  the  pump-maker, 
or  the  man  in  Kentucky  who  wants  it  to  put  around  whisky  barrels  ? I 
do  not  see  why  the  cotton  iff  anter  is  entitled  to  a less  rate  of  duty  than 
those  men. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I am  not  claiming  any  such  thing  as 
that. 

The  Witness.  I understand  that  Mr.  Banlett,  who  appeared  before 
the  Commission,  made  such  a claim. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  There  are  0,000,000  bales  of  cotton 
raised  in  the  Southern  States ; cotton  is  a great  agricultural  interest 
there;  and  some  of  us  believe  that  the  agricultural  interest  of  the  coun- 
try is  entitled  to  some  consideration  as  well  as  the  manufacturing  in- 
terest. 

The  Witness.  We  do  not  doubt  that. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  Both  of  them  ought  to  be  properly  and 
judiciously  treated.  It  is  my  judgment  that  this  great  interest,  which 
concerns  about  ten  States  of  the  Union,  and  is  the  great  business  in 
which  they  are  engaged,  ought  not  to  be  depressed  by  protective  du- 
ties that  are  unnecessary.  I am  willing  to  put  you  precisely  on  an 
equal  plane  with  all  manufacturers  of  cotton  ties  in  Europe ; I am  will- 
ing to  do  that.  But  the  whole  South  differs  from  you  as  to  the  point 
that  we  buy  the  tie  at  4 cents  a pound  and  sell  it  for  6 cents  a pound. 
There  is  a different  opinion  throughout  the  whole  South  on  that  sub- 
ject. 


JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS.] 


HOOP  IRON. 


797 


The  Witness.  I,  of  course,  agree  with  you  that  the  agricultural  in- 
terest of  this  country  should  be  protected,  and  I think  it  should  be  pro- 
tected very  largely.  I think  the  duty  of  15  cents  a bushel  on  potatoes 
is  a protection,  and  that  hay,  corn,  wheat,  butter,  cheese,  and  oats  are 
all  well  protected.  But  let  me  ask  you  this  question:  If  you  bale  cot- 
ton with  a rope  tie,  can  you  get  insurance  on  it"? 

Commissioner  Underwood.  Yes,  we  can. 

The  Witness.  The  associations  of  underwriters  in  New  Orleans  do 
not  insure  cotton  baled  with  the  rope  tie. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I do  not  know  about  that.  I do  not 
believe  there  is  a particle  of  difference ; there  is  no  reason  why  there 
should  be.  A bale  of  cotton  is  as  easily  set  on  fire  when  it  is  bound 
with  an  iron  tie  as  when  it  is  bound  with  a rope  tie. 

The  Witness.  My  understanding  is  that  during  a great  fire  at  New 
Orleans,  which  occurred  some  time  between  1860  and  1870,  a large  amount 
of  cotton  was  destroyed.  The  cotton  was  baled  with  rope  ties  which 
burned  off;  the  cotton  was  thrown  out  and  the  fire  got  at  it.  After 
that  time  the  underwriters  of  Sew  Orleans  refused  to  insure  cotton  un- 
less it  was  baled  with  iron  ties. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I do  not  know  anything  about  that. 
There  is  no  reason,  however,  why  the  cotton  tie  would  be  more  advan- 
tageous to  us,  while  it  necessarily  enhances  the  price  of  cotton.  There 
is  no  reason  why  it  should  intertere  with  the  great  principle  of  supply 
and  demand. 

The  Witness.  These  cotton  ties  add  11  pounds  weight  to  the  bale. 
We  simply  ask  that  the  hoop  iron  duty  be  collected  upon  that,  at  what- 
ever rate  the  duty  may  be  fixed. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I am  not  discussing  the  question  as  to 
what  amount  of  duty  ought  to  be  put  on  hoop  iron  ; I am  challenging 
your  statement  that  it  is  beneficial  to  the  cotton  planter,  and  that  he 
derives  a profit  from  the  tie  which  he  buys  at  4 cents  a pound  and  sells 
at  10  cents  a pound. 

The  Witness.  The  rate  the  past  year  has  been  3 cents  a pound.  My 
statements  are  based  on  what  I consider  reliable  information.  I have 
reports  here  from  large  factors  in  the  South. 

There  is  one  thing  more  1 desire  to  say.  Hoop  iron  of  course  should 
relatively  bear  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  that  imposed  on  other  kinds  of 
iron.  Because  of  the  demand  of  the  South  or  any  other  part  of  the 
country  it  should  not  be  brought  in  at  a less  rate  of  duty  than  the  iron 
out  of  which  it  is  made.  That  is  the  theory  of  all  tariff  laws.  Before 
hoop  iron  is  made  it  is  first  in  the  form  of  bar  iron,  varying  in  size 
according  to  the  size  of  the  hoop  iron  to  be  made  from  it.  Whatever  the 
duty  on  bar  iron  may  be,  there  should  be  an  additional  duty  on  hoop 
iron  to  compensate  for  the  additional  labor  in  making  it  hoop  iron. 
Its  manufacture  requires  the  most  skilled  and  highest  paid  labor  about 
a rolling-mill. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I understand  that  what  you  desire  is  to  have  hoop  iron  put  upon 
the  same  plane  as  the  other  manufactures  of  iron  1 — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is 
it  exactly. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  kind  of  imported  manufactured  iron 
except  cotton  ties  which  is  rated  at  an  ad  valorem  duty;  are  not 
all  the  duties  on  manufactured  iron  specific  except  on  this  article  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  except  where  there  are  evasions  of  the  law  similar  to  this. 


798 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  D.  WEEKS. 


Under  the  clause  i(  not  otherwise  provided  for,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem” 
there  is  an  immense  amount  of  iron  brought  in. 

Q.  But  not  in  large  items  of  20,000  or  30,000  tons,  are  there? — A.  No, 
sir;  not  of  iron. 

Q.  What  is  the  lowest  rate  of  duty  imposed  upon  iron? — A.  On 
finished  iron,  one  cent  a pound. 

Q.  What  is  the  rate  at  which  this  hoop  iron  is  imported? — A.  From 
1J  to  1J  cents  per  pound.  Bailroad  iron  pays  a duty  of  70  cents  a hun- 
dred pounds.  The  average  rate  of  duty  is  $14.41  for  all  sizes  of  hoop 
iron  brought  in  under  this  section. 

Q.  Are  these  cotton  ties  made  abroad,  in  England,  manufactured  gen- 
erally by  the  importers ; 1 mean,  the  finished  cotton  ties? — A.  They  are 
made  abroad  by  the  importers  and  invoiced  by  them. 

Q.  How  are  they  put  up? — A.  At  a uniform  weight  of  56  pounds  to 
the  bundle. 

Q.  The  point  you  make  is  that  the  bar  iron  out  of  which  they  are 
made  is  dutied  at  one  cent,  and  hoop  iron  at  14  cents,  while  they  are 
dutied  at  a little  over  half  a cent? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  want  the  duty 
fixed  collected. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  As  I understand  you,  the  present  rates  of  duty,  which  you  have 
stated,  were  intended  to  give  you  the  protection  you  required? — A. 
That  is  what  we  understand. 

Q.  But  the  present  construction  of  the  law  is  under  a decision  of  the 
Treasury  Department? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  what  yon  object  to? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  object  to  that. 
The  case  has  been  tried  in  the  lower  courts  once  or  twice,  but  has  not 
yet  reached  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  The  same  judge 
sitting  in  the  court  below  in  the  same  case  has  given  two  absolutely 
different  charges  to  the  jury,  and  the  jury  have  given  two  absolutely 
different  verdicts  in  regard  to  the  matter. 


JOSEPH  B.  MEHIAM.] 


SODA  ASH. 


799 


JOSEPH  B.  MERIAM. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  Joseph  B.  Meriam,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  vice-president  of  the 
American  Chemical  Company,  of  Bay  City,  Mich.,  made  the  following 
statement : 

Gentlemen:  We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
American  Chemical  Company,  incorporated,  with  a capital  of  $400,000, 
has  been  for  the  last  two  years  constructing  works  for  the  manufacture 
of  refined  alkali  or  soda  ash,  and  other  kindred  products  derived  from 
the  salt  wells  of  Michigan,  by  a process  never  before  used  in  this  country 
or  elsewhere.  The  fact  that  200,000  tons  of  soda  ash  alone  were  im- 
ported into  this  country  annually  promised  us  a large  market  in  case 
we  could  successfully  compete  with  these  foreign  goods  both  in  quality 
and  price.  We  were  aware  that  foreign  manufacturers  were  placing 
these  goods  in  our  market  at  cost  or  less  than  cost,  and  that  the  present 
tariff  of  £ of  a cent  per  pound  is  the  lowest  known  in  our  commercial 
history;  yet  we  were  hopeful  and  ambitious,  by  the  aid  of  certain  im- 
provements in  applied  science,  to  be  successful  in  the  competition.  We 
felt  safe  in  relying  upon  the  continuance  of  the  present  rate  of  tariff,  if 
not  upon  its  increase.  We  anticipate  still  greater  sacrifices  on  the  part 
of  our  foreign  competiors,  in  order  to  hold  their  market  here  and  prevent 
the  development  of  this  industry  upon  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  A 
reasonable  protective  duty  on  this  class  of  goods  for  a few  years  will 
give  us  such  experience,  we  believe,  as  will  enable  us  to  supply  our  home 
market  without  protection.  We  have  an  abundance  of  the  crude  mate- 
rial, abundance  of  fuel,  and  our  flowing  tide  of  immigration  will  give  us 
plenty  of  labor.  A revolution  in  alkali  manufacture  is  going  on  in  Eu- 
rope, whereby  the  adoption  of  new  and  improved  processes  is  rendering 
useless  the  extensive  plant  of  very  large  and  long-established  factories. 
There  is  no  reason  why  the  manufacture  may  not  be  maintained  as 
successfully  here  as  there,  if  reasonable  encouragement  be  given  at  first. 
There  never  has  been  a time  in  the  history  of  our  country  so  favorable 
for  planting  this  industry  here  as  now,  when  the  old  works  are  being 
either  broken  up  or  rebuilt.  One  is  already  being  transplanted  to  this 
country  and  located  at  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Without  entering  upon  any  argument  or  going  further  into  details, 
allow  us  to  urge  the  importance  of  encouraging  the  manufacture  of  soda 
products  in  this  country  by  continuing  at  least  the  present  tariff,  if  not 
by  increasing  it. 

We  do  not  feel,  gentlemen,  as  if  there  was  any  necessity  for  asking 
any  further  protection  than  that  now  existing  under  the  preseut  law. 
We  feel  competent  to  meet  foreign  competition  under  the  present  rate 
of  duty.  Of  course  we  would  much  rather  have  the  duty  advanced  than 
decreased.  Our  business  requires  the  investment  of  considerable  capital, 
with  the  usual  risk  attending  such  investments;  but  we  are  hopeful  of 
ultimate  success.  We  have  succeeded  in  making  a merchantable  prod- 
uct, and  we  are  now  only  looking  for  further  capacity  to  place  our 
goods  in  sufficient  quantities  upon  the  market.  We  think  that  this  is 
an  important  industry  for  the  country,  inasmuch  as  there  is  a very  large 
home  consumption,  and  we  are  confident  that  our  process  will  be  a sue- 


800 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  B.  MERIAM. 


cessful  one.  Under  the  old  process  sulphuric  acid  was  used,  but  under 
our  process  ammonia  takes  its  place. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Has  this  country  not  an  advantage  over  foreign  countries 
in  this  manufacture,  as  regards  the  supply  of  raw  material? — Answer. 
Yes,  sir  ; it  has. 

Q.  How  do  you  get  your  ammonia? — A.  That  we  can  manufacture 
here.  We  have  a process  for  manufacturing  it  more  economically  than 
has  been  done  heretofore.  We  have  equal  facilities  for  manufacturing 
that  article  that  any  other  country  has.  The  business  in  undergoing  a 
revolution  on  account  of  the  introduction  of  the  ammonia  process  in 
the  place  of  the  sulphuric  acid  process. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  quantity  of  soda  ash  used  in  this 
country  ? — A.  I think  the  amount  is-  about  200,000  tons.  Taking  the 
weekly  reports  of  importations  at  the  custom-house,  I judge  that  we 
import  about  600  tons  a day. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Where  does  the  supply  come  from  ? — A.  Largely  from  England ; 
almost  exclusively.  Our  factory  is  the  only  one  that  manufactures 
soda  ash  in  this  country. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  Soda  ash  was  formerly  manufactured  here,  was  it  not  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  it  was  manufactured  from  cryolite  by  the  Pennsylvania  Salt  Com- 
pany for  a time;  but  it  was  not  a successful  manufacture.  There  have 
been  several  other  attempts  made  to  manufacture  it  here,  but  they  have 
not  succeeded.  Ours  is  really  the  first  factory  that  has  succeeded  iq 
making  it  successfully. 


C.  A.  GRASSELLI.] 


SULPHUR. 


801 


C.  A.  GBASSELLI. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  C.  A.  Grasselli,  of  the  firm  of  E.  Grasselli  & Sons,  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  appeared  before  the  Commission,  and  was  interrogated  as  follows: 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Do  you  confirm  the  statement,  in  regard  to  sulphur,  made 
by  Mr.  Daniel  Myers,  who  preceded  you  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I do. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Do  you  import  sulphur  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; we  have  been  importing  it 
for  many  years. 

Q.  Have  you  imported  this  particular  kind  of  ore  of  which  Mr.  Myers 
has  spoken1? — A.  We  do  not  import  any  sulphur  ores.  It  is  the  sulphur 
that  contains  from  95  to  98  per  cent,  that  we  import. 

Q.  Do  you  import  that  as  crude  sulphur? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  do. 

Q.  Is  that  sulphur  afterwards  refined  here  ? — A.  No,  sir ; that  under- 
goes no  refining  here;  it  is  refined  in  Sicily. 

Q.  Then  you  import  as  crude  sulphur  a refined  sulphur,  do  you  ? — A. 
We  import  as  crude  sulphur  an  article  that  runs  from  95  to  98  per  cent. 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  it  is  refined  in  Sicily? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
and  it  is  imported  in  the  form  of  blocks.  It  is  similar  to  coal  in  appear- 
ance. It  is  refined  in  Sicily  because  they  have  not  any  sulphur  in  a native 
state  of* that  degree  of  purity. 

Q.  You  are  aware  that  there  is  a duty  of  $10  per  ton  on  refined  sul- 
phur?— A.  Yes,  sir;  on  flour  of  sulphur. 

Q.  And  that  crude  sulphur  is  free  of  duty  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  invoice  this  as  crude  sulphur? — A.  We  buy  it  as  crude 
sulphur. 

Q.  Do  you  enter  it  at  the  custom-house  as  crude  sulphur  ? — A.  It 
pays  no  duty ; it  enters  free. 

Q.  You  describe  it  in  your  invoices,  and  in  your  entries  at  the  custom- 
house, do  you  not? — A.  It  is  sold  in  New  York  as  best  seconds  and 
best  thirds. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  But  you  say  it  is  dug  out  of  the  earth  with  a purity  of  20  per  cent.  ? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  introduce  it  with  a purity  of  from  95  to  98  per  cent.,  and 
still  call  it  crude  ore? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  buy  it  as  such. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  buying  it? — A.  We  do  not  import  it  our- 
selves. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  You  said  when  you  began  your  statement  that  you  did  import  it, 
and  that  you  had  imported  it  for  years. — A.  We  buy  it  from  brokers  in 
New  York.  I did  not  understand  the  question. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  These  parties  who  do  import  it  sell  it  to  you  as  crude  sulphur  of 
95  to  98  per  cent,  purity  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  100  per  cent,  would  be  the  absolute  purity  of  the  article  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  get  within  2 per  cent,  of  absolute  purity,  although  it 

H.  Mis.  6 51 


802 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[c.  A.  GRASSKLT.I. 


is  dug  out  of  the  sulphur  caves  of  Sicily  with  only  a purity  of  about  20 
per  cent,  ?• — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Have  you  always  had  the  same  belief  about  this  being  refined,  and 
not  crude  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  always  considered  it  as  refined  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  some  years  ago  join  with  the  other  parties  in- 
terested in  the  trade  in  advocating  the  theory  that  this  was  crude  sul- 
phur?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  the  government  did  collect  a duty  on  the  article 
for  some  time  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  a duty  at  one  time  of  $6  per  ton 
upon  it. 

Q,.  Do  you  know  that  it  paid  a duty  of  $10  a ton  as  refined  sulphur  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir ; on  refined  sulphur,  which  is  known  as  the  floui  of  sulphur. 
But  the  duty  on  what  is  now  entered  as  crude  sulphur  was  $6  a ton. 

Q.  I am  aware  of  that ; but  there  was  also  a duty  of  $10  a ton  on 
sulphur  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  personally  know  whether  there  were  ever  any  suits  brought 
in  regard  to  that  duty? — A.  I do  not. 


GEORGE  H.  ELY.] 


LAKE  SUPERIOR  IRON  ORE. 


803 


GEORGE  H.  ELY. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  George  H.  Ely,  of  Cleveland,  representing  the  Lake  Superior 
iron-ore  interest,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : It  affords  us  special 
gratification,  as  representatives  of  the  Lake  Superior  iron-ore  interest, 
to  lay  before  you,  here  at  Cleveland,  some  facts  and  considerations  re- 
specting it.  Cleveland  fostered  and  promoted  the  early  development  of 
that  region,  and  ever  since  has  in  large  degree  directed  and  controlled 
its  production  and  trade. 

From  our  position  on  the  lakes,  and  our  relations  to  inland  coal  dis- 
tricts, this  and  our  adjacent  harbors  are  the  entrepots  and  the  distribu- 
ting points  for  the  largest  portion  of  the  Lake  Superior  ore  product. 
Here  also,  naturally,  are  the  headquarters  of  several  of  the  large  ore 
corporations  and  sales  agents.  It  is  well,  therefore,  that  the  relations 
of  this  production  and  trade  to  importations  of  foreign  ores  should  be 
considered  here,  where  such  relations  are  vital. 

At  this  moment,  in  advance  of  conference  with  the  representatives  of 
the  other  principal  ore  districts  of  the  country,  which  we  expect  pres- 
ently to  obtain,  we  defer  discussion  as  to  details  respecting  duties.  All 
such  representatives,  however,  stand  upon  the  common  ground  of  the 
necessity  for  such  a rate,  and  such  a form  of  laying  it  as  will  adequately 
and  fully  protect  the  capital  and  labor  employed  in  the  business.  And 
this,  not  only  in  justice  to  that  capital  and  that  labor,  but  in  the  interest 
also  of  the  iron  manufactures  of  the  country  absolutely  dependent  upon 
it.  The  necessity  for  this  and  the  justice  of  it  will  appear,  we  believe, 
from  a fair  consideration  of  the  history  and  the  existing  condition  of  the 
business.  It  must  be  observed  at  the  outset  that,  while  many  of  the 
blast  furnaces  and  mills  of  the  country  themselves  mine  a portion,  at 
least,  of  the  ore  they  consume  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  their 
plant,  others,  and  a larger  number,  depend  upon  an  ore  supply  from  a 
distance,  greater  or  less;  an  advantage  being  also  gained  by  mixing 
the  richer  and  purer  ores,  or  ores  of  special  chemical  constituents,  of 
one  district  with  those  of  another  of  less  value.  Hence  the  mining 
and  transportation  of  iron  ore  has  become  to  a large  extent  a separate 
and  an  independent  department  of  the  iron  trade  of  the  country.  The 
Lake  Superior  iron  region  is  the  farthest  removed  of  any  other  from  the 
great  centers  of  manufacture;  at  the  same  time,  it  is  the  largest  produ- 
cer of  our  most  valuable  ores.  In  its  early  history  it  lay  in  distant  iso- 
lation, far  to  the  northward  of  the  great  movement  of  population  into 
the  West.  • 

To  begin  the  development  of  that  region  at  a time  when  our  iron 
manufacturers  were  struggling  against  the  ruinous  competition  of  the 
foreign  article,  and  when  the  world  was  iucredulous  as  to  the  real  value 
of  these  deposits,  required  a courage  and  faith  that  thoroughly  deserved 
reward.  The  difficulties  encountered  were  enormous;  years  passed  be- 
fore the  business,  including  railroad  and  water  transportation  to  market, 
could  be  put  upon  anyr  stable  foundation.  Shipments  of  ore  began  on 


804 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  H.  ELY. 


a small  scale  from  Marquette  in  1852,  but  the  total  quantity  shipped  in 
the  ensuing  five  years  was  only  86,319  tons. 


From  1853  to  1857  

Then,  from  1857  to  1862 

From  1862  to  1867  

From  1867  to  1872 

From  1872  to  1877 ...... 

From  1877  to  1881 


Tons. 

86, 319 
346, 013 
1, 064, 754 
3, 288, 614 
4, 983, 426 
7, 873, 317 


Total  shipment 17, 642, 443 

The  very  large  increase  during  the  last  five  years  is  mainly  due  to 
the  development  of  the  Menominee  ore  district,  which  began  in  1877. 
Its  shipments  to  the  close  of  1881  have  been  1,705,067  tons.  The  total 
contribution  of  Lake  Superior  ore  then  to  the  iron  trade  of  the  country 
to  the  close  of  last  year,  produced  by  fifty-six  different  corporations, 
has  been  17,642,443  tons,  having  a market  value  of  $138,592,275;  the 
product  of  1882  will  bring  the  grand  aggregate  up  to  20,000,000  tons. 
These  ores  embrace  a wide  range  of  quality,  and  of  adaptation  to  a 
great  variety  of  special  as  well  as  general  uses. 

While  the  product  of  some  of  the  best  mines  yields  66  to  70  per  cent, 
of  iron,  the  average  yield  of  ali  may  be  estimated  at  62  to  63  per  cent. 
Of  the  total  pig-iron  manufacture  of  the  United  States  in  1881 — 4,141,254 
tons  then — 35  per  cent,  was  made  from  the  2,336,335  tons  of  ore  sent 
from  Lake  Superior  into  the  trade  of  the  country  in  1881. 

Allow  us,  gentlemen,  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  means  and  acces- 
sories of  this  business,  and  to  the  capital  and  labor  that  are  represented 
in  the  mining,  moving  by  railroad  to  the  lakes  for  shipment,  vessel 
transportation  through  the  lakes  and  rivers,  and,  finally,  in  the  move- 
ment by  rail  from  the  lower-lake  harbors  to  the  furnaces,  widely  scat- 
tered through  the  Central  and  Western  States,  where  it  is  reduced,  this 
enormous  product  of  industry  in  this  single  department  of  ore  produc- 
tion. The  capital  employed  in  mining  is  estimated  to  be — 


In  the  Marquette  district $33,000,  000 

In  the  Menominee  district 18, 000,  000 

Total 51,000,000 


Marquette  district  employs  9,000  men;  Menominee  district,  5,000 
men;  both  mining  districts  support  50,000  people.  There  are  three 
railroads  leading  from  the  mines  to  the  ports  of  shipment,  Marquette, 
Escanaba,  and  Saint  Ignace.  The  Marquette,  Houghton  and  Ontona- 
gon road,  and  the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  (Peninsular  Division), 
have  been  in  operation  many  years,  with  costly  dock  equipments  at 
Marquette  and  Escanaba.  The  Detroit,  Mackinaw  and  Marquette  road 
has  recently  been  put  in  operation  to  Saint  Ignace. 

The  capital  now  in  use  iu  the  ore  business  by  the  Marquette,  Houghton 


and  Ontonagon  Railroad  is $4,500,000 

In  the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  (Peninsular  Division) 6,  000,  000 

In  the  Detroit,  Mackinaw  and  Marquette  Railroad 2, 825, 000 


13, 325,  000 

The  capital  in  the  movement  upon  the  lakes  by  vessels  and  steamers, 
on  the  basis  of  the  ore  production  of  1881,  is  estimated  at  $6,000,000. 
Leaving  out  of  view  the  capital  of  railroads  employed  in  this  business, 
leading  inland  from  harbors  on  Lake  Michigan,  and  also  the  expend- 
itures of  the  government  on  the  Saint  Mary’s  River  largely  in  this  be- 


GEORGE  H.  ELY.] 


LAKE  SUPERIOR  IRON  ORE. 


805 


half,  we  will  add  to  the  above  results  the  ore  business  of  four  of  the 
roads  only  leading  inland  to  the  furnaces  from  the  harbors  of  Cleveland, 
Ashtabula,  and  Erie : 


The  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio  Railroad  uses  capital  inthisbusi 


ness $1,212,000 

The  Cleveland  and  Pittsburgh  Railroad 2,  048,  000 

The  Ashtabula,  Youngstown  and  Pittsburgh  Railroad 1, 241, 002 

The  Erie  and  Pittsburgh  Railroad 651, 237 


5, 152, 839 

RECAPITULATION. 


Mining $51,  000,  000 

Railroad  transportation  above 13, 325,  000 

Lake  transportation 6, 000,  000 

Railroad  transportation  below 5, 152, 839 


75, 477, 839 

Here,  then,  gentlemen,  in  various  departments  dependent  upon  each 
other,  but  organized  to  the  single  end  of  utilizing  the  mineral  deposits  of 
the  Northwest  for  the  necessities  of  American  iron  manufactures,  is  the 
vast  aggregate  of  $75,477,839  of  capital ; and  it  is  permanently  invested. 
Withdrawal  of  it  in  other  directions  is  impossible.  It  will  either  live 
and  prosper,  or  it  will  perish  where  it  now  is.  It  has  reached  its  pres- 
ent magnitude  only  through  slow  accretions.  The  early  seed  was  planted 
thirty  years  ago  in  a wilderness.  It  has  come  to  fruitage  at  last,  as  in 
many  another  instance  of  material  development  on  a grand  scale,  with 
the  usual  alternations  of  success  and  failure,,  and  with  the  usual  con- 
comitants of  individual  loss  and  disaster. 

But  what  of  the  labor  employed  From  the  nature  of  the  business, 
the  mining  and  transportation  of  a product  in  which  value  is  greatly 
disproportioned  to  the  tonnage  involved,  the  labor  permanently  em- 
ployed is  proportionally  larger.  From  the  first  tap  of  the  drill  and  the 
first  stroke  of  the  pick  in  the  mine,  to  the  charge  at  the  tunnel-head, 
all  is  labor.  But  these  thousands  of  men  toiling  below  are  American 
citizens,  and  they  are  paid  accordingly.  Their  wages  are  represented 
by  the  comfortable  homes,  in  thriving  villages,  at  every  group  of  mines 
in  the  forest;  and  where  schools  and  churches  and  the  other  appliances 
and  necessities  of  a higher  civilization  reveal  the  contrast  between  the 
position  of  labor  here  and  in  Europe.  So  it  is  along  the  whole  line; 
in  the  railroad  and  dock  service  above,  on  the  vessels  and  in  the  ship- 
yards from  which  they  are  launched,  and  throughout  the  shops  by 
which  they  are  equipped  with  machinery,  on  the  docks  at  the  lower-lake 
harbors,  and  in  the  second  rail  service  to  the  furnace,  all  is  intelligent 
labor.  Much  of  it  is  skilled  labor,  and  throughout  the  whole  there  is 
an  absolute  inter-dependence.  When  we  reflect  a moment  upon  the 
significance  of  this  vast  combination  of  capital  and  labor  to  agriculture 
and  to  mechanical  skill  and  science  in  the  consumption  of  their  pro- 
ducts, we  see  that  inter-dependence  extends  around  the  entire  circle  of 
human  industries  and  binds  them  together. 

It  is  clear  that  we  go  far  below  the  production  of  pig  iron  for  the 
foundation  of  our  iron  manufacture.  Its  real  raw  material,  of  course, 
is  the  inert  mass  as  it  lies  in  the  depths  of  the  earth  before  the  touch  of 
labor  has  lifted  it  into  another  realm;  before  labor  and  capital  have 
passed  it  on  through  the  glowing  fires  by  which,  step  by  step,  it  is 
transmuted  into  the  highest  forms  that  science  and  art  can  dictate  for 


|GEOKGE  H.  ELY, 


806  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 

the  uses  of  civilized  society.  The  ores  of  iron,  then,  underlying  and 
supporting,  as  they  do,  our  entire  manufacturing  system,  need,  in  jus- 
tice, not  only  to  the  labor  and  capital  employed  in  their  production,  but 
as  absolutely  essential  to  the  maintenance  and  continued  expansion  of 
the  manufacture  thorough  protection  against  foreign  ores ; and  they  need 
this  on  precisely  the  same  grounds  and  for  the  identical  reasons  that 
every  dictate  of  justice  and  national  policy  grants  it  to  the  manufacturer 
of  iron  in  its  higher  forms.  The  manufacturers  buy  our  ores.  Individ- 
uals among  them  may,  for  special  reasons,  be  willing  to  deny  us  the 
protection  equivalent  to  wbat  they  receive  in  the  line  of  their  own  pro 
duct  ion. 

The  iron  manufacturers  of  the  country,  as  a class,  thoroughly  com- 
prehend the  relations  of  this  subject.  They  understand  the  fatal  con- 
sequences of  discouraging  the  home  production,  and  how  disastrous 
would  be  any  reliance  upon  a foreign  supply.  Over  and  over  again 
in  our  commercial  history  has  that  experiment  been  tried  in  relation  to- 
finished  products  along  the  whole  range  of  iron  manufacture;  but  it 
ended  always  in  disaster,  until  as  a nation  we  were  forced  to  adopt  an 
American  policy. 

The  world  knows,  and  we  know,  the  magnificent  results  of  this  twenty 
years  of  consistent  and  unchanging  policy  of  protection  to  American 
industry.  !No,  our  manufacturers  do  not  wish  a repetition  of  such  ex 
periments,  and  least  of  all  with  the  article  which  underlies  their  entire 
business,  and  of  which  they  required  and  used,  in  1881,  nearly  8,000,000 
tons.  They  will  be  unwilling  to  sanction  a policy  which  will  discour 
age  and  retard  the  home  production.  They  know  that,  on  theother  hand, 
every  possible  encouragement  should  be  given  it,  if  any  adequate  pro 
vision  is  to  be  made  for  the  necessary  and  inevitable  enlargement  of  the 
manufacture,  to  keep  pace  with  our  advance  in  population. 

Allow  me  here,  gentlemen,  to  correct  some  very  erroneous  impressions 
in  regard  to  the  profits  of  Lake  Superior  ore  mining. 

It  would  be  absurd,  of  course,  to  look  at  this  subject  from  the  single 
standpoint  of  the  history  of  a few  highly  prosperous  mines.  Out  of 
the  fifty-six  mines  now  shipping  ore  from  the  Marquette  and  Menominee 
districts,  there  may  be  ten  that  can  be  so  characterized.  About  one- 
half  of  this  number  have  only  reached  this  condition  after  many  years 
of  uncertainty  and  great  risk  of  capital,  during  which  time,  and  while 
annually  sending  large  quantities  of  ore  to  market,  there  was  never  a 
dollar  of  dividends.  These  facts  were  so  well  known  that  manufact- 
urers steadily  refused  to  risk  their  capital  there,  even  in  a business  trib- 
utary and  essential  to  their  own.  One  mine,  after  sending  to  market 
500,000  tons  without  earnings,  closed  its  business. 

After  the  so-called  “highly  prosperous”  mines  there  are  a few  more 
which,  at  present  xirices  of  ore,  are  making  fair  earnings ; while  for  the 
remainder  in  the  business,  profit,  as  it  generally  is  in  new  mining  ven- 
tures, is  entirely  a question  of  the  future.  Their  chances  are  as  good 
as  those  of  their  xiredecessors,  but  all  must  depend  u])on  the  quality 
and  the  extent  of  the  deposits  to  be  develoxmd,  of  course,  by  time  and 
capital.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  conditions  here  are  differ- 
ent in  many  particulars  from  those  governing  deposits  of  coal  and 
methods  of  mining  it. 

But  I need  not  enlarge  upon  this  topic.  The  facts  alluded  to  have 
all  come  under  my  own  observation,  and  some  of  them  within  my  own 
experience.  Wherever  inordinate  profits  have  been  realized  they  have 
been  due  to  exceptional  and  temporary  causes.  But  the  tendency  has 
been  always  to  reinvestment  in  the  same  business,  with  the  unfailing 


GEORGE  H.  ELY.] 


LAKE  SUPERIOR  IRON  ORE. 


807 


result  of  increase  of  production  to  the  ultimate  advantage  of  the  trade. 

But,  to  return:  it  is  sometimes  argued  in  defense  of  low  duties  on 
foreign  ores  that  there  is  an  insufficient  supply  at  home  of  certain 
qualities  required  for  the  Bessemer  pig  iron  manufacture,  and  especially 
of  manganiferous  ores  needed  for  spiegeleisen.  If  this  were  true  un- 
der an  extraordinary  and  unexpected  demand,  it  is  true  no  longer  when 
the  development  of  our  ore  industries  in  different  parts  of  the  country 
has  shown  an  abundant  supply  of  all  that  is  required  for  the  Bessemer 
manufacture. 

No  argument,  therefore,  can  possibly  be  urged  for  low  duties  based 
upon  this  assumed  necessity.  Every  chemical  constituent  of  Bessemer 
iron  is  here,  not  only  in  abundant  supply,  but  favorably  distributed. 

The  importation  of  foreign  ores  hitherto  has  been  principally  from 
Spanish  and  Mediterranean  ports.  They  were: 


In  1879,284,141  tons $681,467 

In  1880, 493,408  tons I,  436,  809 

In  1881, 782,887  tons 2, 222, 652 


Upon  these  figures  a very  high  authority  upon  this  subject  most  justly 
remarks : 

Like  the  statistics  of  our  imports  of  iron  and  steel  in  the  last  three  years,  the  above 
table  of  our  imports  of  iron  ore  in  three  years  must  be  ;in  eyesore  to  every  patriotic 
American.  That  this  country,  with  all  its  wealth  of  iron  ore,  and  its  splendid  trans- 
portation facilities,  should  have  imported  in  these  three  years  over  one  and  one-half 
million  tons  of  iron  ore,  paying  for  it  over  four  million  dollars,  is  a remarkable  fact 
upon  which  the  next  generation  of  American  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  will  look 
with  astonishment. 

The  Spanish  ores,  composing  the  largest  portion  of  the  importation 
of  last  year,  were  entered  for  duty  at  the  average  only  of  7 s.;  paying,  at 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  about  35  cents  per  ton.  This  small  sum,  then, 
is  all  that  stands  between  the  labor  of  a country  that  admittedly  stands 
at  the  foot  of  the  scale  among  civilized  nations  and  the  labor  of  the 
United  States. 

Finally,  gentlemen  of  the  Commission,  permit  me  to  suggest  a few 
obvious  conclusions  growing  out  of  this  discussion. 

The  present  condition  of  the  iron  trade  of  this  country  thoroughly 
justifies  the  policy  of  protection  under  which  it  has  grown  to  its  enor- 
mous proportions.  This  trade  now  underlies  our  entire  industrial  and 
financial  system,  and  its  relations  to  the  highest  interests  of  the  nation 
will  never  be  less  important  and  controlling  than  they  are  to-day.  That 
policy  must  be  continued.  The  principles,  however,  on  which  it  is 
founded  apply  to  the  ores  of  iron  precisely  as  they  do  to  the  finished 
products  of  iron,  only  the  argument  is  stronger. 

Reliance  upon  foreign  importations  is  out  of  the  question.  Home 
production,  then,  should  receive  every  possible  encouragement.  Monop- 
oly in  an  article  of  inexhaustible  supply  over  the  entire  continent  is 
impossible. 

The  capital  and  labor  employed  in  it  should  be  allowed,  without  det- 
riment from  foreign  sources,  to  work  out,  upon  our  own  soil,  the  neces- 
sary and  the  never-failing  result  of  competition — the  cheapening  of  the 
product  and  its  reaching  the  consumer  at  the  lowest  possible  cost.  In 
that  direction  only  is  safety  and  cheap  iron. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  What  recommendation  do  you  make? — Answer.  When  I 
commenced  my  statement,  I referred,  perhaps  not  sufficiently  in  detail, 
to  the  fact  that  our  appearance  before  you  was  rather  unexpected,  and 


808 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f GEORGE  H.  ELY. 


that  we  intended  before  presenting  our  case  to  you  to  have  a conference 
with  representatives  of  the  other  iron-ore  districts  of  the  country.  We 
have  not  had  that  conference.  In  justice  to  them,  I think  we  should 
have  a conference  before  naming  the  precise  rate  of  duty  which  we  think 
should  be  levied.  I shall  be  happy  to  lay  the  result  of  that  conference 
before  the  Commission. 

Q.  Are  there  any  ores  imported  from  Canada  now? — A.  Very  few. 
The  principal  competition  with  our  own  ores  comes  from  Europe.  How- 
ever, there  is  every  prospect,  in  fact  I may  say  a certainty,  that  the 
railroad  now  contemplated  to  connect  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie  with  the 
Northern  Pacific  Railroad,  along  the  southern  shore  of  Lake  Superior, 
will  greatly  tend  to  develop  this  ore  region.  I understand  also  that  the 
Canada  Pacific  Railroad  intends  to  build  its  road  eastward  from  Win- 
nipeg around  the  north  shore  of  Lake  Sujierior,  and,  if  they  do,  it  will 
in  all  probability  open  up  a large  extent  of  iron-ore  territory  there.  As 
far  as  my  individual  opinions  go,  without  a comparison  of  views  with 
my  brothers  in  the  trade,  I apprehend  that  within  the  next  ten  years 
our  principal  competition  will  come  from  that  direction.  Now,  it  is  sim- 
ply a question  whether  the  policy  of  this  nation  shall  develop  territory, 
create  wealth,  and  enlarge  population  on  this  side  of  the  border,  or 
whether  all  these  elements  shall  go  to  the  other  side. 

Q.  I believe  you  have  stated  that  ores  from  the  Mediterranean  were 
entered  or  appraised  at  about  7 s.  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  average  of 
last  year. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  cost  of  these  ores  in  Canada  to  day  at  any  of 
the  mines  that,  have  been  developed  there;  how  low  could  they  enter 
their  ores  to  bring  them  over  the  border? — A.  I am  uninformed  on  that 
point.  The  trade  has  been  so  small  hitherto  that  very  little  attention 
has  been  paid  to  it.  I have  been  shown  within  a few  days  analyses 
of  ore  lying  in  a forest  over  there  which  can  be  laid  down  at  our  lake 
ports  at  a ridiculously  low  price.  But,  as  you  are  aware,  we  have  a 
little  defense  on  this  side  in  the  fact  that  a large  portion  of  the  ores 
from  Canada  are  refractory. 

Q.  The  ores  from  the  Mediterranean  are  very  rich,  are  they  not  ? — A. 

I understand  the  average  yield  of  Mediterranean  ores,  as  they  are  landed 
in  this  country,  is  not  above  55  per  cent.  They  are  low  in  phosphorus, 
and  are  suited  in  that  particular  to  the  manufacture  of  Bessemer  iron. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  the  large  amount  imported  of  these  ores 
was  caused  by  the  low  freights  which  ruled  in  1879  and  1880  ? — A.  I 
omitted  to  allude  to  that ; but  the  amount  imported  grew  to  the  propor- 
tions it  did,  in  my  opinion,  almost  exclusively  from  cheapness  of  trans- 
portation as  return  cargoes  of  oil  and  grain  freights.  When  we  have  a 
large  exportation  of  chreals  and  a large  exportation  of  oil,  the  price  of 
the  return  freights  is  merely  nominal. 

Q.  Do  you  think  they  would  have  imported  them  if  the  Bessemer  ores 
had  not  been  placed  at  such  a high  figure  ? — A.  1 think  for  a period  of 
about  two  years,  during  which  there  was  an  entirely  abnormal  condition 
of  the  iron  trade  of  the  country,  when  there  was  a demand  for  railway 
construction  all  over  the  continent,  and  when  our  mills  were  pressed  to 
their  utmost  capacity  to  supply  that  demand,  and  only  Bessemer  iron 
could  be  used — under  that  abnormal  demand  the  production  of  Besse- 
mer ore  was  insufficient  to  meet  the  demand.  Under  that  condition  of  J 
things,  of  course  the  Bessemer  iron  manufacturers  looked  everywhere 
abroad  for  supplies. 

Q.  Do  you  think  ores  could  be  brought  from  the  Mediterranean  with 


george  h.  ely.]  LAKE  SUPERIOR  IRON  ORE.  809 

profit  when  the  price  of  Bessemer  ore  at  Cleveland  is  $8  a ton  ? — A. 
They  would  not  come  right  into  this  district. 

Q.  I mean  into  any  district? — A.  I could  not  say.  We  do  not  know 
how  low  the  foreign  producer  of  ore  can  furnish  his  product. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  labor  in  getting  this  Lake  Superior  ore  out  of 
the  mine? — A.  Mr.  Van  Dyke  represents  the  mining  interests  in  the 
Menominee  region,  and  also  in  the  Marquette  region,  and  he  can  prob- 
ably answer  that  question. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Under  the  new  tariff  laws  adopted  in  Canada,  would  the  labor  in 
Canada  be  very  much  lower  than  iu  this  country  ? — A.  That  depends 
altogether,  in  my  opinion,  upon  the  extent  to  which  they  adhere  to  the 
policy  adopted  by  the  Dominion  Government  within  the  last  two  years. 
I doubt  very  much,  from  my  reading  and  information,  whether  the  pres- 
ent policy  over  there  is  a permanent  one. 

Q.  At  the  present  rate  of  tariff  is  there  a very  great  difference  in  the 
cost  of  labor  in  Canada  and  in  this  country? — A.  I think  there  is. 

Q.  Are  wages  much  lower  there  ? — A.  I cannot  give  you  a compari- 
son ; but  the  price  of  labor  generally  is  lower  in  Canada  than  here.  I 
have  no  statistics  with  me  on  that  point,  howTever.  We  did  not  prepare 
ourselves  on  that  particular  subject.  Within  the  last  few  years  there 
have  been  very  small  importations  of  Canada  ores  here.  I think  the 
competition  as  to  prices  of  labor  a few  years  hence  will  depend  very 
much  pn  the  policy  of  the  Dominion  Government — as  to  whether  it  is  a 
permanent  policy  or  not. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  Have  you  had  your  attention  drawn  to  the  belt  of  iron  ores  along 
the  James  River,  in  Virginia? — A.  No,  sir;  I have  not. 

Q.  Or  to  any  of  the  other  beds  further  south? — A.  I am  somewhat 
familiar  with  the  deposits  in  Alabama.  I think  many  of  these  develop- 
ments in  Virginia  have  been  quite  recent.  They  would  be  pretty  badly 
off,  however,  in  the  James  River  district,  unless  there  was  a strong  pro- 
tection from  foreign  ores,  for  there  they  would  have  the  necessity  of  relying 
upon  railroad  transportation  inland;  and  that  is  the  complicated  system 
under  which  we  are  putting  Lake  Superior  ores  into  the  trade. 

Q.  I understand  from  your  argument  that  you  are  perfectly  satisfied, 
from  your  knowledge  of  the  iron  deposit  of  the  country,  that  there  are 
ample  supplies  in  this  country,  of  the  best  varieties,  to  supply  the  iron 
manufacturers  with  what  they  require  in  their  business? — A.  I have  no 
doubt  of  it  whatever. 

Q.  And  you  think  if  we  admit  the  foreign  ores  free  it  would  be  dis- 
astrous to  that  protection,  and  consequently  injurious  to  the  iron  man- 
ufacturers, compelling  them  to  depend  on  foreign  ores? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
certainly.  Iron  ore  mining  in  the  Lake  Superior  region,  in  a great  many 
cases,  has  had  indefinite  results  for  years.  Y ou  put  a hundred  thousand 
dollars  into  a mine  there  (and  I could  name  a dozen  such  cases;  I have 
stocks  of  mines  in  my  safe  which  represent  a total  loss  of  capital)  and 
expand  the  production  of  iron  under  great  risk  of  capital ; and  to  keep 
up  the  production  of  iron,  in  order  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  iron 
manufacturers  of  this  country,  taking  into  view  the  certainty  of  the  im- 
mense enlargement  of  that  manufacture,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that 
there  should  be  a strong  and  thorough  protection,  so  that  the  people 
will  be  encouraged  to  go  and  plant  their  money,  as  I have  done,  in  mines 


810 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEOBUE  H.  ELY. 


which  are  entirely  fruitless  in  results.  But  this  production  of  iron  ore 
can  never  be  developed  except  through  such  a process. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  What  portion  of  Alabama  do  you  refer  to  in  speaking  of  tlii& 
very  rich  non  ore  that  is  found  there"? — A.  I refer  to  the  Birmingham 
district,  so  called,  and  to  two  or  three  other  districts  near  there.  1 
understand  that  there  are  very  large  supplies  of  ore  in  Northern  Ala 
bama,  and  in  portions  of  Tennessee,  and  that  the  production  is  growing 
to  large  proportions. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  It  is  a fact  that  we  are  shipping  iron 
ore  now  from  Northwestern  Georgia  to  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

The  Witness.  I understand  that  is  so.  Three  or  four  years  ago  an 
agent  of  some  of  those  mines  came  up  with  samples  of  ore  and  with  an 
analysis,  and  asked  my  opinion  of  the  practicability  of  sending  those 
ores  into  the  Mahoning  district  here  in  Northern  Ohio.  But  to  my 
mind  the  low  yield  of  those  ores  and  the  charges  for  transportation 
would  prevent  their  coming  here  to  any  extent. 


MAXWELL  WOODHULL.] 


AGRICULTURAL  xMACHINERY. 


811 


MAXWELL  WOODHULL. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31, 1882. 

Mr.  Maxwell  Woodiiull,  of  Fargo,  Dakota,  submitted  the  follow- 
ing statement  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  steam  plowing 
machinery : 

For  some  time  past  the  great  need  of  the  western  couutry  has  been  a 
cheap  method  of  breakiug  and  backsetting  the  prairie  sod,  and  afterward 
of  plowing  and  cultivating  the  land.  Under  existing  methods,  during 
the  current  year,  the  cost  of  breaking  and  backsetting  has  ranged  from 
$4.50  an  acre  to  $7  an  acre,  and  as  the  land  cau  only  be  reduced  to  a 
condition  of  cultivability  from  its  wild  state  by  both  breaking  and  back- 
setting, which  operations  consume  a whole  season,  throwing  seeding 
into  the  next  year,  it  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  cost  of  getting  land 
ready  for  a crop  is  very  great  and  serves  as  an  addition  equal  to  an 
average  of  $5  per  acre  to  the  first  cost  of  the  land,  beside  the  usual 
cost  of  preparatory  cultivation  for  a crop.  To  reduce  this  cost,  and 
also  to  reduce  the  cost  of  plowing,  an  experiment  has  been  made  this 
summer  in  Dakota  with  a steam  plow,  and  the  result  has  been  watched 
with  great  interest  by  all  who  are  owners  or  cultivators  of  land  in  the 
Territory.  Heretofore  no  farmer  has  quite  felt  able  to  iucur  the  expense 
of  importing  an  outfit,  and  the  manufacturers  of  steam  plowing  machin- 
ery in  England,  who  have  been  written  to  on  the  subject,  have  not  been 
willing,  in  view  of  the  high  duty,  to  risk  an  importation  upon  the  chance 
of  introducing  their  machinery  into  the  Northwest.  But  this  summer 
a gentleman  has  had  the  courage  to  bring  to  the  Northwest  a steam 
plowing  machine,  and  has  done  such  work  with  it  that  there  is  reai^on  to 
believe  that  the  cost  of  breaking,  backsetting,  and  plowing  can  be  re- 
duced at  least  one-half  upon  present  rates,  which  is  equivalent  to  a 
bonus  to  wheat-growers  of  from  $2.50  to  $3  per  acre  upon  the  cost  of 
their  land  by  its  use. 

The  English  have  expended  large  sums  of  money  in  experiments  in 
respect  to  this  class  of  machinery,  and  to-day  turn  out  the  best  steam 
plows  which  are  manufactured.  Indeed  it  is  quite  within  bounds  to 
say  that,  practically,  they  turn  out  the  only  steam  plowing  machinery 
which  amounts  to  anything.  If  we  would  avail  ourselves,  therefore,  of 
their  experiments ; if  we  would  save  from  $2  to  $3  per  acre  on  the  cost 
of  land  to  the  farmers  of  the  Northwest;  if  we  would  create  a home  de- 
mand for  such  machinery,  so  that  in  time  our  own  manufacturers  shall 
have  occasion  to  take  up  the  manufacture  of  this  class  of  machinery,  we 
should  remove  the  duty  from  such  machinery,  which  is  now  in  effect 
prohibitory. 

To  secure  to  home  manufacturers  an  occasion  to  manufacture  such 
machines,  we  must  make  a home  market  for  them.  At  present  there  is 
no  such  home  demand,  for  as  much  as  our  farmers  would  like  to  have 
their  plowing  done  by  machinery,  they  are  prevented  from  investing  in 
such  machines,  because,  first,  they  do  not  know  how  they  will  work,  and, 
second,  because  of  their  first  great  cost  with  the  duty  added.  The  trial 
of  the  steam  plow  this  year  in  Dakota,  although  a successful  experi- 
ment, is  but  yet  an  experiment.  A great  deal  about  it  has  yet  to  be 


812 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| MAXWELL  WOODHULL. 


learned  by  our  farmers,  and  before  we  can  say  with  certainty  that  the 
steam  plow  is  suited  to  our  peculiar  needs  there  must  be  more  work 
done  with  it.  Should  the  duty  be  removed,  I think  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  this  summer’s  experiment  will  be  continued  on  a larger 
scale,  and  that,  should  such  experiments  also  prove  successful,  the  result 
would  be  a demand  for  quite  a number  of  steam  plows  for  immediate 
use  in  the  Northwest.  Then  the  history  of  the  steam  thresher  will  be 
repeated,  and  neighborhood  organizations  throughout  the  country  will 
be  made  for  the  purchase  and  employment  of  steam  plows. 

In  the  joint  interest,  therefore,  of  the  producer  and  consumer  of  grain; 
of  the  owners  of  realty  in  the  Northwest  ; and  in  the  interest  of  the 
American  manufacturer  as  well,  I hope  the  duty  may  be  removed. 

I have  been  requested  to  submit  to  you  a petition  on  this  subject,  and 
beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  signed  by  some  of  the 
largest  farmers  and  landholders  in  the  Northwest.  The  petition  reads 
as  follows : 

To  the  honorable  Tariff  Commission : 

The  undersigned,  in  the  interest  of  agriculture,  respectfully  call  your  attention  to 
the  importance  of  making  trial  of  the  application  of  steam  power  to  the  plowing  of 
the  land ; and  to  that  end  request  that  you  recommend  the  suspension,  for  a period  of 
five  years,  of  all  tariff  duties  upon  steam  plowing  machinery  and  tackle. 

Dated,  Fargo,  Dak.,  July,  1882. 

Signed  by  Oliver  Dalrymple  and  twenty-four  others,  farmers  and  landholders. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  There  is  a steam  plow  being  used  in  Louis- 
iana in  the  cultivation  of  the  cane-fields,  which  was  made  by  Fowler 
& Co.,  of  Leeds,  England.  The  cost  of  this  plow  was  about  $14,000, 
and  the  duty  was  35  to  45  per  cent.,  a very  serious  matter.  Con- 
gress, in  1872,  passed  a law  allowing  steam  machinery  for  plowing  pur- 
poses to  be  introduced  free  of  duty  for  two  years.  This  term  having 
now  expired,  I understand  that  this  gentleman  applies  simply  for  the 
renewal  of  that  freedom  from  duty.  This  steam  plow  in  Louisiana  has 
been  found  to  operate  with  great  satisfaction. 


THOMA0  H.  WELLS. J 


HOOP  IRON. 


813 


THOMAS  H.  WELLS. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  Thomas  H.  Wells,  representing  the  Youngstown  (Ohio)  Bolling 
Mills,  made  the  following  statement: 

The  branch  of  the  iron  business  known  as  the  manufacture  of  hoop 
iron  for  some  reason  or  other  has  been  unfairly  dealt  with  by  the  govern- 
ment for  the  last  few  years,  and  that  part  of  the  business  known  as  the 
u cotton -tie”  manufacture  has  been  unusually  interfered  with.  The  de- 
cisions of  the  Treasury  Department  and  the  courts  have  made  it  very 
difficult  during  the  last  three  or  four  yearsfor  manufacturers  to  carry  on 
that  business  with  any  degree  of  success.  Since  the  recent  ruling  of 
the  department  there  have  been  no  cotton  ties  at  all  made  in  the  United 
States.  The  question  is,  whether  that  particular  manufacture  shall  be 
dealt  with  under  the  tariff  laws  in  such  a way  that  it  will  not  be  de- 
stroyed. 1 am  not  here  to  make  a speech  on  this  subject,  but  I will 
illustrate  it  by  stating  a few  facts. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  law  itself  is  clear  enough.  The  manufactur- 
ers, as  a rule,  feel  satisfied  that  the  tariff  law  on  hoop  iron  is  all  right, 
but  this  particular  branch  of  the  iron  manufacture  has  been  tampered 
with  injudiciously.  It  is  perfectly  proper  that  this  question  should  be 
raised  and  discussed  here.  There  has  been  a discrimination  against  the 
manufacturer  of  this  article,  and  he  feels  precisely  as  the  member  of  a. 
family  does  who  finds  himself  turned  out  of  his  house  and  home  without 
reason  while  the  other  members  of  the  family  are  left  to  enjoy  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  house.  We  find  many  other  branches  of  manufacture, 
much  less  perfect  in  the  output  and  not  so  fine  in  the  production,  pro- 
tected, and  the  mill  owner  is  fairly  prosperous.  The  honest  mill  owner 
who  makes  a finer  article  finds,  however,  that  he  has  no  protection,  and 
ultimately,  as  the  case  is  now  in  this  specialty,  his  machinery  is  still, 
his  people  idle,  and  you  see  no  outward  evidence  of  industry  whatever. 
It  is  a melancholy  fact,  but  I could  take  you  within  sixty- six  miles  of 
this  city  and  show  you  a large  amount  of  capital  invested,  with  all  the 
appliances  necessary  to  carry  on  this  business,  where  the  work  has  ceased 
and  the  buildings  are  entirely  vacant.  Their  business  is  destroyed,  and 
naturally  the  persons  who  are  engaged  in  that  particular  branch  of  in- 
dustry feel  almost  vindictive  toward  the  officers  of  the  government 
for  permitting  this  state  of  affairs  to  exist.  You  must  recollect  that  at 
the  time  the  tariff  law  was  passed  this  was  a comparatively  new  busi- 
ness, or,  at  all  events,  the  articles  on  which  the  tariff  was  to  be  applied 
were  new  to  some  extent,  and  the  different  branches  of  the  business  were 
not  thoroughly  understood  by  the  average  Congressman.  I have  always 
had  the  greatest  respect  for  the  Congress  which  framed  this  law  in  1861. 
I can  see  that  they  did  wonders  with  the  amount  of  information  they 
had  within  their  reach.  You  would  be  surprised  as  disinterested  per- 
sons to  see  how  nearly  they  came  to  describing  the  articles  on  which 
the  taxes  were  placed.  Therefore  I would  say  that  the  law  itself  ap- 
pears clear  enough  to  us,  but  there  is  a loophole  in  it,  and,  by  a deter- 
mined perversion  of  the  meaning  of  the  language  used,  this  particular 


'814 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  H.  WELLS. 


branch  of  manufacture  has  been  nearly  destroyed.  The  law  says  all 
hoop -iron  shall  pay  a certain  rate.  I will  read  the  paragraph  : 

All  band,  hoop,  and  scroll  iron  from  one-half  to  six  inches  wide,  under  one-eighth 
of  an  inch  in  thickness  and  not  thinner  than  number  twenty,  wire  gauge,  1|  cents  per 
pound. 

That  is  the  quotation  from  the  law.  That  covers  a large  number  of 
widths  and  thicknesses,  as  everybody  here  knows.  There  is  the  general 
statement  in  the  law  which  fixes  it  at  1J  cents  a pound,  and  then  for 
sizes  smaller  it  fixes  it  at  If  cents  a pound.  Then  there  is  a clause  in 
the  law  which  says : 

Manufactures,  articles,  vessels,  and  wares,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  of  brass,  iron, 
lead,  pewter,  tin,  or  other  metal  (except  gold,  silver,  platina,  copper,  and  steel),  or 
of  which  either  of  these  metals  shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  thirty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Now,  no  man  could  possibly  suppose  that  a piece  of  iron  as  long  as 
this  table,  and  from  an  inch  to  an  inch  and  a half  in  width,  known  to 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  who  ever  heard  of  it  to  be  hoop  iron,  be- 
cause it  has  a hole  punched  in  the  end  of  it,  becomes  a manufacture 
“ not  otherwise  provided  for.”  I will  not  ask  you  to  say  it  is  a silly  thing, 
but  is  it  not  the  greatest  outrage  on  common  sense,  and  can  any  ordi- 
nary man  give  a reason  why  the  punching  of  that  hole  in  it  should 
change  its  name  % But  under  that  clause  these  goods  are  imported. 
What  is  the  result  ? The  result  is  that  the  rulings  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment have  varied  continuously.  I would  like  to  read  two  or  three 
quotations  from  authority,  that  you  may  understand  why  we  feel  so 
strongly  in  regard  to  this  matter.  I have  with  me  a copy  of  a very  im- 
portant letter  prepared  by  a committee  of  hoop-iron  manufacturers 
last  year,  and  addressed  to  Hon.  Mr.  Windoin,  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, in  the  hope  of  obtaining  redress,  which  summarizes  this  whole 
matter,  and  with  the  consent  of  the  Commission  I will  read  it.  It  is  as 
follows : 

“To  the  Hon.  William  Windom, 

“ Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

“ Sir  : We  would  most  respectfully  represent  that  an  important  branch 
of  the  iron  industry  of  the  United  States,  known  as  the  hoop  iron  and 
cotton-tie  manufacture,  is  at  present  in  a deplorable  condition;  that 
rolling  mills  which  employed  thousands  of  operatives  directly,  and 
many  more  thousands  indirectly,  in  the  production  of  these  specialties  in 
the  iron  business  are  at  a stand-still  from  being  unable  to  compete  with 
foreign  manufacturers  for  the  supply  of  their  products  in  the  American 
markets.  This  stagnation  has  reference  mainly  to  the  manufacture  of 
cotton  ties,  for  which,  year  after  year,  there  is  an  increasing  demand  in 
the  United  States,  but  which  the  iron  workers  of  this  country  cannot 
supply  because  of  the  competition  of  English  manufacturers,  who  can 
undersell  in  consequence  of  existing  rulings  of  the  Treasury  Department 
as  to  rates  of  duty.  These  rulings  are  contrary,  as  we  believe,  to  the 
spirit  and  intent  of  the  tatiff  laws  which  were  made  for  the  protection 
of  American  labor. 

“It  would  be  ungenerous  and  unwise  to  trouble  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  with  our  grievances  at  this  time,  unless  we  believed  it  to  be 
in  his  power  and  according  to  his  inclination  to  redress  or  relieve  them 
when  fairly  laid  before  him.  To  this  end  we  ask  your  attention  to  Rev. 
Stat.,  2d  ed.,  pp.  465,  467. 


THOMAS  H.  WELLS.] 


HOOr  IRON. 


815 


“The  clauses  affecting  the  subject  are  more  particularly  these: 

“1st.  All  baDd,  hoop,  and  scroll  iron  from  one-half  to  six  inches  wide,  under  one- 
eighth  of  an  inch  in  thickness  and  not  thinner  than  number  twenty,  wire  gauge,  one 
and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

“2d.  Manufactures,  articles,  vessels,  and  wares,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  of 
brass,  iron,  lead,  pewter,  and  tin  or  other  metal  (except  gold,  silver,  platina,  copper, 
and  steel),  or  of  which  either  of  these  metals  shall  be  a component  material  of  chief 
value,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

“On  the  latter  clause  has  all  manner  of  ingenuity  been  centered  to 
bring  hoop  iron,  by  every  subterfuge  and  evasion,  into  the  United 
States  from  Europe  at  the  ad  valorem  instead  of  the  specific  duty. 
Evasions  have  been  practiced  more  or  less  successfully  on  all  classes  of 
iron  and  steel  manufacture,  but  on  none  has  contrivance  been  more  per- 
sistently applied  than  on  hoop  iron,  in  the  case  of  cotton  ties  particu- 
larly. 

“The  subject  has  been  discussed  before  the  Treasury  Department 
frequently  during  the  last  few  years,  by  the  importer  on  one  side  and 
the  manufacturer  on  the  other,  and  with  varied  results.  A synopsis  of 
these  cases  and  results  may  now  properly  be  presented  to  you,  and  as 
briefly  as  possible. 

“Up  to  December,  1878,  specific  duty  of  one  and  one-fourth  to  one 
and  three-fourth  cents  per  pound  was  paid  on  hoop  iron,  according  to 
size.  Some  time  previous  to  this,  importers  introduced  hoop  iron  cut 
to  specific  lengths  and  with  holes  or  a hole  punched  in  one  end,  claim- 
ing to  pay  the  ad  valorem  duty  as  an  4 article  of  manufacture  not  other- 
wise provided  for.’  Suits  had  been  brought  at  New  Orleans  and  New 
York  in  the  lower  courts,  at  earlier  periods,  to  determine  rates  of  duty 
in  particular  cases,  and  verdicts  in  favor  of  the  ad  valorem  duty  ren- 
dered. 'Through  a misconception,  afterward  acknowledged  by  the  At- 
torney-General, no  appeal  was  taken  to  the  higher  courts.  The  courts 
and  juries  in  the  places  named  were  imbued  with  free-trade  principles. 
In  consequence  of  these  decisions,  or  for  other  reasons,  the  Treasury 
Department  issued  in  substance  the  following  order: 

“December  21,  1878. — Order  3824.  Hoop  iron  cut  into  lengths,  and  holes  punched 
therein,  shall  be  admitted  at  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  instead  of  one  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound,  as  previously  rated. 

44  On  a remonstrance  by  the  manufacturers — 

“April  17,  1880,  Order  4496  states  that  Order  3824  is  reconsidered,  and  that  the  de- 
partment is  satisfied  that  cutting  and  punching  with  more  or  less  holes  does  not  re- 
move the  hoop  iron  from  the  category  of  hoop  iron  in  Schedule  E of  Revised  Statutes, 
and  specific  duty  shall  be  collected,  and  that  the  previous  decision,  3824,  was  in  viola- 
tion of  law. 

44  This  last  decision  is  evidently  in  accord  with  the  purpose  of  the 
tariff'  law,  and  covers  importations  of  hoop  iron  for  barrels,  cotton  ties, 
and  other  articles  which  by  slight  advance  toward  manufacture,  at  a 
most  trifling  cost  for  labor,  had  been  introduced  into  this  country  from 
abroad  at  the  ad  valorem  instead  of  the  specific  duty. 

44 But  the  foreign  manufacturer  of  cotton  ties,  with  continued  perse- 
verence,  still  attempted  to  evade  the  law  by  further  contrivances. 

“A  cotton  tie  is  about  11  feet  long,  fastened  around  the  bale  by  a 
buckle  at  the  ends — a sample  of  which  is  herewith  presented.  Cutting 
hoop  iron  into  these  lengths  was  resorted  to,  and  buckles  strung  on  an 
occasional  tie,  so  as  to  characterize  30  lengths,  with  buckles  so  strung 
and  tied  together,  as  a manufactured  ‘bundle  of  cotton  ties.’  On  ap- 
plication to  admit  these  cotton  ties  at  ad  valorem  rates,  the  Treasury 
Department,  by  Order  4550,  May  17,  1880,  decided  adversely,  and 
classed  them  as  hoop  iron  at  specific  duty. 


SI  6 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  11.  WELLS. 


“ So  far  these  late  decisions  of  the  department  sustain  the  American 
manufacturer  by  reversing  the  former  ruling  of  1878. 

“In  consequence  of  that  ruling  in  favor  of  ad  valorem  duty,  importa- 
tions had  increased,  and  large  orders  in  1879  and  early  in  1880  were  said 
to  be  placed  in  England  for  barrel-hoop  iron  and  cotton  ties.  To  relieve 
the  importer  who  had  purchased  abroad  in  good  faith  previous  to  late 
decisions,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  caused  a resolution  to  be  passed 
by  Congress,  June  14,  1880,  providing  that  all  contracts  of  a bona  fide 
character  for  this  class  of  iron  made  abroad  before  March  12,  1880,  shall 
be  admitted  at 35  percent,  ad  valorem;  so,  an  order,  4577,  June  16, 1880, 
to  this  effect  was  issued;  and  in  answer  to  inquiry  by  the  collector  of 
customs,  New  York,  on  the  same  subject  : 

“Order  4580,  June  17,  1880,  was  issued  to  same  effect,  and  affirming  tlie  doctrine 
that  between  hoop  iron  imported  for  barrels  or  cotton  ties  there  was  ‘ no  substantial 
difference.’ 

“Before  this  time  cotton  ties  were  imported  in  bundles,  as  before 
stated ; but,  determined  to  evade  the  law,  the  foreign  manufacturer  now 
rivets  the  buckles,  formerly  shipped  loose,  to  one  end  of  the  tie,  although 
such  fastening  is  of  no  value  to  the  tie,  not  necessary,  never  before  used, 
and  rather  a disadvantage  than  otherwise.  On  discovering  this  new 
effort  to  establish  a cotton  tie  as  an  article  of  manufacture  not  other- 
wise provided  for,  to  be  admitted  at  ad  valorem  instead  of  specific  duty, 
an  American  manufacturer  inquired  of  the  Treasury  Department  as  to 
how  it  would  be  classed;  whereupon  Order  4589,  June  26,  1880,  was 
issued,  making  it  dutiable  at  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

“This  decision,  so  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  other  late  rulings,  if  per- 
sisted in,  will  utterly  destroy,  as  it  has  already  seriously  affected,  this 
important  branch  of  the  iron  industry  of  the  United  States. 

[The  prophecy  here  made  is  fully  realized.  No  cotton  ties  have  been 
made  in  the  United  States  since,  nor  can  they  be.] 

“It  is  no  discredit  to  the  framers  of  the  tariff  law  of  1864  that  they 
did  not  provide  specifically  against  all  possible  attempts  to  evade  it,  par- 
ticularly as  the  spirit  of  protection  to  American  labor  is  so  clearly  set 
forth  in  its  provisions.  Doubtless  it  was  thought  that  unforeseen  cases, 
as  they  arose,  would  be  easily  determined  by  the  intent  and  purpose  of 
the  law.  Clearly  the  revenue  from  the  more  advanced  manufacture 
was  to  equal  or  exceed  that  on  the  cruder  commodity,  with  less  labor 
applied  to  its  production,  of  which  the  manufactured  article  is  composed. 
This  principle  pervades  all  the  tariff  laws,  and  in  an  especial  manner 
those  relating  to  iron,  steel,  and  other  metals  ; the  basis  of  the  principle 
being  protection  to  labor  as  well  as  capital.  This  view  is  sustained  in 
Revised  Statutes,  p.  465,  where  manufactures  of  steel,  &c.,  shall  pay  a 
duty  of  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem : 

“But  all  articles  of  steel  partially  manufactured,  or  of  which  steel  shall  be  a compo- 
nent part,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  shall  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  if  wholly 
manufactured. 

“Apply  this  to  the  cotton-tie  case.  The  cost  of  hoop  iron,  of  which 
cotton  ties  are  made,  is,  in  England,  say  $40  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds; 
the  cost  of  riveting  buckles  on  the  same  is  about  $1  per  ton.  On  this 
last  expendituie  of  labor  the  claim  of  manufacture  is  set  up.  If  sus- 
tained, the  ad  valorem  duty  per  ton  would  only  amount  to  $14.35;  but 
if  not  sustained,  the  specific  duty  is  $33.60  per  gross  ton.  There  is  no 
reason,  which  the  ordinary  mind  can  perceive,  why  this  inconsiderable 
amount  of  labor  should  defeat  the  intention  of  the  tariff'  law  and  destroy 
the  business  in  this  country. 


THOMAS  H.  WELLS.] 


HOOP  IRON. 


817 


“ Evasions  of  the  law  will  still  be  attempted  in  this  and  every  other 
department  of  iron  manufacture,  for  which  there  is  no  remedy  equal  to 
a decided  position  taken  by  the  present  administration  of  the  Treasury 
Department,  which  will  not  only  prevent  the  recurrence  of  these  subter- 
fuges, but  give  that  permanent  encouragement  to  American  labor  which 
meets  with  more  universal  approval  by  the  people  than  ever  before  since 
the  formation  of  the  government. 

uWe  do  not  desire  to  criticise  dosely  or  to  censure  unjustly  certain  late 
constructions  of  the  law.  We  desire  redress.  Our  condition  is  serious. 
Already  we  are  at  bay.  Our  mills  and  workshops  are  threatened  with 
disaster.  Last  year’s  trade  was  materially  lessened  and  damaged  by 
importation  of  cut  hoops  and  cotton  ties.  This  year’s  business  is  uncer- 
tain, if  not  hopeless.  No  cotton  ties  will  be  manufactured  in  this  coun- 
try this  year  or  hereafter  under  present  rulings.  No  dealer  dare  buy 
his  supply  from  the  American  manufacturer,  because  importation  will 
surely  commence  unless  speedy  relief  is  granted.  No  manufacturer  can 
make  a cotton  tie  without  certain  loss  as  the  tariff  law  is  now  interpre- 
ted. And  while  American  labor  is  thrown  idle,  not  even  the  American 
consumer  is  sure  of  the  benefit  of  lower  prices,  for  the  importer  has  the 
trade  in  his  own  hands,  for  the  present  at  least. 

“ Although  this  branch  of  iron  industry  started  hopefully,  with  capital 
invested  under  the  supposed  protection  of  the  tariff  laws,  as  the  rulings 
now  stand  it  must  prepare  to  be  wiped  out  from  American  enterprise ; 
and  its  mills,  at  a great  loss,  must  be  converted  into  other  branches  of 
the  iron  business,  producing  thereby  unnecessary  competition  and  ulti- 
mate disaster  to  what  otherwise  would  be  a fairly  remunerative  business. 
Immediate  relief  is  necessary  and  most  earnestly  requested. 

“ We*  may  appear  to  be  importunate,  but  it  is  hard  to  be  passive.  At 
this  time  of  y ear,  in  the  past,  a large  number  of  rolling  mills  in  the  dif- 
ferent States  had  commenced  to  make  cotton  ties  for  the  coming  crop ; 
this  year  not  one  has  ventured  to  start.  We  feel  discouraged.  Our 
workmen  are  discontented,  particularly  as  the  loss  of  trade  comes  so 
soon  after  promise  of  protection  to  American  labor,  which  carried  their 
votes  successfully  for  the  adminstration.  Justice  demands  and  good 
policy  advises  that  speedy  action  be  taken  to  place  this  industry  on  a 
proper  footing  of  equal  protection  with  other  branches  of  iron  and  steel 
manufacture ; a protection  fully  intended,  and  expressed  with  as  much 
precision  in  the  tariff  law  of  18(14  as  the  condition  and  knowledge  of 
the  business  at  that  time  enabled  its  framers  to  make  it. 

aAttached  is  a list  of  the  hoop-iron  and  cotton-tie  manufacturers  who 
make  this  appeal.  All  the  iron  and  steel  workers  of  the  United  States 
are  in  sympathy,  and  await  with  much  confidence  such  action  by  you 
as  will  speedily  restore  this  branch  of  the  iron  business  to  a prosperous 
condition  among  the  industries  of  the  country. 

“ By  making  all  cotton  ties  chargeable  with  a duty  of  one  and  one-half 
cents  per  pound  you  will  accomplish  this  most  desirable  end,  and  cause 
justice  to  be  done. 

“Very  respectfully, 

“THOMAS  H.  WELLS, 

“ Chairman  Committee  of  Hoop-iron  Manufacturers. 

“ Youngstown,  Ohio,  March  24, 1881.” 


This  letter  covers  the  whole  matter,  and  therefore  I need  not  occupy 
your  time  any  further,  unless  some  member  of  the  Commission  desires 
to  interrogate  me  upon  the  subject. 


H.  Mis.  6 52 


818 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  H.  WELLS. 


By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  Is  it  not  for  the  interest  of  the  cotton  planter  that  the 
American  manufacturer  should  supply  at  least  a portion  of  these  articles 
in  competition  with  the  foreign  manufacturer? — Answer.  Of  course 
everybody  who  has  a personal  or  direct  interest  in  the  manufacture 
would  be  benefited  by  it. 

Q.  I ask  you  if  you  think  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  cotton  planter 
that  the  American  manufacturer  should  make  cotton  ties  as  well  as  the 
English  manufacturer? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; I think  it  is. 

Q.  Allusion  has  been  made  to  the  importation  of  cotton  ties  through 
what  is  known  as  the  American  Cotton  Tie  Company.  That  company 
was  under  whose  control,  do  you  know  ? — A.  Mr.  McComb  seemed  to 
be  the  representative  man. 

Q.  It  was  stated  by  Mr.  Weeks  that  the  representative  man  of  that 
company  made  eight  millions  of  dollars  within  a period  of  fourteen  years  ; 
do  you  know  anything  aboutthat  fact  ? — A.  I do  not ; but  he  was  re- 
garded as  a very  wealthy  man. 

Q.  Do  you  think  if  the  duty  had  remained  at  cents  a pound  as  the 
regular  rate  upon  hoop  iron,  having  no  reference  to  cotton  ties  at  all, 
Mr.  McComb  would  have  made  as  much  money  as  that ; in  other  words, 
if  Mr.  McComb  had  had  to  meet  the  competition  of  American  manufac- 
turers when  he  was  purchasing  English  iron  and  selling  it  to  us  for  cot- 
ton ties,  could  he  have  made  as  much  money  ? — A.  American  competi- 
tion would  undoubtedly  have  brought  the  price  of  the  article  down  to 
its  true  value. 

Q.  Would  he  have  made  as  much  money  in  this  country  if  he  had 
had  no  com  petition  ? — A.  I can  scarcely  answer  that  question. 

Q.  Out  of  whom  did  Mr.  McComb  make  this  eight  millions  of  dol- 
lars?— A.  Undoubtedly  out  of  those  who  baled  the  cotton. 

Q.  Did  he  make  it  out  of  the  English  manufacturer? — A.  He  made 
it  chiefly  because  there  was  no  competition  in  the  business. 

Q.  If  he  did  not  make  his  money  out  of  the  English  manufacturer, 
he  made  it  out  of  the  American  cotton  planter;  did  he  not? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Can  you  give  an  approximate  estimate  of  the  amount  of  American 
products  exported  to  Europe  annually? — A.  No,  sir;  I cannot. 

Q.  Does  not  the  value  of  the  cotton  alone  exported  from  the  United 
States  amount  to  more  than  two  hundred  million  dollars  per  annum? — 
A.  Probably  it  does. 

Q.  Would  it  not  probably  amount  to  as  much  as  three  hundred  mill- 
ion dollars  per  annum  ? — A.  Very  likely  it  would. 


CHARLES  H.  FITCH.] 


PROTECTION  OF  LABOR. 


819 


CHARLES  H.  FITCH. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Mr.  Charles  H.  Fitch,  of  New 
Haven,  Conn.,  on  the  subject  of  the  protection  of  labor,  was  read  and 
ordered  to  be  printed : 

To  the  members  of  the  Tariff  Commission : 

The  undersigned,  a special  agent  of  the  census  of  1880,  has  from  the 
first  had  confidence  in  the  work  of  the  Tariff  Commission,  and  believes 
that  great  benefit  to  the  country  will  result  from  its  scientific  conclu- 
sions. He  begs  leave  to  present  very  briefly  a few  items  of  testimony 
relative  to  some  matters  which  have  been  brought  before  the  Commis- 
sion. 

I.  Farm  labor  and  capital  are  now  substantially  pro- 
tected.— It  is  a mistake  to  suppose  that  the  protection  of  an  article  can 
go  exclusively  to  the  laborer  in  its  manufacture.  Researches,  to  which 
1 have  been  led  by  my  census  work,  show  that  its  highest  relative  ben- 
efits go  to  unskilled  labor  on  products  which  have  no  duty.  I cite  a 
single  instance: 

In  1816,  farm  labor  in  New  York  State  cost  from  $3  to  $8  a month, 
average,  say,  22  cents  a day.  (My  authority  is  James  S.  Brisbin.)  In 
1816,  journeymen  in  machining  and  gun-making  trades  were  paid  $1  a 
day.  .Now  farm  labor  costs  $12  to  $25  a month,  average,  say,  74  cents  a 
day.  Skilled  craftsmen  in  machine  shops  are  paid  $2  to  $3,  average 
$2.50  a day.  Thus  while  wages  have  gone  up  by  once  and  a half  in  the 
u protected”  work,  they  have  gone  up  by  nearly  twice  and  a half  in  the 
low  skilled  u unprotected”  farm  labor.  The  reason  is  simple.  Manu- 
facturers bargain  for  labor  without  reference  to  the  tariff.  The  estab- 
lishment of  an  important  industry  makes  a great  draft  for  men.  These 
are  drawn  from  the  unskilled  classes  and  a general  elevation  of  wages 
has  followed,  but  the  farm  laborer,  who  complains  of  a duty  on  dry  goods 
which  is  nearly  eaten  away  by  American  competition,  is  really  well  pro- 
tected. The  farm  owner  is  also  given  an  advantage,  for  he  advances 
prices  to  pay  for  his  high-priced  labor,  and  while  calico  has  gone  down 
to  one-fifth,  nails  to  one-third,  wool  blankets  from  one-half  to  one-third, 
and  so  on  of  the  prices  in  1816,  farm  produce  has  advanced  from  two  or 
three  to  six  fold  in  jirice.  Also,  I have  shown  in  my  census  reports  (in 
processof  publication)  that  one  man  now  raises  three  to  five  times  the  farm 
produce  raised  by  one  man  forty  or  fifty  years  ago,  and  this  immense 
gain  to  millions  has  been  effected  by  a few  thousand  mechanics  making 
improved  American  farm  machinery  under  patent  and  tariff  protection. 

II.  Iron-workers’  wages  are  not  low. — Prominent  free-traders 
are  quoting  $1.17  as  the  average  rate  of  wages  of  an  iron-worker  per 
day  on  authority  of  the  census  reports.  This  untenable  average  is  cal- 
culated from  the  stated  number  of  operatives  and  stated  wages  paid. 
I believe  the  reduced  number  of  operatives  on  a full-time  basis  hourly 
and  yearly  to  be  as  much  as  15  per  cent,  less  than  the  nominal  average 
returned.  The  reason  of  the  overstatement  is  threefold.  The  numbers 
are  roughly  averaged  and  returned  by  proprietors,  who  are  not  disposed 
to  belittle  the  forces  in  their  mills;  no  provision  is  made  for  stoppages, 
short  time,  or  short-handed  running  less  than  one  month,  on  the  sched- 


820 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHAKLE6  H.  FITCH. 


ules,  and  the  times  averaged  for  large  and  small  concerns  alike  slightly 
distort  the  average  per  operative.  The  result  is  a sort  of  statistical 
anamorphosis  which  Mr.  D.  A.  Wells  takes  as  the  true  figure.  The  cen- 
sus, however,  provides  for  this  very  matter  by  a special  canvass  of  skilled 
and  unskilled  wages,  which  average  $2.59  and  $1.24  respectively.  It 
would  follow  from  the  false  average,  $1.17,  that  there  must  be  less  than 
no  skilled  men  among  the  iron-workers,  a reductio  ad  absurdum. 

III.  Protection  ultimately  makes  cheap  capital  in  special 
productive  facilities.— The  gains  of  capitalists  in  protected  indus- 
tries, requiring  expensive  plants,  are  offset  by  an  unrequited  contribu- 
tion to  the  wealth  of  the  country.  So  long  as  advantage  is  offered,  en- 
terprising men  crowd  in  to  get  the  benefit.  They  build  special  machinery, 
erect  buildings,  and  establish  special  facilities  from  which  they  derive 
only  a temporary  large  profit,  for  at  the  first  setback  of  overproduction 
these  facilities  go  upon  the  market  at  a fraction  of  their  cost,  and  be- 
come as  truly  a contribution  to  national  wealth  as  is  a gold  mine  or  a 
canal,  being  in  fact  cheap  tools  for  labor. 

IV.  The  best  protection  of  labor  is  the  encouragement  of 

THE  INDUSTRY  WHICH  DRAWS  MOST  LARGELY  UPON  LABOR. — Com- 
mon, and  indeed  all  labor  is  advantaged  by  the  protection  of  the  indus- 
try which  draws  much  labor  from  other  callings,  and  employs  many  men 
foT*  the  product  or  service.  Shipbuilding  and  shipping  are  such  indus- 
tries. The  latter  cannot  well  be  protected  by  tariff,  but  best  by  bounty 
or  remission  of  taxes.  Two  or  three  words  on  this  point : Labor  cannot 
be  protected  when  there  is  a glut  of  labor,  nor  producers  when  there  is 
a glut  of  product.  In  1874,  the  panic  commencing  in  1872  had  reached 
its  maximum  effect  on  the  prices  of  labor.  Skilled  mechanics  were 
working  at  75  cents  a day,  and  note  the  effect — farm  labor  became  cheap- 
ened, and  in  1874  shipbuilding  rose  suddenly  to  an  amount  exceeded 
only  in  two  years  before  (1855  and  1856),  in  the  history  of  the  nation. 
Then  better  wages  began  to  prevail,  labor  was  drawn  into  other  work, 
and  shipbuilding  fell  away  with  the  same  amazing  rapidity  with  which 
it  had  risen.  To  establish  a shipping  such  as  that  of  England,  would 
require  over  200,000  able-bodied  men.  Take  such  an  army  from  the 
trades,  and  labor  would  be  able  to  assert  itself  for  a while  to  come. 

V.  Present  protection  is  not  as  great  as  supposed. — Our 
large  factories  cannot  easily  be  pushed  to  the  wall  by  foreign  competi- 
tion, because  their  superior  facilities,  established  under  a protective 
stimulus,  render  them  formidable  in  any  competition.  The  English 
workman  is  not  made  of  India  rubber.  England  has  not  the  labor  to 
supply  this  country  adequately  with  manufactured  goods,  and  in  many 
arts  her  productive  capacity  per  operative  is  away  below  ours.  Under 
the  tariff'  she  can  occasionally  shove  off  a surplus  of  overproduction 
upon  us  in  articles,  a steady  drain  for  which  would  bring  free-trade 
prices  close  up  to  protected  prices.  When  we  can  crowd  100,000  Eng- 
lish sailors  off  the  sea,  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  England  have  100,000 
additional  men  to  pit  against  our  makers  of  iron,  hardware,  and  cutlery. 

American  protection  has  given  the  laborer  higher  intelligence  and 
self-assertive  power,  has  varied  his  comforts,  and  has  often  doubled, 
trebled,  quadrupled,  or  more,  the  capability  of  a man  to  produce  actual 
wealth.  These  benefits  are  beginning  to  be  reflected  upon  foreign  labor. 
We  have  seen  the  best  fruits  of  the  protective  system,  but  our  orange 
may  not  be  sucked  entirely  dry.  While  an  industry  is  growing,  a de- 
gree of  protection  for  it  benefits  all  labor,  but  when  it  ceases  to  grow, 
overproduction  occurs,  and  then  the  best  protection  that  labor  can  have 
in  that  direction  is  free  trade. 


CHARLES  H.  FITCH.] 


PROTECTION  OF  LABOR. 


821 


I doubt  not  that  the  Commission,  in  wise  discrimination,  will  vastly 
better  the  present  system,  ease  where  it  galls,  and  make  provision  for  a 
more  symmetrical  national  development.  It  will  be  a great  historical  work. 
I should  not  presume  to  advise  gentlemen  of  so  much  greater  experience 
than  myself,  but  as  I see  that  you  are  submitting  to  counsel  from  the 
wise  and  the  otherwise,  I have  made  bold  to  place  forcibly  before  you 
the  foregoing  pertinent  facts,  which  stand  at  variance  with  the  repre- 
sentatives of  some  of  your  witnesses. 

Very  respectfully, 


New  Haven,  Conn.,  August  24,  1882. 


Charles  H.  Fitch. 


822 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHX  H.  VAN  DYKE. 


JOHN  H.  VAN  DYKE. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  John  H.  Van  Dyke,  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  made  the  following 
statement : 

One  of  the  Commissioners  asked  the  question  of  Mr.  Ely  [see  state- 
ment of  George  H.  Ely]  as  to  the  average  cost  of  labor  per  ton  for  get- 
ting our  Lake  Superior  ore  from  the  mine.  I do  not  think  that  that 
question  could  be  answered.  You  would  not  find  two  mines  where  the 
cost  would  be  anything  like  the  same.  Take  a mine  which  produces 
360,000  tons  a year.  We  have  to  estimate  the  cost  of  timber  used  in  the 
mine,  the  cost  of  transportation,  hauling,  and  other  items,  and  it  would 
be  a very  difficult  matter  to  tell  until  the  end  of  the  year  what  the 
actual  expense  was.  We  operate  one  mine  where  the  expenditure  will 
exceed  the  product  this  year.  We  have  endeavored  to  get  at  the  per- 
centage of  cost  ourselves,  but  I do  not  suppose  we  can  answer  that  ques- 
tion with  any  approach  to  accuracy. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  What  is  the  relative  proportion  of  the  daily  wages  of  the 
American  miner  as  compared  with  the  European  or  the  Spanish  miner? — 
Answer.  I do  not  suppose  that  the  Spanish  laborer  gets  one-fifth  the 
wages  the  American  laborer  does. 

Q.  You  think  the  American  gets  five  times  as  much  wages  as  the 
Spaniard? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I have  been  told  that  these  Spanish  miners 
receive  about  20  cents  a day;  but  I cannot  make  that  statement  author- 
itatively. 

Q.  Then,  if  it  was  thought  desirable  to  impose  a specific  duty  of  so 
much  a ton  on  iron  ore  instead  of  the  present  ad  valorem  rate,  it  would 
have  to  be  computed  on  that  basis  in  order  to  get  the  proper  protection, 
would  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I suppose  so;  that  would  be  one  of  the  items. 

Q.  What  other  items  would  enter  into  the  calculation? — A.  The  con- 
dition of  the  mine.  They  are  mining  in  the  Spanish  mines  very  largely 
on  the  surface;  and  the  condition  of  the  mine,  and  the  necessary  ex- 
penses to  work  it  would  be  an  element;  also  the  fuel.  This  year  for 
running  our  mines  the  fuel  will  cost  us  $50,000,  whereas  in  surface 
mining  this  expenditure  would  not  be  necessary. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  All  these  mines  require  timbering? — A.  Yes,  sir;  some  more  and 
some  less.  We  get  a monthly  report  of  the  labor  at  our  different  mines, 
and  have  attempted  to  get  at  an  average  cost  per  ton ; but,  until  the 
end  of  the  year,  we  cannot  make  up  the  average,  for  the  expenses  of  the 
different  months  are  not  uniform. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Could  you  give  us  the  average  for  last  year? — A.  My  impression 
is  that  the  average  last  year  was  about  $2.50  per  ton  for  labor-cost  at 
the  mine. 

Q.  What  is  the  average  daily  wages  which  you  pay  the  miners? — 
A.  We  pay  $1.40  to  ordinary  day  laborers,  and  the  wages  increase  ac- 
cording to  the  grade  of  the  workmen  until  the  captains  get  $4,000  or 
$5,000  a year,  and  the  superintendents  a large  sum.  A great  deal  of  the 


JOHN  H.  VAN  DYKE.] 


IRON  ORE. 


823 


ore  is  contracted  for  at  so  much  a ton,  and  sometimes  they  make  high 
wages,  and  sometimes  not. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  What  other  expenses  do  you  charge  yourself  with  besides  the  labor 
in  mining? — A.  There  is  the  item  for  cropping,  which  is  a very  consid- 
erable item,  and  for  timbering.  In  this  mining  business,  we  have  also 
to  keep  up  our  work  of  explorations  a year  in  advance  of  the  mining, 
otherwise  we  could  not  keep  up  with  our  contracts  for  ore.  We  cannot 
make  contracts  for  ore  unless  we  have  the  ore  in  band.  We  must  have 
our  mines  sufficiently  developed,  and  the  slopes  must  be  of  sufficient 
size  so  that  we  can  get  at  the  product. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Does  the  mining  interest  recommend  an  increase  or  reduction  in  the 
present  rate  of  duty,  or  are  you  satisfied  with  the  tariff  as  it  stands? — 
A.  We  think  the  iron-ore  interest  has  been  pretty  much  overlooked. 
The  present  tariff  gives  us  hardly  any  protection  at  all,  when  you  con- 
sider the  manner  in  which  the  duties  are  paid  on  foreign  ores.  We  meet 
foreign  ores  at  Pittsburgh,  Johnstown,  Harrisburg,  and  Bethlehem; 
our  ores  are  almost  entirely  shut  out.  I think  the  entire  purchase  of 
the  Johnstown  mills  last  year  was  400,000  tons  of  ore,  and  that  was  all 
foreign  ore  except  about  75,000  tons. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Did  not  that  condition  of  things  arise,  in  the  beginning,  from  the 
law  of  supply  and  demand,  which  makes  value  ? Under  the  extraor- 
dinary impetus  given  to  the  business,  for  a period  of  about  two  years, 
were  n'ot  the  prices  of  ore  fixed  by  the  mining  companies  in  this  coun- 
try possibly  too  high  ? — A.  We  did  not  advance  our  prices  a dollar. 

Q.  Besides,  the  railroads  were  charging  for  carrying  ore  from  here 
to  the  points  you  name  (say  160  miles)  as  much,  or  nearly  as  much,  as 
they  did  for  carrying  it  from  tidewater  to  the  same  point ; twice  the 
distance.  Had  not  that  something  to  do  with  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  point  which  I wish  to  make  is,  that  this  foreign  trade,  of 
which  you  complain,  has  been  stimulated  by  bad  management  on  this 
side  ? — A.  I think  it  arose  from  this  fact:  that  these  vessels  taking  our 
grain  and  oil  to  the  Mediterranean  ports  could  bring  the  ores  back  at 
a very  low  rate  of  freight;  and,  having  once  started  that  business, 
they  are  keeping  it  up. 

Q.  But  is  it  not  a fact  that  the  railroads  charged  on  your  ore  twice 
as  much  for  the  same  distance  as  they  did  on  the  foreign  ores  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir;  1 think  that  is  so. 

Q.  And  at  the  same  time,  under  that  peculiar  demand,  your  people 
went  possibly  a little  further  than  they  should  have  done  in  putting 
prices  too  high? — A.  Our  company  did  not;  we  refused  to  do  it.  I told 
them  it  was  a mistake.  But  many  of  the  companies  did  that. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  In  answer  to  a question  put  to  you  by  Commissioner  McMahon  as 
to  whether  you  wished  a reduction  or  increase  of  duties,  or  whether  they 
should  be  left  as  they  are,  you  replied  that  the  duties  now  paid  were 
virtually  no  protection  to  you;  what  do  you  mean  by  that? — A.  I mean 
that  the  duties  being  ad  valorem,  the  manner  in  which  these  foreign  ores 
are  invoiced  makes  the  average  duty  a very  low  rate,  say  about  35  cents 
a ton.  A dollar  a ton  on  ore  would  be  much  below  the  corresponding 
duty  now  imposed  on  pig  iron.  Pig  iron  now  pays  a duty  of  $7  a ton, 
and  it  sells  for  $21  a ton;  the  duty  being  one-third  of  the  value.  I do 


824 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  H.  VAN  DYKE. 


not  think  the  manufacturer  has  any  reason  to  complain;  the  protection 
is  all  on  one  side. 

Q.  Why  is  it  that  foreign  ores  are  assessed  so  low?  — A.  Because  of 
the  low  price  of  labor  abroad,  and  the  low  water- freight.  They  have 
water  transportation  abroad  all  the  way  to  the  seaboard. 

Q.  Is  it  dependent  at  all  on  the  fact  that  the  invoices  are  made  out 
lower  than  they  ought  to  be?— A.  I think  so. 

Q.  Is  it  not  also  dependent  on  the  fact  that  the  ores  are  not  bought 
by  our  people,  but  are  consigned  to  agents? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  it  is. 

Q.  Then  we  should  change  the  form  of  duty? — A.  Yes,  sir ; I think  it 
ought  to  be  a specific  duty ; that  is  the  only  way  we  can  meet  the  foreign 
competition. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  What  specific  duty  do  you  think  should  be  placed  on  foreign  ore? — 
A.  My  own  judgment  is  that  anything  less  than  a dollar  a ton  would  not 
afford  us  any  protection.  The  New  Jersey  people  want  more;  1 met 
some  of  them  at  the  New  York  tariff'  convention.  What  amount  of 
duty  would  protect  us  from  the  Canadian  ores,  I do  not  know.  The  ore 
deposits  in  Canada,  through  which  this  new  road  is  to  be  projected,  I 
am  informed  are  very  large. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  To  what  extent  would  the  interest  of  the  consumer  be  injured  by  a 
duty  of  $L  a ton  on  imported  ores? — A.  I do  not  think  they  would  be 
affected  a particle.  I think  competition  would  keep  down  the  prices. 
Every  locality  along  Lake  Superior,  on  the  ore  belts,  is  being  explored 
and  developed ; and  so  in  regard  to  other  parts  of  the  country. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Would  you  make  this  a specific  duty  without  reference  to  the  value 
of  the  ore? — A.  That  question  has  been  discussed,  but  we  have  arrived 
at  no  decision  upon  it.  A great  many  things  would  have  to  be  consid- 
ered in  that  connection.  We  have  a great  many  ores  in  the  Lake  Supe- 
rior region  that  could  be  used  profitably  for  the  general  market,  which 
are  lower  in  metallic  iron.  But  at  present,  with  the  high  rates  of  trans- 
portation, we  do  not  treat  them  as  shipping  ores.  We  cannot  ship  any- 
thing under  50  per  cent. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  case  with  foreign  ores  ? — A.  No ; they  have  to  meet 
the  standard  we  ship  here.  They  run  from  55  to  62. 

Q.  That  is  what  1 mean.  Would  you  levy  a specific  duty,  at  so  much 
a ton,  without  reference  to  the  value  of  these  ores  ? In  other  words, 
would  you  require  No.  55  to  pay  as  much  as  No.  62? — A.  No.  55  will 
command  about  the  same  price,  on  account  of  the  other  ingredients. 

Q.  Then  it  is  about  the  same  value? — A.  Yes,  sir;  about  the  same 
value.  Take  these  55  Spanish  ores,  very  low  in  phosphorus,  and  they 
command  almost  the  same  price  in  the  market  that  the  higher  metallic 
ores  do. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  They  are  more  easily  smelted,  and  are  lower 
in  silica. 

Q.  Then  a specific  duty  would  be  as  equitable  as  an  ad  valorem 
duty? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  view  we  take  of  it. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  rate  on  the  Canadian  ores  that  were  largely  im- 
ported twelve  or  thirteen  years  ago  ? — A.  I do  not.  There  has  not  been 
enough  imported  here  to  attract  our  attention  to  them. 


T.  ARMSTRONG.] 


CHEMICALS. 


825 


T.  ARMSTRONG. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

The  following  remarks  on  the  tariff  by  Mr.  T.  Armstrong,  of  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.,  were  read  and  ordered  printed : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : The  follow- 
ing points  and  suggestions  are  made  on  behalf  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Salt  Company : In  18G0  the  total  value  of  goods  manufactured  in  this 
country,  according  to  the  United  States  census,  was  $1,885,861,676;  in 
1870,  $4,232,325,442.  The  compilation  of  the  statistics  of  manufactures 
is  not  yet  sufficiently  advanced  to  give  the  results  for  1880;.  but  from 
an  estimate  made  by  the  Superintendent  of  the  Census,  the  aggregate 
for  1880  will  probably  exceed  $6,000,000,000,  and  yet  I believe  this  an 
underestimate,  from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  leading  articles,  such  as 
iron  and  steel,  chemicals,  dry  goods,  paper,  &c.,  have  increased  several 
hundred  per  cent,  in  place  of  124  per  cent.,  the  ratio  taken.  I venture 
the  assertion,  that  we  have  become  the  greatest  manufacturing  coun- 
try, as  well  as  the  most  prosperous,  on  the  globe,  and  none  will  question 
that  this  marvelous  condition  of  things  was  wrought  by  the  tariff. 

Another  point  of  importance  lies  in  the  fact  that  nearly  all  classes  of 
staple  manufactures  are  25  to  50  per  cent,  lower  than  before  the  tariff, 
and  upwards  of  90  per  cent,  of  all  we  manufacture  is  consumed  here. 
1 do  not  believe  there  is  a consumer  of  dutiable  articles  in  the  country, 
if  correctly  informed  of  all  the  facts,  but  would  be  entirely  in  accord 
with  the  recommendation  of  manufacturers,  and  ask  a continuance  of 
the  duties  tor  their  own  protection. 

There  are  many  who  would  overthrow  the  entire  system  of  custom- 
house taxation,  just  because  they  think  the  principle  is  wrong.  If  civ- 
ilization was  the  same  everywhere,  and  labor  and  all  other  things  were 
equal,  that  view,  somewhat  modified,  might  be  correct.  But  under  all 
the  circumstances,  with  our  present  system  simplified  and  adjusted  and 
made  clear  and  intelligible  to  everybody,  it  would,  in  my  opinion,  be 
the  means  of  establishing  our  prosperity  on  a solid  and  enduring  basis. 
I would  respectfully  ask  the  Commission  to  consider  in  this  connection 
whether  it  would  not  be  a wise  measure  to  urge  a limit,  say  ten  years, 
as  the  life  of  the  proposed  new  tariff.  Nothing  unsettles  and  embar- 
rasses the  business  community  so  much  as  the  constant  agitation  of  the 
tariff.  It  is  not  simply  a question  of  $130,000,000  of  revenue;  it  is 
whether  hundreds  of  millions  of  capital  shall  be  destroyed,  or  labor 
degraded  and  placed  on  a footing  with  that  abroad. 

With  these  preliminary  remarks,  I desire  to  present  some  information 
respecting  heavy  chemicals.  The  first  on  my  list  is  alum.  The  history 
of  alum  dates  back  to  a remote  antiquity ; but  it  was  reserved  for  this 
country  and  generation  to  produce  a strictly  pure  sulphate  of  alumina 
for  commercial  purposes.  The  employment  of  alum  in  medicine  and 
the  arts  is  very  extensive.  It  is  used  largely  in  dyeing.  It  is  added  to 
the  size  in  the  manufacture  of  paper  to  prevent  decomposition,  also  to 
bookbinders’  paste  for  a similar  purpose.  It  is  used  in  the  tanning  of 
leather,  and  is  applied  in  the  printing  baths  of  photographers.  It  is 
used  in  sugar  refining  and  in  the  manufacture  of  pigments  called  lakes. 
It  is  used  in  the  coloring  of  morocco.  When  added  to  tallow  it  makes 
it  harder.  Water  can  be  purified  by  means  of  alum.  Fire-proof  safes 


826 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  ARMSTRONG. 


are  lined  with  a mixture  of  alum  and  sulphate  of  lime.  Its  principal 
use,  however,  is  in  the  manufacture  of  paper.  One-half  of  the  annual 
consumption  of  alum  in  the  United  States  is  in  the  manufacture  of 
paper,  about  35,000  tons  being  used  for  that  purpose.  Quite  all  our 
supply  was  imported  before  the  tariff,  and  cost  from  75  to  100  per  cent, 
above  present  prices.  Very  little  foreign  alum  comes  in  now.  The  average 
price  of  alum  here  is  1.75  cents;  in  Europe,  1.35  cents.  The  duty  is  .60 
per  cent.  It  will  be  observed  that  afte*r  paying  duty,  sea  freight,  insur- 
ance, and  commission,  the  price  abroad  must  be  cut  largely  in  order  to 
sell  here.  We  respectfully  ask  for  a continuance  of  the  present  duty, 
as  the  cost  of  manufacturing  approximates  the  selling  price  closely. 

Next  on  my  list  is  hydrate  alumina,  alum  clay,  bauxite,  halloysite  oi 
kaolin.  Recently  very  large  deposits  of  alum,  earths,  and  impure  hydrates 
of  alumina  have  been  found  in  several  of  the  States.  They  are  being  exten- 
sively used  for  alum  and  other  purposes,  and  with  a duty  of  $5  per  ton,  we 
can  successfully  compete  with  foreign  clays  and  alumina.  Caustic  soda 
is  used  by  soap-makers,  manufacturers  of  wood  pulp,  and  almost  uni- 
versally used  by  farmers  and  many  others  in  making  their  own  soap ; 
it  being  put  up  in  pound  packages  for  convenience.  Enough  was  sold 
in  this  form  in  1881  to  make  65,000  tons  of  hard  soap,  costing  only 
cents  a pound.  The  Pennsylvania  Salt  Company  was  the  first  to  intro- 
duce it  as  an  article  of  commerce  in  1851;  since  then  its  manufacture 
and  sale  have  become  enormous;  about  15  percent,  of  the  consumption 
in  this  country  is  made  here.  The  cost  to  manufacture  it  exceeds  the 
selling  price  by  10  per  cent.  The  selling  price  is  3.20  cents  per  pound. 
In  England  it  is  2.08  cents.  The  duty  is  cents;  adding  sea  ireiglit 
and  other  expenses,  the  equivalent  price  here  would  be  3|  cents  instead 
of  3.20  cents.  But  the  competition  here  keeps  the  price  down.  We 
would  recommend  a duty  of  1.J  cents  per  pound  for  60  per  cent,  caustic, 
and  2 cents  per  pound  for  all  tests  above  60  per  cent.  The  price  of 
caustic  before  the  tariff  was  120  per  cent,  above  the  present  price.  Labor 
and  fuel  enter  very  largely  in  the  cost  of  this  article.  Any  check  on  its 
manufacture  here  would  at  once  advance  the  price. 

Bicarb,  soda,  directly  and  indirectly  is  universally  used.  Glass- 
makers,  brewers,  baking  powder  and  soda-water  manufacturers,  and  the 
majority  of  the  families  in  the  land,  use  it  in  some  form.  The  price  be- 
fore the  tariff  was  92  per  cent,  above  the  price  now,  with  a duty  equal 
to  70  per  cent,  on  2.10  cents,  the  present  price  in  England.  The  price 
here  is  2J  cents,  a difference  of  only  cents  per  pound  in  excess  of  the 
price  abroad,  notwithstanding  their  low  labor.  The  duty  is  1J  cents, 
and  we  request  its  continuance. 

The  enormous  production  and  competition  among  ourselves  in  sal- 
soda  or  crystal  soda  has  brought  the  price  down  from  3 cents  before  the 
tariff  to  1.1  cents,  a reduction  equal  to  63  per  cent.,  or  before  the  tariff 
it  cost  172  per  cent,  above  the  present  price.  There  is  little  if  any  mar- 
gin of  profit  in  this  article.  The  price  in  England  is  tliree-fourths  of  a 
cent  per  pound;  sea  freights,  duty,  commission,  and  insurance  added 
would  bring  it  up  to  1.2  cents  in  New  York,  whereas  it  is  selling  at  1.1 
cents.  The  duty  is  one-fourth ; we  ask  that  it  be  increased  to  one-half 
cent  per  pound. 

Soda  ash  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  soap,  glass,  and  paper — essen- 
tials of  civilization.  We  use  about  275,000,000  pounds  annually,  and 
there  is  only  one  factory  in  operation  in  this  country,  making  about  1 
per  cent,  of  what  we  require.  Salt,  limestone,  coal,  and  sulphur  are 
the  principal  ingredients  in  this  manufacture,  and  should  be  found  near 
each  other  to  produee  soda  ash  at  a minimum  cost.  We  have  salt,  lime- 


J.  ARMSTRONG.] 


CHEMICALS. 


827 


stone,  and  coal  in  close  proximity,  and  the  deposits  of  pyrites  in  New 
Hampshire,  Vermont,  Missouri,  the  Labe  Superior  regions,  Virginia, 
Tennessee,  and  many  other  States,  offer  vast  supplies  of  low  grade  ores, 
rich  in  sulphur.  It  is  my  firm  belief,  gentlemen,  that  with  a duty  of 
one-half  cent  per  pound  on  48  per  cent.,  and  1 cent  per  pound  on  all  tests 
above  that,  we  can  compete  with  the  alkali  works  of  Eugland.  And 
there  is  no  reason  why,  as  in  all  the  cases  I have  stated  above,  the  con- 
sumer in  the  course  of  a few  years  should  not  reap  the  benefit  of  com- 
petition among  ourselves,  and  obtain  his  supply  far  below  the  present 
cost.  The  duty  is  one-fourth  cent  per  pound,  equivalent  to  only  15  per 
cent,  ou  the  price  of  soda  ash  as  quoted  in  Liverpool  on  the  28th  of  July. 

Sulphuric  acid  or  oil  vitriol  is  the  most  important  of  all  the  acids,  as 
by  its  aid  nearly  all  the  others  are  produced.  Its  manufacture  has  in- 
creased nearly  1,000  per  cent,  in  the  past  ten  years,  it  is  extensively 
used  in  refining  crude  petroleum,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  fertilizers. 
We  ask  a continuance  of  the  duty  of  1 cent  per  pound.  In  1866  the 
price  was  5 cents  per  pound,  to-day  it  is  1J  cents,  another  striking  illus- 
tration of  what  competition  among  ourselves  has  done. 

Kryolith  is  a soda  ore  and  is  found  only  on  the  west  coast  of  Green- 
land. It  is  a monstrous  rock  600  feet  long  by  200  feet  in  width  and 
over  100  feet  in  depth,  and,  in  a pure  state,  contains  about  76  per  cent, 
of  soda.  It  is  brought  here  at  enormous  expense,  vessels  being  built 
expressly  for  the  trade.  Navigation  being  very  hazardous,  sometimes 
vessels  are  caught  in  the  ice,  and  it  is  several  months  before  they  suc- 
ceed in  getting  out.  About  $1,000,000  have  been  invested  in  plant  to 
work  it,  but  the  price  of  soda  has  declined,  so  that  per  se  it  pays  only  3 
per  cent,  on  the  capital.  W e ask  that  kryolith  be  continued  on  the  free 
list. 

There -is  a term  frequently  used  in  the  tariff,  to  wit,  “ Articles  not 
above  enumerated  or  not  otherwise  provided  for.”  I would  suggest  the 
following  amendment:  “Articles  received  under  a name  not  stated  in 
the  tariff  must  state  the  component  parts  thereof.”  It  might  occur  that 
by  changing  the  name  the  custom  duties  would  be  evaded  or  reduced 
materially. 

There  is  one  more  subject  that  is  indelibly  marked  by  the  influence 
of  the  tariff,  that  I respectfully  call  your  attention  to.  I refer  to  the 
education  of  children  of  the  working  classes  and  the  masses  generally. 
I consider  this  of  vastly  more  importance  than  the  pruning  of  the  tariff* 
or  the  change  of  a decimal  fraction  at  the  custom-house.  The  rock 
upon  which  this  fabric  of  government  will  stand  is  the  education  and 
culture  of  the  masses,  and  I hold  that  without  liberal  wages,  thereby 
giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  send  their  children  to  school,  the 
desired  end  cannot  be  attained.  Liberal  wages  and  a liberal  tariff 
have  a strong  affinity  for  each  other  and  go  hand  in  hand  together.  In 
our  own  factory  we  have  a school  with  an  average  attendance  of  four 
hundred  scholars,  children  of  the  factory  hands.  Do  you  think,  gentle- 
men, this  would  be  the  case  if  labor  was  on  a par  with  that  of  Europe  ? 
And  this  particular  illustration  is  only  one  of  the  thousands  of  a simi- 
lar nature  that  exist  in  this  country  to-day. 


828 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAKIEL  MYEIiS. 


DANIEL  MYEBS. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  31,  1882. 

Mr.  Daniel  Myers,  of  Cleveland,  of  the  firm  of  Benton,  Myers  & 
Co.,  wholesale  druggists,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  oe  the  Committee  : I desire  to 
briefly  submit  a few  facts  in  behalf  of  the  sulphur  interests  of  this 
country. 

The  Commission  may  already  be  aware  of  the  immense  deposits  of 
sulphur  discovered  in  Utah  during  the  past  few  years,  besides  other 
mines  still  further  west.  One  of  these  Utah  deposits,  containing  several 
million  tons,  has  been  owned  by  a company  of  leading  business  men  of 
this  city  for  some  ten  years,  but,  owing  to  the  fact  that  refined  sulphur 
is  allowed  to  come  in  duty  free  as  crude  or  natural  sulphur,  this  im- 
mense deposit  of  mineral  has  been  wholly  neglected.  The  imports  were, 
last  year,  in  round  numbers  200,000  tons.  The  custom-house  statistics 
show  an  annual  increase  in  the  importations  of  about  20  per  cent.  The 
duty  of  $0  per  ton  on  crude  sulphur,  imposed  during  the  war,  was  re- 
moved under  the  representation  and  belief  that  there  were  no  deposits 
in  this  country  to  develop  j hence  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  crude  met 
with  no  opposition. 

The  duty  still  remains  on  refined  sulphur  of  $10  per  ton,  and  on  flour 
of  sulphur  of  $20  per  ton  and  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  purest  of 
the  crude  or  natural  sulphur  mined  in  Sicily  does  not  average  20  per 
cent,  pure  sulphur,  and  yet  the  article  imported  as  crude  or  natural 
sulphur  averages  over  95  per  cent. 

These  facts  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  article  imported  as  u crude v 
or  natural  sulphur  has  undergone  a process  of  refining,  and  is  in  fact 
refined  sulphur,  and  not  crude  or  natural  sulphur. 

No  importer  who  is  at  all  familiar  with  Sicily  sulphur  will  for  a mo- 
ment claim  that  it  does  not  undergo  a process  of  refining  before  ship- 
ping to  this  country. 

If  it  is  wise  and  for  the  interest  of  our  country  to  allow  refined  sul- 
phur to  come  in  duty  free  as  crude  sulphur,  then  would  it  not  be  even 
wiser  and  of  far  greater  benefit  to  our  country  to  admit  “ pig  v iron  as 
iron  ore? 

If  it  is  wise  to  place  a duty  on  pig  iron  to  cover  the  difference  be- 
tween labor  in  this  country  and  labor  in  Europe,  should  not  the  same 
rule  apply  to  sulphur  as  well  ? If  the  duty  of  $6  is  restored,  capital  will 
not  feel  timid  to  proceed  at  once  to  operate  the  well-known  mines  in 
Utah,  containing  millions  of  tons.  With  such  protection,  American 
enterprise  in  a few  years  will  drive  foreign  sulphur  from  our  market, 
and  the  millions  which  are  now  paid  to  foreigners  for  sulphur  and  to 
foreign  ship-owners  for  freight  would  be  distributed  in  our  own  country 
among  American  business  men,  American  laborers,  and  American  rail- 
roads. 

The  quantity  now  consumed  in  this  country,  if  mined  at  home,  would 
give  employment  to  hundreds  of  laborers,  and  would  require  a train  to 
transport  it  of  over  sixty  cars  a day  for  each  working  day  in  the  year. 

The  restoring  of  the  duty  would  not  be  in  the  interest  of  a monopoly, 
but  in  the  interest  of  the  country  at  large. 

I can  point  out  on  the  map  at  least  twenty  mines  in  Utah  alone  owned 


DANIEL  MYERS.] 


SULPHUR. 


829 


by  different  companies  and  individuals.  Judging  from  the  purity  and 
the  immense  quantity  contained  in  these  mines  it  is  only  fair  to  presume 
that  our  enterprising  business  men  will  make  such  progress  in  develop- 
ing this  product  to  such  an  extent  as  to  become  a competitor  in  the 
markets  of  the  world  and  give  the  chemical  industry  cheaper  sulphur 
than  they  now  obtain  from  Sicily.  Nowhere  in  the  history  of  the  world 
have  deposits  been  found  to  compare  with  the  mines  in  Utah  in  purity 
and  extent. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  You  spoke  of  the  purity  of  the  sulphur  of  Utah  Territory? — 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  practical  test  does  it  show  fresh  from  the  mines  ? — A.  It 
averages  65  per  cent.  The  average  of  what  we  had  shipped  to  us  was 
about  65  per  cent. 

Q.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  pockets  to  which  you  allude  ? — A.  At 
the  mine  I refer  to,  the  deposit  covers  some  40  acres.  We  have  sunk 
shafts  in  the  mine  35  feet  deep  through  solid  sulphur.  On  the  larger 
part  of  this  40  acres  the  deposit  comes  to  the  surface,  and  the  balance 
is  covered  with  a thin  layer  of  earth  from  a few  inches  to  twelve  inches 
thick. 

Q.  Were  these  specimens  showing  65  per  cent,  taken  from  one  mine 
or  from  a number  of  mines  ? — A.  From  one  mine — from  shafts  sunk  in 
different  parts  of  the  40  acres. 

Q.  Where  is  that  mine  located  ? — A.  It  is  175  miles  south  of  Salt  Lake 
City,  Utah. 

By'  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  How  do  you  propose  to  get  this  material  transported  ? — A.  The 
Union  Pacific  Railroad  runs  within  twenty  miles  of  us,  and  they  have 
offered  to  build  us  a spur.  The  Denver  and  Rio  Grande  Road  are  now 
building  a branch  to  us.  The  construction  agent  informed  me  that  the 
road  would  be  done  this  year,  but  it  will  not  probably  be  finished  before 
next  year.  This  will  give  us  competing  lines. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  do  you  estimate  that  sulphur  to  be  worth  at  the  mine  ? — 
A.  It  is  a question  of  transportation  and  refining ; we  cannot  tell  at 
jjresent. 

Q.  You  never  have  shipped  any  of  it  at  all  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  is  no  price  fixed  at  which  it  could  be  shipped  from  the 
mine? — A.  The  price  that  the  importers  pay  to  import  it  would  be  the 
only  price  that  could  be  fixed.  We  would  have  to  compete  with  Sicily 
sulphur  ore  $ and,  as  the  duty  now  stands,  that  averages  from  $25  to  $40 
per  ton. 

Q.  The  sulphur  in  Sicily  averages  not  over  20  degrees  of  purity  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Does  not  all  the  sulphur  and  brimstone  shipped  from  Sicily  under- 
go a preparation  before  it  is  shipped? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  all  refined  be- 
fore shipping.  There  is  none  shipped  crude  into  this  country,  to  my 
knowledge. 

Q.  How,  then,  can  they  claim  the  duty  on  it  as  crude  material,  and 
avoid  the  duty  on  prepared  or  manufactured  sulphur  ? Has  that  fact  been 
brought  under  the  notice  of  the  officials  ? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; the  matter  was 
contested  by  the  chemical  industry  at  a time  when  there  was  no  one  to 
fight  the  other  side  of  the  question,  and  they  obtained  a decision  in 


830 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANIEL  MYERS. 


their  favor.  I believe  the  customs  department  at  one  time  did  under- 
take to  collect  a duty  on  that  ground  ; but  it  was  fought  by  the  chemi- 
cal industry  of  the  country  ; and  under  the  belief  that  there  was  no  sul- 
phur ore  in  this  country,  they  have  always  succeeded  in  bringing  sul- 
phur ore  in  duty  free. 

Q.  Is  it  too  late  for  your  company,  which  owns  this  valuable  deposit, 
to  contest  that  question  even  now  ? — A.  It  might  not  be ; but  it  seems  a 
simpler  way  to  have  a law  passed  defining  the  matter  clearly.  We 
might  have  the  same  battle  to  fight  over  every  few  years. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  As  I understand,  you  have  not  developed  these  mines  at  all  ? — A. 
We  have  been  doing  work  on  these  mines  for  ten  years. 

Q.  What  is  the.expense  of  mining  this  ore  per  ton? — A.  The  mining 
would  cost  no  more  than  mining  clay,  because  it  is  right  on  the  surface. 

Q.  What  are  the  principal  items  of  expense  in  getting  that  sulphur 
to  market  t — A.  The  transportation  would  be  the  principal  item,  and  the 
refining  another  item. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  refining  ? — A.  From  $5  to  $10  a ton.  We  shall 
have  to  put  up  refineries  there  on  the  ground. 

Q.  Have  you  made  any  calculation  as  to  what  would  be  the  cost  of 
erecting  refineries  there  ? — A.  It  would  cost  $100,000  to  go  into  the  bus- 
iness as  extensively  as  the  refiners  of  New  York  have  gone  into  it. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  is  the  process  ? — A.  Melting  in  the  retorts,  and  condensing. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  How  many  tons  would  a plant  that  cost  $100,000  refine  per  an- 
num ? — A.  I would  say  not  over  20,000  tons  a year  of  the  flour  of  sul- 
phur ; that  is  the  finest  quality. 


BICHARD  HAWLEY.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


831 


RICHARD  HAWLEY. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  Richard  Hawley,  of  Detroit,  made  an  argument  before  the 
Commission  in  behalf  of  reciprocity  and  a tariff  for  free  trade  or  rev- 
enue— representing  (he  said)  not  any  particular  business,  but  the  busi- 
ness of  the  country  as  a whole.  He  said : 

I undertake  to  show  that  in  the  decade  from  1850  to  1860,  under  a 
tariff'  for  revenue  and  under  the  reciprocity  treaty  for  six  years,  the 
country  had  a prosperity  unequaled  in  its  history,  and  a greater  gain 
in  materii  1 wealth,  in  the  value  of  its  real  and  personal  property,  than 
it  has  known  in  any  other  decade.  I hope,  subsequently,  to  show  that 
the  last  decade  of  high  protection  yielded  the  smallest  gain  to  the 
country,  and  was,  as  a whole,  most  unsatisfactory  in  results. 

First,  in  regard  to  reciprocity.  We  had  from  1854  to  1864-5  a re- 
ciprocity treaty  with  Canada.  It  included  all  raw  products.  About 
six  of  the  ten  years,  from  1850  to  1860,  were  under  the  rule  of  that 
treaty,  and  added,  of  course,  to  the  unprecedented  prosperity  of  that 
decade.  We  in  this  city  and  neighborhood  are  more  intimately  con- 
nected with  trade  relations  with  Canada  than  any  other  part  of  the 
country.  This  city  had  a nice  trade  with  Canada.  In  1860  we  sold  to 
Windsor  (to  be  distributed  from  there)  dutiable  goods  to  the  extent  of 
$180,000*;  and  one  of  our  most  esteemed  citizens  and  business  men  said 
to  the  late  Senator  Chandler  that  the  worst  thing  which  he  had  ever 
done  for  the  city  of  Detroit  was  in  opposing  that  reciprocity  treaty. 
Under  that  treaty  we  sent  immense  quantities  of  goods  to  Canada — 
corn,  for  instance.  One  firm  here  dealt  very  extensively  with  Canada 
in  corn.  A gentleman  from  Lucan,  on  the  line  of  the  Grand  Trunk 
Railway  (Mr.  Stanley),  said  to  me  recently  that  in  that  little  town  they 
used  to  get  from  forty  to  fifty  car-loads  of  corn  in  the  course  of  the 
year,  where  they  now  only  get  two  or  three  car-loads.  The  direct  effect 
of  the  abolition  of  the  treaty  on  the  city  of  Detroit  has  been  to  depre- 
ciate very  greatly  real  estate  lying  between  Jefferson  avenue  and  the 
river,  and  between  the  Milwaukee  and  the  Michigan  Central  Railroad 
depots.  A gentleman  who  has  his  business  real  estate  and  his  business 
on  the  northeastern  corner  of  Woodward  avenue  and  Atwater  street 
(Mr.  Eaton)  estimates  his  loss  in  property  and  business  at  30  per  cent. 

I talked  yesterday  with  a former  city  assessor,  who  said  that  after 
the  abrogation  of  the  reciprocity  treaty,  and  for  several  years  in  succes- 
sion, the  value  of  property  in  that  part  of  the  city  was  put  down  10  per 
cent.,  and  he  thinks  that  30  per  cent,  is  but  a fair  estimate  of  the  depre- 
ciation. Its  abrogation  was  unfortunate.  Another  gentleman,  a man- 
ufacturer of  this  city,  said  to  me  in  conversation  within  a week  that 
the  benefits  which  the  city  of  Detroit  ought  to  have  from  its  trade  with 
Canada  would  be  equal  to  half  of  those  derived  from  its  trade  with  the 
rest  of  the  State. 

There  are  very  many  commodities  that  are,  under  the  existing  state 
of  things,  virtually  cut  off  from  us,  and  which  we  want  very  much  here, 
in  order  to  fill  out  the  measure  of  our  prosperity.  Take,  for  instance, 
building-stone.  I am  informed  that  we  have  but  a single  quarry  within 
a reasonable  distance  of  Detroit.  That,  and  the  fact  that  there  is  a duty 


832 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[RICHARD  HAWLET. 


of  $1.50  per  ton,  makes  toise  stone  excessively  high  here.  Nearly  oppo- 
site where  this  quarry  is  there  is  a quarry  over  the  Canadian  line.  If 
we  could  get  this  raw  product  as  we  used  to  get  it,  we  should  save 
from  $6  to  $7  on  toise  stone  which  now  costs  $18.  This  is  of  immense 
importance  to  builders  and  everybody  who  wants  to  build  a house. 

We  claim  that  this  reciprocity  treaty  assisted  materially  in  tilling  out 
the  large  and  unprecedented  measure  of  the  prosperity  and  gain  in  the 
decade  from  1850  to  1860.  You  are  perhaps  aware  of  the  reciprocity 
treaty.  In  1864  we  had  here  a large  commercial  convention  represent- 
ing the  business  interests  of  this  country.  One  of  the  topics  of  chief 
interest  was,  whether  we  should  revise  and  renew  this  reciprocity  treaty 
or  should  give  a year’s  notice  (under  its  provisions)  to  abrogate  it. 
The  question  was  discussed  pro  and  con.  Mr.  James  S.  Joy  was  chair- 
man of  the  reciprocity  committee  in  that  convention.  A sort  of  com- 
promise was  reached.  It  was  that  notice  should  be  given  to  terminate 
the  treaty,  and  that  the  government  should  be  requested  to  negotiate  a 
new  treaty.  A new  treaty  was  negotiated,  under  the  auspices  of  Mr. 
Pish,  on  the  part  of  our  government,  and  by  Mr.  George  Brown  and 
some  other  gentlemen  on  the  part  of  the  Canadian  Government.  That 
new  treaty  came  before  the  Senate,  where  it  was  discussed,  and  where 
it  met  both  with  opposition  and  approval.  Final  action  was  positioned 
until  another  session,  and  the  result  of  the  whole  matter  was  that  the 
neAv  reciprocity  treaty  was  not  confirmed.  And  we  have  been  left  sub- 
ject to  the  opposing  tariffs  of  the  two  governments,  which  almost  virtu- 
ally cut  off  trade  and  intercourse. 

During  the  pendency  of  the  discussion  in  the  Senate  I visited  many 
of  the  citizens  of  Detroit,  and  the  result  was  that  a petition  of  the  very 
strongest  character  went  from  Detroit  to  Washington  in  favor  of  a re- 
newal of  the  reciprocity  treaty.  There  are  very  few  business  interests 
that  were  not  represented  among  the  signers  of  that  petition.  Even 
among  the  lumbermen  and  gentlemen  interested  in  pine  lands  I found 
only  one  or  two  who  did  not  sign  it.  One  of  the  largest  pine-land  own- 
ers in  Michigan  (or  possibly  in  the  United  States)  was  cordially  in  favor 
of  it. 

I know  that  there  is  a lumber  interest  in  this  country  which  stren- 
uously opposed  the  renewal  of  the  treaty.  The  Commission  can  judge, 
however,  whether  there  is  any  good  reason  for  such  opposition.  These 
gentlemen  knew  that  they  did  well  under  the  reciprocity  treaty  in  the 
lumber  business.  Under  it  saw-logs  came  in  free;  and  very  many  of 
our  lumbermen,  who  do  not  own  pine  lands,  had  the  privilege  of  getting 
saw-logs  from  across  the  lakes  free  of  duty,  which  was  very  much  in 
their  interest. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  Your  argument  is,  that  from  1850  to  1860,  under  free  trade, 
the  country  was  more  prosperous  than  it  was  from  1870  to  1880"? — 
Answer.  Far  more  prosperous.  In  regard  to  the  decade  from  1870  to 
1880  I may  remark  that,  while  some  of  our  industries  have  been  over- 
stimulated,  or,  at  least,  have  been  very  highly  stimulated,  others  have 
dwindled.  Our  ocean  merchant  marine  has  still  further  dwindled. 
That  was  one  of  the  industries  which  nourished  most  highly  in  the  dec- 
ade to  which  I have  already  called  attention.  In  the  last  three  years 
of  that  decade  we  built  600,000  tors  of  ocean  shipping;  and  that  indus- 
try was  at  the  summit  of  its  prosperity  at  the  close  of  the  decade.  In 
the  last  decade  it  has  still  further  dwindled.  Our  shipbuilders  claim 
that  they  have  not  had  a fair  opportunity  to  show  how  they  could  re- 


KICHAHD  HAWLEY.  1 


FREE  TRADE. 


oo 


gain  their  old  position  in  this  matter  if  the  conditions  were  fair.  There 
is  an  industry  of  iron-shipbuilding  in  this  city  and  at  Wyandotte;  and, 
in  talking  recently  with  the  secretary  of  that  company,  he  said  to  me, 
“Give  us  our  materials  for  shipbuilding  under  freedrade  conditions,  let 
us  get  them  as  reasonably  as  we  can,  and  we  ask  no  defense  against  the 
incoming  of  foreign-built  ships.  We  are  perfectly  willing  to  meet  the 
shipbuilders  of  the  Clyde.”  After  the  termination  of  the  decade  from 
1850  to  1800  the  iron  industry  in  this  country  was  very  much  stimulated 
by  the  enactment  of  the  Morrill  tariff,  which  put  the  duty  on  pig  iron 
at  $9  a ton.  While  that  stimulated  excessively  the  establishment  ot 
blast  furnaces  it  worked  very  hard  on  those  industries  that  used  pig- 
iron  as  a raw  material.  Mr.  Willard  Pope  wrote,  in  a note  which  I had 
the  honor  to  receive,  an  expression  of  that  fact.  He  is  one  of  the  civil 
engineers  in  the  Detroit  Bridge  and  Iron  Works.  He  said: 

In  our  industry  we  should  be  employing  ten  men  where  we  are  now  employing-  one, 
if  it  were  not  for  the  excessive  cost  of  pig  iron  caused  by  that  tariff.  Let  this  illus- 
trate how  many  edges  there  are  to  the  so-called  sword  of  protection,  and  how  it  slashes 
into  honest  industry  at  every  turn. 

This  is  a very  good  illustration  of  the  effect  of  a protective  tariff*. 
While  a few  industries,  for  a time  (and  only  for  a time),  make  undue 
profits,  other  industries,  which  use  their  products  as  raw  material,  suffer 
and  are  sometimes  extinguished.  There  was  an  agricultural-implement 
manufactory  established  at  Wyandotte.  It  failed,  and  most  of  the 
money  invested  in  it  was  lost.  If  they  had  been  able  to  get  their  raw 
materials  at  fair  competitive  prices  that  industry  would  probably  have 
been  flourishing  to-day. 

I beg  leave  to  show  the  effect  of  this  system  on  highly -protected  in- 
dustry. Take  the  pig-iron  industry  as  an  example.  As  I said  before, 
the  tariff*  was  put  up  so  high  on  pig  iron  that  blast  furnaces  sprung  up 
all  over  the  United  States.  They  over  produced  so  much  that  pig- 
iron  is  said  to  have  been  sold  under  the  hammer,  in  some  instances,  at 
$8  a ton;  and  nearly  one-half  of  this  large  number  of  furnaces  closed  up, 
and  the  men  employed  in  them  were  turned  adrift  and  had  to  avail 
themselves  of  any  opportunity  for  other  kinds  of  labor,  for  which  they 
were  not  fitted,  many  of  them  not  finding  any  work  to  do,  and  having 
to  tramp  from  State  to  State.  Secretary  Evarts  said  that  there  were 
four  or  five  hundred  of  these  furnaces  out  of  blast,  and  hundreds  of 
millions  of  dollars  lying  idle,  and  the  men  who  had  been  employed  in 
these  furnaces  were  in  the  most  unfortunate  condition.  This  great  reac- 
tion in  the  last  decade  was  undoubtedly  one  great  cause  of  so  much 
diminution  of  the  aggregate  gain  to  the  country. 

And  so  of  other  industries.  That  is  the  way  that  high  protection 
works.  Gentlemen,  we  waut  a better  foundation  for  the  industries  of 
this  country  than  what  Daniel  Webster  called  “government  patronage.” 
He  said,  more  than  fifty  years  ago,  that  that  was  a poor  foundation  to 
build  business  interests  upon,  and  that  the  time  had  even  then  come 
when  all  that  intelligence  and  industry  could  ask  for  was  fair  play  and 
an  open  field. 

Under  this  high  protective  system,  gentlemen,  the  country  has  failed 
to  make  any  such  percentage  of  gain  as  it  made  in  the  decade  from 
1 850  to  1860.  In  the  mean  time  our  labor-saving  machinery  has  gone 
on  improving,  which  is  one  reason  why  we  should  have  gone  higher. 
The  crops  were  just  as  good  in  the  latter  decade  as  in  the  former  one. 
And  yet  the  reports  from  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  in  Washington  give 
us  but  the  meager  gain  in  the  decade  from  1870  to  1880  of  33  per  cent., 
against  that  of  per  cent,  in  the  decade  from  1850  to  1880.  It  may 
H.  Mis.  6 53 


834 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EICHAKD  HAWLEY. 


be  said  that  from  1870  to  1880  we  paid  $400,000,000,  more  or  less,  of 
the  public  debt,  and  a very  large  amount  of  interest  upon  the  public 
debt.  But  the  answer  to  that  is,  that  if  all  that  money  had  been  paid 
abroad,  and  if  it  had  gone  out  of  the  country,  that  would  make  a differ- 
ence which  would  bring  the  aggregate  gain  for  the  decade  up  to  41  per 
cent.  But  a part  of  it  was  paid  to  our  own  citizens — probably  more 
than  one-half — and  it  shows  again  in  other  forms  of  wealth.  But,  allow- 
ing for  the  whole  amount  paid  on  the  public  debt,  we  have  still  but  an 
aggregate  gain  for  the  decade  of  1870  to  1880  of  41  per  cent. — less  than 
one-third  of  the  gain  in  the  decade  from  1850  to  1860. 

Commissioner  Porter.  Did  you  take  into  consideration  the  value  of 
the  slaves,  which  was  included  under  the  head  of  “personal  property” 
in  the  decade  from  1850  to  1860,  and  was  not  included  in  the  decade 
from  1870  to  1880?  That  was  a very  important  item. 

The  witness  admitted  that  that  item  should  have  been  allowed  for, 
but  he  subsequently  withdrew  the  admission,  remarking  that  the  slaves 
had  obtained  their  freedom  before  the  opening  of  the  latter  decade.  He 
continued : 

Gentlemen,  you  have,  in  brief,  my  argument.  Let  me  call  your  atten- 
tion now  to  the  gain  from  1830  to  1840  under  a tariff  that  was  mainly 
protective.  It  was  only  53  per  cent.  In  the  next  decade,  from  1840  to 
1850,  under  a half-and-half  revenue  tariff  and  protective  tariff  (but  more 
of  a revenue  tariff  than  in  the  preceding  decade)  the  gain  was  80  per 
cent.  From  1850  to  1860  (an  entirely  revenue-tariff  decade)  our  gain 
ran  up  to  136 J per  cent.  This  progress  in  the  increase  of  national 
wealth  under  a revenue  tariff,  as  compared  with  the  retrogression  in  the 
decade  under  a highly  protective  tariff,  is  untouched  by  the  question  of 
slave  property,  and  1 beg  that  it  will  receive  that  consideration  from 
the  Commission  which  1 know  that  it  will  receive  from  the  country. 

Commissioner  Porter.  The  abolition  of  slavery  reduced  the  valua 
tion  of  personal  property  in  the  decade  from  1860  to  1870.  That  should 
be  taken  into  consideration.  Another  matter  to  be  taken  into  consider- 
tion  is  the  coming  down  from  a paper  basis  to  a gold  basis. 

The  Witness.  I am  not  aware  that  our  paper  money  did  not  main- 
tain as  favorable  relations  to  a specie  basis  in  1870  as  in  1880.  ■ 


SHELDON  G.  kkllogg.]  RECIPROCITY  TREATY  WITH  CANADA. 


835 


SHELDON  G.  KELLOGG. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  Sheldon  G.  Kellogg,  of  Detroit,  made  the  following  statement 
on  the  subject  of  a reciprocity  treaty  with  Canada: 

1 am  in  favor  of  our  government  commencing  negotiations  with  the 
Canadian  Government  for  a reciprocity  treaty.  As  a citizen  of  Detroit, 
interested  in  its  present  and  its  future,  I think  that  reciprocity  with 
Canada  would  be  of  the  greatest  advantage  to  this  city.  It  only  re- 
quires one  to  take  a pencil  and  to  draw  a circle  with  a radius  of  a hun- 
dred miles  around  this  city  to  understand  how  intimately  connected  it 
is  with  the  adjacent  portions  of  Ontario,  and  how  isolated  this  city  is 
without  such  connection.  The  adjacent  points  in  Ontario  are  as  inti- 
mately connected  with  our  manufacturing  and  business  interests  as 
the  adjacent  portions  of  Michigan;  and  it  does  not  seem  right  to  a 
large  majority  of  our  business  men  that  there  should  be,  practically,  a 
Chinese  wall  between  this  city  and  Canada. 

Some  objections  can  certainly  be  urged  against  a reciprocity  treaty. 
In  the  first  place,  it  can  be  said  that  the  relations  between  Canada  and 
the  United  States,  and  between  Ontario  and  Michigan,  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  relations  between  Indiana  and  Illinois,  because  different 
legislatures  make  their  respective  laws.  But  it  is  only  necessary  to  re- 
ply to  that  by  saying  that  we  had  a reciprocity  treaty  up  to  1866,  and 
that,  according  to  as  high  an  authority  as  Secretary  Chase,  it  was  ol 
advantage  to  both  countries ; and  that,  under  that  treaty,  the  trade  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Canada  was  as  great  as  the  aggregate 
trade  between  the  United  States  and  Austria,  Bussia,  Prussia,  Sweden, 
and  Portugal.  The  Canadians  have  already  adopted  a very  high  tariff, 
and  they  may  not  be  willing  to  enter  into  a reciprocity  treaty.  But  it 
must  be  remembered  that  we  drove  the  Canadians  away  before  they 
refused  to  have  trade  intercourse  with  us.  If  the  Commissioners  had 
time  to  talk  with  people  on  the  other  side  of  the  border,  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Detroit,  they  would  understand  that  there  is  a strong  senti- 
ment there  in  favor  of  reciprocal  commercial  relations ; and  that,  if  our 
government  was  to  commence  negotiations,  it  is  extremely  probable  that 
the  Canadian  Government  would  meet  us  half  way. 

I will  state  a few  points  to  show  why  I believe  that  such  a treaty 
would  be  of  great  benefit  to  the  city  of  Detroit.  Pirst,  as  to  commer- 
cial interests  Detroit  is  beautifully  situated,  and  very  attractive.  Already 
large  excursion  parties  come  here  almost  every  week  from  London, 
Chatham,  Saint  Thomas,  and  other  places  in  Canada;  and  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  our  merchants  having  almost  as  large  a trade  with 
Ontario  as  with  Michigan  except  the  anti-commercial  wall  which  sep- 
arates us. 

Then,  as  to  manufacturing  interests,  Canada  is  naturally  a market  for 
a large  portion  of  our  manufactured  products.  A gentleman  connected 
with  our  youngest  industry — the  Detroit  Bronze  Company — told  me 
recently  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  duty  which  Canada  had  put  on  bronze 
his  company  would  sell  near;ly  as  much  bronze  in  Canada  as  in  the  United 
States,  but  that  the  duty  is  so  high  that  it  is  practically  impossible  to 
find  a market  there  for  the  bronze. 


836 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| SHELDON  G.  KELLOGG. 


With  regard  to  the  people  at  large.  We  require  a great  deal  of  what 
Canada  produces.  Our  car  companies  make  use  of  certain  qualities  of 
lumber  that  can  only  be  obtained  from  Canada;  and  if  it  was  possible 
to  get  that  raw  material  without  duty  it  is  highly  probable  that  we  should 
not  have  witnessed  the  spectacle  that  was  seen  here  last  winter  when 
from  two  to  four  hundred  hands  were  discharged  because  there  was  not 
work  enough  for  them  at  the  car  works.  Of  course  other  elements  enter 
into  the  problem.  We  need  a foreign  market  for  our  cars;  but  with  our 
present  prices  it  is  almost  impossible  to  compete  with  the  makers  in 
Europe.  ~Now  as  to  stone.  Why  should  the  people  of  Detroit  be  com- 
pelled to  pay  so  much  higher  for  the  stone  used  in  building  the  founda- 
tions of  their  houses  than  they  would  have  to  pay  under  a system  of  free 
exchange?  An  objection  to  reciprocity  is  interposed  on  the  part  of  the 
lumber  interest;  but  that  objection  can  be  answered  in  this  way:  The 
rapidity  with  which  our  forests  are  being  destroyed  for  the  sake  of  the 
lumber  is  a shame;  and  it  is  certain  that  sooner  or  later  that  evil  will  be 
put  a stop  to.  It  is  an  absolute  necessity  that  a certain  amount  of  territory 
shall  be  covered  with  forests;  and  yet  our  forests  are  being  destroyed  for 
the  benefit  of  a few  men  who  are  interested  in  lumber,  and  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  great  majority  of  people  who  need  cheap  lumber. 

With  regard  to  the  growth  of  the  city  and  the  price  of  real  estate  here. 
Why  should  Detroit  be  left  in  the  condition  of  the  Rhine  towns  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  be  prohibited  from  having  the  commercial  relations  most 
natural  to  it?  Why  should  not  Detroit  be  allowed  to  have  the  privileges 
which  the  Hanse  towns  had,  and  to  trade  with  Canada  in  thefreest  possible 
manner?  The  citizens  of  Detroit  have  not  asked  much  from  this  Com- 
mission. Various  industries  have  been  represented  before  the  Commission . 
Some  have  demanded  higher  duties  on  certain  things,  and  some  have 
spoken  in  favor  of  free  trade.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  city  of  Detroit  has  a 
right  to  ask  that  this  Commission  shall  give  careful  consideration  to  the  iso 
lated  position  which  Detroit  occupies.  Many  of  our  leading  citizens  become 
enthusiastic  as  they  describe  the  blessings  to  Detroit  that  would  result 
from  our  having  a bridge  or  a tunnel  across  the  Detroit  River.  But  one 
day  (kind  fortune  hasten  it!)  there  will  be  universal  rejoicing  over  the 
union  between  Ontario  and  Michigan,  and  over  the  assumption  by  our 
beautiful  and  beloved  city  of  its  rightful  position  as  the  commercial 
metropolis  of  the  two  allied  states. 


CEOtlGr.  W.  MOORE.] 


CHARCOAL  PIG  IRON. 


837 


GEORGE  W.  MOORE. 

Detroit,  Alien.,  September  1,  1882. 

Air.  George  W.  AIoore,  of  Detroit,  manufacturer  of  charcoal  pig  iron 
at  Leland,  Alich.,  made  the  following  statement  : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  The  ap- 
pointment of  this  Commission  is  something  of  a new  departure  in  the 
business  of  legislation,  which  frequently  depends  largely  on  inspira- 
tion for  its  origin,  to  intuitions  for  its  progress,  and  to  accident  for  its 
results.  The  last  Congress,  for  some  inscrutable  reason,  deemed  a little 
information  an  essential  element  in  the  business  of  tariff  revision.  I 
wish  to  give  to-day  a few  of  the  facts  relating  to  the  manufacture  of 
charcoal  pig  iron7  which  will  show  something  of  its  relation  to  the  tariff 
upon  it. 

There  is  to-day  but  a very  small  margin,  and  in  some  locations  no 
margin,  left  as  a profit  to  the  manufacturer  of  charcoal  pig  iron,  after 
paying  the  current  price  for  ore,  labor,  and  transportation.  Practically, 
about  the  only  interest  that  the  manufacturers  now  have  in  the  tariff 
upon  this  iron  is  to  enable  them  to  continue  to  do  business  and  to  pay  the 
wages  for  labor  which  are  now  being  paid.  Of  course,  if  any  substan- 
tial reduction  in  the  price  of  labor  becomes  necessary,  the  workingmen 
will  not  easily  or  at  once  submit  to  it ; but  a considerable  period  of  dis- 
satisfaction, and  of  hardship,  poverty,  and  strikes,  must  ensue  before 
they  will  accommodate  themselves  to  the  altered  condition  of  things. 
This  means  idle  workmen,  idle  furnaces,  idle  capital,  and  poor  markets 
for  farmers  in  the  neighborhood  of  furnaces.  Largely  reduced  earnings 
means  largely  reduced  consumption,  and  a suspension  of  prosperity, 
more  or  less  extended.  These  results  must  follow  from  the  removal,  or 
any  substantial  reduction,  of  the  present  tariff,  as  a necessary  conse- 
quence. The  fact  is,  that  more  money  is  paid  for  the  labor  which  enters 
into  charcoal  pig  iron,  from  mine  to  market,  than  the  entire  cost  of  British 
iron  laid  down  on  the  wharves  at  New  York,  and  this  a few  statistics 
conclusively  show. 

Commissioner  AIcMahon.  Including  or  excluding  duty  ? 

The  Witness.  Excluding  duty  and  excluding  commissions  and  ex- 
penses of  handling  in  New  York — the  mere  cost  and  the  freight.  In 
other  words,  with  charcoal  iron,  with  its  present  prices,  labor  receives 
about  all  the  benefit  that  is  afforded  by  whatever  of  protection  there  is 
in  the  tariff*. 

Near  the  close  of  1881  1 took  the  trouble  to  address  to  a number  of 
the  owners  of  charcoal  furnaces  a blank  form,  asking  them  to  report  to 
me  the  rates  of  wages  paid  to  the  different  classes  of  labor,  and  the 
actual  cost  for  labor  in  the  manufacture  of  a ton  of  charcoal  pig  iron, 
from  the  ore  in  the  mine  to  the  nearest  general  market.  I received  ten 
reports  from  furnaces  and  mines  located  in  New  York,  Michigan,  Georgia, 
Maine,  Alabama,  Tennessee,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia.  These  returns 
show  the  following  as  the  average  rates  of  wages  paid  for  the  different 
classes  of  labor,  viz : 


Miners’  wages,  per  day $1  79 

Laborers 1 45 


838  TARIFF  COMMISSION.  [georoe  w.  Jaoonte. 

Teamsters $1  60 

Choppers 1 28 

Charcoal  burners 1 83 

Founders 2 80 

Assistants  or  keepers 1 68 


it  is  difficult  to  make  precise  comparison  of  these  with  the  labor  rates 
in  England,  but  it  can  be  made  sufficiently  precise  for  all  practical  pur- 
poses. 

The  London  Engineer,  something  more  than  a year  ago,  stated  that 
the  average  wages  of  miners  (colliers)  was  from  2,9.  8d.  (56  cents)  to  3 s. 
(73  cents)  per  day;  that  in  Lanarkshire  the  miners  were  getting  paid 
1.9.  lOd.  (44  cents)  per  day,  and  gave  the  earnings  of  spike  makers  as  1.9. 
C>d.  (37  cents). 

In  an  arbitration  between  puddlers  and  manufacturers  in  England,  a 
little  more  than  a year  ago,  the  basis  agreed  upon  was  8s.  Gd.  ($2.12) ; the 
Pittsburgh  rate  at  the  same  time  was  $5.50.  Mr.  Oasson,  the  manager 
of  the  Earl  of  Dudley’s  Staffordshire  iron  works,  said  to  a reporter  of 
the  Pittsburgh  Commercial  Gazette: 

We  can  manufacture  iron  at  just  one-half  of  your  cost,  so  far  as  the  price  of  labor  is 
concerned.  I find  that  your  rates  of  wages  are  about  exactly  double  what  we  have 
to  pay. 

From  the  consular  reports  made  to  the  Department  of  State  in  1878, 
it  appears  that  the  rate  of  wages  to  laborers  in  England  was  83  cents 
per  day,  and  to  agricultural  laborers  60  cents  per  day.  In  making  com- 
parisons in  these  rates  of  wages,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the 
great  staples  which  are  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  upon  which  the  British 
workmen  must  depend,  are  largely  exported  from  this  country  to  Eng- 
land, and  the  costs  of  transportation  to  the  seaboard,  of  middle  men,  of 
transportation  across  the  water,  and  the  cost  of  middle-men  and  dis- 
tribution there,  must  be  added  to  the  price  the  American  workman  has 
to  pay  for  the  same  necessaries  at  home. 

As  shown  by  the  latest  market  quotations,  the  cost  of  English  or 
Scotch  iron,  without  duty,  laid  down  on  the  wharf  in  New  York,  is  from 
$14  to  $16  per  ton,  including  freight.  The  following  is  a statement  of 
the  average  cost  of  labor  alone  in  the  manufacture  of  a ton  of  charcoal 
pig  iron  in  this  country,  as  gathered  from  the  nineteen  reports  above 
referred  to : 


Labor  in  ore,  per  ton  of  metal $3  30 

Labor  in  limestone  per  ton  of  metal 35 

Labor  in  transportation  and  handling  to  the  furnace 1 60 

Labor  for  charcoal 7 40 

Labor  in  smelting 2 33 

Labor  in  transportation  and  handling  of  pig  iron  to  nearest  market 1 70 


Total $16  68 


This  does  not  include  the  cost  of  management,  superintendence,  cleri- 
cal labor,  or  labor  in  repairs,  but  simply  manual  labor.  Two  dollars 
per  ton  additional  would  be  a moderate  estimate  of  this  cost. 

That  this  cost  of  making  English  pig  iron  is  not  underestimated  we 
have  the  excellent  authority  of  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  of  New  York,  in  his 
report  in  the  Paris  Exposition  on  iron  and  steel,  he  stated:  “In  the 
Cleveland  district,  in  England, the  entire  cost,  including  labor,  of  making 
a ton  of  pig  iron  was  40.9.  or  $9.68.”  And  that  the  protective  tariff,  so 


georoe  w MOORE.]  CHARCOAL  PIG  IRON.  839 

called,  benefits  the  American  workman  was  concisely  stated  in  tlie  Lon- 
don Mining  Journal  of  June  26,  1880,  as  follows: 

If  the  tariff  permits  the  American  iron-master  to  sell  to  local  consumers  at  $10  per 
ton  higher  than  before,  the  full  proportion  of  that  $10  must  be  paid  to  the  workmen, 
and  the  British  iron-master  in  all  markets,  except  the  American,  is  benefited  to  the 
extent  of  the  extra  wages  paid  in  America. 


It  is  the  province  of  this  Commission,  as  I understand  it,  to  gather  the 
facts  upon  which  Congressional  action  is  expected  to  be  based.  This 
involves  an  intelligent  consideration  of  who  is  to  be  affected  by  changes 
to  be  made.  It  is  evident  that,  unless  the  margin  of  profit  is  considera- 
bly increased  in  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron,  any  reduction  of  the  price 
caused  by  a reduced  tariff  or  other  cause  must  be  followed  either  by 
depriving  the  workman  of  labor,  or  lowering  his  wages.  If  a reduction 
of  tariff  upon  charcoal  pig  iron  is  made,  a reduction  in  the  price  of  labor 
must  be  made,  or  the  furnaces  closed,  for  the  reason  that  manufacturers 
will  not  run  their  business  at  a loss. 

It  is  strongly  recommended  that  no  changes  be  advised.  That  is  the 
universal  thought  of  every  manufacturer  of  charcoal  pig-iron  in  the 
United  States,  certainly  so  far  as  I know  them.  If  it  is  expected  that  the 
Commission  will  pass  its  judgment  upon  the  past  general  policy  of  this 
government  in  protecting  its  industries  while  collecting  its  revenues,  we 
can  say  for  Michigan  that,  under  the  present  tariff,  or  with  it,  or  in  spite 
of  it,  we  have  advanced  in  a score  of  years  from  backwoods  poverty 
and  rudeness  to  a condition  of  the  highest  prosperity. 

The  State  stands  to-day  first  in  the  production  of  iron  ore;  first  in  the 
production  of  charcoal  pig-iron ; first  in  the  production  of  copper;  first  in 
the  production  of  salt ; first  in  the  i>roduction  of  lumber ; first  in  the  value 
per  acre  of  agricultural  products ; first  in  average  amount  of  wheat  pro- 
duced per  acre  planted ; and  the  sum  total  of  her  agricultural  products 
annually — the  best  evidence  of  her  general  prosperity — equals  the  pro- 
ductions of  precious  metals  in  the  United  States,  while  her  vessel  tonnage 
is  greater  than  that  of  any  other  State  away  from  the  seaboard. 

Feeling  that  this  progress  is  measurably  due  to  the  encouragement  of 
our  industries,  and  believing  that  it  has  been  of  much  benefit  and  little 
injury,  the  people  of  this  State  will  doubtless  be  willing  to  have  the 
policy  continued  under  which  these  results  have  been  achieved. 

In  addition  to  the  work  which  the  manufacture  of  charcoal  iron  fur- 
nishes, it  developes  the  country  in  which  it  is  located.  I undertake  to 
say  that  there  is  no  business  whatever  that  can  be  compared  to  it 
in  the  way  of  opening  up  and  developing  a new  country  for  agricult- 
ural purposes.  At  the  time  of  the  erection  of  the  particular  furnace 
with  which  I am  connected,  the  lands  in  the  neighborhood  were  in 
a wild  condition.  The  erection  of  our  furnace  was  a new  start  there. 
We  bought  it,  already  erected,  about  three  years  ago.  There  were, 
perhaps,  one  hundred  inhabitants  in  the  village,  and  two  hundred 
more  in  the  surrounding  townships.  Since  that  time  the  population 
of  the  village  and  townships  has  increased  to  nearly  a thousand,  a 
large  proportion  of  which  is  dependent,  directly  or  indirectly,  on  the 
work  done  at  that  blast  furnace  and  on  the  labor  employed  in  connec- 
tion with  it.  We  have  paid  out  in  wages  during  the  last  two  and  a half 
years  more  than  $200,000,  which  sum  has  beeu  distributed  at  that  point, 
and  we  have  paid  for  transportation  somewhere  from  $50,000  to  $60,000, 
which  has  gone  to  develop,  increase,  and  pay  for  transportation  facilities 
on  the  Jakes  and  railroads.  The  value  of  the  iron  ore  which  we  have 


840 


TARIFF  COMMISSION1. 


| GEORGE  W.  MOORE. 


used  has  not  been  far  from  $200,000,  and  the  total  value  of  the  pig  iron 
made  there  (turning  the  rawest  kind  of  raw  material,  iron  ore,  into  a 
manufactured  product,  pig  iron)  has  not  been  far  from  $700,000.  The 
farming  community  around  there  thas  prospered,  and  we  have  been  the 
means  of  bringing  into  cultivation  from  2-J  to  3 square  miles  of  land  in 
that  neighborhood.  All  of  this  has  only  been  made  possible  by  the  fact 
that  we  have  had  but  little  to  dread  from  foreign  competition  on  account 
of  the  tariff,  which  placed  a bar  between  it  and  that  industry.  That 
bar  now  stands  between  our  activity  and  its  cessation.  Its  cessation, 
which  means  the  depriving  250  workmen,  at  least,  of  employment,  and 
the  depriving  of  700  or  800  people  of  their  means  of  subsistence. 

The  President.  It  was  my  misfortune  to  have  been  a practical  char- 
coal iron  manufacturer  in  1818.  I knew  the  conditions  of  its  manufact- 
ure at  that  time,  and  therefore  I wish  to  ask  you  a few  questions.  Can 
you  tell  me  what  the  production  of  a charcoal-iron  furnace  was  in  1848 
or  1850 ? 

The  Witness.  When  it  was  running,  it  was  all  the  way  from  nothing 
to  ten  tons  a day. 

Question.  What  is  the  product  of  your  furnace  now  ? — Answer.  The 
furnace  which  we  are  running  averages  30  or  37  tons  a day.  It  has  run 
from  30  to  42J  tons,  the  latter  being  the  highest  point  reached.  It  is  a 
0-foot  6-inch  furnace. 

Q.  Of  course  a charcoal-iron  furnace  must  be  located  in  the  midst  of 
forest  lands.  What  is  the  cost  of  clearing  apiece  of  forest  land  in  your 
country? — A.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  state  what  is  usually  the  cost 
to  the  farmer.  The  land  Is  usually  cleared  by  putting  in  time  when 
the  farmer  is  not  doing  anything  else.  Then  he  burns  the  wood  upon 
the  land,  so  that  the  wood  is  of  no  possible  benefit  to  him,  but  rather 
an  injury  to  the  land  in  some  cases.  Anywhere  from  five  to  ten  dollars 
an  acre  would  be  a low  enough  estimate  of  the  cost  of  clearing  the  land 
and  fitting  it  for  cultivation.  Afterwards  the  stumping  of  the  land  is 
a very  costly  operation. 

Q.  And  when  the  land  is  cleared  for  charcoal-iron  furnaces,  it  is 
cleared  with  profit  to  the  farmer? — A.  Yes.  The  furnace  utilizes  the 
timber  which  would  otherwise  be  destroyed.  The  farmer  has  to  get  rid 
of  the  timber,  and  he  has  to  burn  it  in  order  to  make  use  of  the  land  at 
all.  Charcoal  furnaces  utilize  all  his  timber.  A person  going  to  buy  a 
farm  in  the  neighborhood  of  a charcoal  furnace  knows  that  he  can  dis- 
pose of  all  the  charcoal  that  he  can  produce.  There  is  not  a charcoal 
furnace  in  the  State  of  Michigan  that  has  a surplus  of  wood. 

Q.  What  advantages  do  charcoal  furnaces  furnish  to  farmers  in  the 
way  of  transportation  and  the  employment  of  teams? — A.  We  have 
furnished  to  the  surrounding  farmers  a market  for  every  dollar’s  worth 
of  their  produce,  and,  in  the  matter  of  transportation,  we  have  opened 
u]>  roads  to  their  farms. 

Q.  Do  you  give  employment  to  the  farmers  in  the  transportation  of 
ore? — A.  We  have  been  short  of  labor  all  the  time  in  that  respect.  We 
have  had  to  take  it  from  here  and  from  other  places.  In  other  words, 
there  is  not  in  our  district  a man  willing  to  do  a fair  day’s  work  who 
cannot  have,  and  has  not  had  during  the  past  two  and  a half  years,  his 
hands  full  of  work  at  remunerative  wages. 

Q.  What  is  the  value  of  charcoal  iron  as  compared  with  other  irons? — 
A.  The  charcoal  iron  is  preferred  on  account  of  its  freedom  from  sul- 
phur and  other  injurious  elements.  It  is  apt  to  be  softer  and  better, 
and  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  manufacture  of  fine  qualities  of  mal- 
leable iron,  of  Bessemer  steel,  of  car  wheels,  boiler  plates,  &c.  The 


GEORGE  W MOORE.  | 


CHARCOAL  PIG  IRON. 


841 


charcoal  hammered  iron  of  the  West  is  regarded  as  the  best  that  can  be 
had  ior  the  manufacture  of  boilers,  where  peculiar  strength  is  required. 
We  are  producing  in  the  State  of  Michigan  183,000  tons  of  charcoal  iron 
a year,  more  than  double  the  quantity  produced  either  by  Pennsylvania 
or  Ohio. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  From  the  ore  in  the  ground  to  the  turning  out  of  the  iron  at  the 
furnace,  what  is  the  proportion  of  labor  to  material  ? — A.  The  propor- 
tion of  labor  is  at  least  75  per  cent. 

Q.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  business  and  from  the  calculations 
which  you  have  made  (the  present  duty  on  pig  iron  being  $7  a ton),  is 
that  duty  necessary  to  bring  up  the  American  producer  of  pig  iron  to 
an  equality  with  the  foreign  producer  of  pig  iron  in  consequence  of  the 
lower  rates  of  wages  in  Europe? — A.  Unquestionably.  At  least  $7  a 
ton  goes  into  labor  here  more  than  goes  into  labor  in  England. 

A.  If  that  duty  were  removed,  and  if  you  had  to  compete  with  for- 
eign pig  iron,  would  it  not  be  necessary  for  you  to  reduce  the  wages 
paid  by  you  to  the  extent  of  $7  a ton?  Where  would  the  loss  fall — on 
the  laborer  or  on  the  manufacturer  ? — A.  The  manufacturer  could  not 
stand  that  reduction,  and  would  have  to  shut  up  shop  unless  the  laborer 
was  willing  to  stand  it. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  $7  would  be  a loss  to  the  laborer? — A. 
The  loss  to  the  laborer  would  necessarily  come  pretty  close  to  the  $7  a 
ton.  I have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  laborer  would  lose  all  of 
it — I mean,  with  iron  at  its  present  price.  If  iron  should  go  up,  or  ore 
go  down,  or  transportation  go  down,  of  course  the  loss  to  the  laborer 
would  not  be  so  much.  The  price  of  labor  would  be  in  a general  ratio 
with  the  other  elements  entering  into  the  cost.  In  other  words,  the  la- 
bor of  the  country  gets  its  full  share  of  the  profits. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  effect  on  your  industry  would  the  readoption  of  the  Cana- 
dian reciprocity  treaty  have? — A.  That  subject  I have  not  consid- 
ered. But  I can  say  generally  that  here,  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  we 
should  have  no  reason  to  fear  it.  There  are  but  one  or  two  furnaces 
manufacturing  any  kind  of  pig-iron  in  Canada  at  present.  What  might 
be  developed  there  I cannot  say.  Some  mines  of  iron  ore  are  being  dis- 
covered in  the  neighborhood  of  Toronto  and  around  Georgian  Bay,  which 
may  change  materially  the  present  aspect  of  business.  The  general 
impression,  however,  would  be  that  the  less  the  present  condition  of  af- 
fairs is  disturbed,  the  better  for  all  concerned — at  least  in  the  United 
States.  That,  perhaps,  would  be  a general  answer  to  the  question. 

Q.  Would  the  readoption  of  the  reciprocity  treaty  be  beneficial  or  ad- 
verse ; what  are  the  chances  ? — A.  I should  regard  it,  on  the  whole,  as 
adverse,  unless  the  matter  of  iron  ore  was  made  the  subject  of  recipro- 
city. That  would  undoubtedly  benefit  the  American  manufacturers  of 
charcoal  pig  iron,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  probably  result  in  a re- 
duction (more  or  less)  of  the  price  of  ore  which  we  are  now  compelled  to 
pay  to  the  ore  companies  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State.  That  feat- 
ure of  the  reciprocity  treaty  would  probably  be  something  of  a benefit 
to  us.  But  otherwise,  and  speaking  generally,  I should  say  that  the 
charcoal  iron  interest  would  be  averse  to  having  any  substantial  change 
made  in  the  tariff,  either  by  the  readoption  of  the  reciprocity  treatv 
with  Canada  or  otherwise. 


<842 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  W.  MOORE. 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I understand  from  your  statement  that  you  would  like  to  have  the 
duty  retained  on  pig-  iron,  but  that  it  would  help  you  to  have  the  duty 
taken  off  iron  ore  ? — A.  As  a matter  of  business,  I have  no  doubt  that 
if  the  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  per  cent,  were  removed  from  the  iron  ores 
discovered  in  Canada,  the  charcoal  pig-iron  manufacturers  ou  this  side 
would  get  the  benefit  of  it.  At  the  same  time  we  might  lose  in  other 
ways,  and  probably  would.  Unquestionably  a reduction  in  the  price  of 
ore  would  benefit  us.  I cannot  see  it  in  any  other  way.  We  should  be 
glad,  of  course,  to  get  ore  as  low  as  possible.  But  taking  a larger  view 
of  the  question,  I believe  in  America  for  Americans.  I believe  most 
thoroughly  in  the  principles  of  the  protection  of  our  industry.  And  no 
worthy  citizen  would  ask  to  have  any  action  taken  that  would  injure 
any  considerable  number  of  people. 


DANIEL  C.  ROBBINS.  1 


DRUGS  AND  CHEMICALS. 


843 


DANIEL  C.  DOBBINS. 


Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  Daniel  C.  Dobbins,  of  the  firm  of  McKesson  & Dobbins,  im- 
porters of  drugs,  &c.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  submitted  the  following  state- 
ment: 

Being  a member  of  the  revenue  reform  committee  of  the  New  York 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  I have  thus  far  hesitated  to  appear  before  your 
honorable  body,  the  more  so  because  our  chairman,  Mr.  Jackson  S. 
Schultz,  informed  me,  some  time  since,  that  our  committee  would,  no 
doubt,  at  some  proper  time,  appear  before  you.  But  being  extensively 
engaged  as  importers  and  dealers  in  drugs  and  chemicals,  as  well  as  in 
the  manufacture  of  important  chemicals,  which  includes  the  making  of 
quinine  and  other  cinchona  salts,  under  the  firm  name  of  McKesson  & 
Dobbins,  I have  considered  that  it  was  due  to  your  Commission,  and  to 
the  trade,  that  we  should  respond  to  your  kind  invitation,  and  present 
our  views  of  required  reforms  in  duty  rates,  at  least. 

When  Mr.  David  A.  Wells  was  in  the  Treasury  Department,  in  1869, 
the  drug  tariff  list  was  carefully  overhauled  and  largely  set  aright,  in 
adding  a* very  extensive  collection  of  crude  articles  to  the  free  list;  and 
hence  there  are  at  present  but  few  crude  articles,  in  our  very  widely  ex- 
tended business,  to  be  added  to  the  free  list. 

The  most  important  subject  to  be  considered,  as  we  view  the  situation, 
is  the  proper  reduction  upon  protected  chemicals.  I have  looked  over 
the  list  of  the  drug  and  chemical  trade  pretty  carefully  and  conserva- 
tively, using  Heyl’s  Digest,  and  beg  to  submit  as  my  opinion  that  alto- 
gether too  much  importance  has  been  attached  to  specific  duties,  as  a 
substitute  for  ad  valorem  rates.  The  very  worst  abuses  that  exist  in 
our  protective  list  are  in  the  specific  form.  For  numerous  very  excellent 
reasons  all  revenue  duties  should  be,  as  a rule,  specific;  and  all  pro- 
tective duties  should  be  ad  valorem. 

Our  government  statistics  show  that  the  average  annual  import  quan- 
tity of  all  articles  varies  but  little,  while  prices  vary  greatly,  not  infre- 
quently more  than  100  per  centum  ; and  hence,  while  specific  duties  are 
in  themselves  preferable  for  the  government  and  the  honest  importer, 
the  government  can  much  more  surely  rely  upon  a stated  revenue  from 
specific  than  ad  valorem  rates.  On  the  other  hand,  all  protective  duties, 
as  a rule,  should  be  ad  valorem,  because  all  protective  duties  in  the 
interest  cf  commerce,  and  in  the  general  interest  of  the  country,  should 
be  reduced  to  the  lowest  sufficient  limit  for  proper  protection ; and  with 
the  lowest  necessary  duties  the  manufacturer  cannot  afford  to  accept  a 
specific  basis.  For  example:  Quinine  salts  vary  not  infrequently  from 
$1.50  to  $3.50  per  ounce,  and  as  10  per  centum  is  considered  to  lie  the 
lowest  limit  for  adequate  protection,  the  manufacturer  cannot  afford  to 
take  a specific  duty  of  15  cents  per  ounce  in  case  of  an  advance  to  $3.50 
per  ounce,  as  the  advance  would  reduce  his  protection  to  about  4 per 
centum.  Quinine  has  frequently  touched  $4  per  ounce. 


844 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DANIEL  C.  ROBBINS. 


Furthermore,  the  question  before  the  country  of  revenue  duties  is 
always  a simple  one,  of  more  or  less  revenue,  to  be  determined  by  the 
need  of  the  government  and  the  quantity  of  import  of  any  particular 
article.  While  disputes  about  adequate  protection  can  only  be  properly 
measured  by  Congress  in  general,  and  by  the  country  at  large,  through 
the  ad  valorem  system,  experience  has  proved  that  ad  valorem  rates 
within  a low  limit  of  10  per  centum,  and  perhaps  20  or  25  per  centum, 
are  not  specially  objectionable,  while  it  is  dangerous  to  apply  very  high 
ad  valorem  rates,  because  such  rates  tend  to  promote  undervaluation 
and  fraud  in  the  entries  of  merchandise. 


JOHN  BURT.l 


MICHIGAN  IRON  ORE. 


845 


JOHN  BURT. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  John  Burt,  of  Detroit,  made  the  following  argument  in  favor  of 
changing  the  ad  valorem  rates  of  duty  on  imported  iron  ore  to  specific 
rates : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : The  large  production  of 
iron  ore  from  the  Lake  Superior  district  of  Michigan  connects  our  State 
intimately  with  the  iron  and  steel  industry  all  over  the  country.  In  1880 
the  ore  beds  of  that  district  yielded  nearly  2,000,000  tons,  or  about  one- 
fourth  of  the  total  consumption  of  the  United  States. 

The  problem  is  to  so  adjust  the  duty  on  this  product  as  not  to  em- 
barrass the  iron  industry,  and  yet  guard  against  the  cheap  labor  of  other 
lands  and  the  low  valuations  of  foreign  ore  imported  (which  lessens,  of 
course,  the  revenue  of  our  government  from  customs  duties),  and  thus 
allow  the  development  of  our  great  mineral  resources,  the  employment 
of  home  labor,  and  the  safe  investment  of  the  large  capital  needed. 

As  our  market  is  mainly  in  the  West,  reaching  into  Western  Penn- 
sylvania aud  New  York,  we  can  compete  in  that  market  with  foreign 
ores  better  than  ore  producers  in  the  East  can  compete  with  such  ores 
in  their  market,  but  we  want  such  duties  as  shall  be  fair  to  all.  Our 
market  eastward  is  narrowed  by  foreign  competition,  imported  ores 
coming  in  under  low  valuation  and  largely  supplanting  ours  in  and 
about  Pittsburgh  and  as  far  east  as  Cambria  County.  We  have  also  a 
growing  competition  with  our  Canadian  neighbors,  their  ore  depos- 
its being  on  water  courses  just  across  the  lakes,  their  labor  some  30  per 
cent,  cheaper  than  ours,  and  their  taxes  less.  The  imports  of  Canadian 
ore  have  increased  from  3,900  tons  in  1879  to  43,000  tons  in  1881,  or 
more  than  tenfold  in  three  years.  During  the  same  time,  the  total 
importations  (including  Canada  ores)  grew  from  150,821  tons  to  721,073 
tous,  or  fourfold,  and  are  expected  to  reach  nearly  700,000  tons  in  1882, 
when  full  reports  are  made.  Spa  in  sent  us  263,500  tons,  and  the  French 
possessions  in  and  near  Africa  111,345  tons ; labor  in  these  countries 
being  less  than  half  what  we  pay  on  Lake  Superior,  and  valuation  for 
ad  valorem  duty  being  but  about  $2.50  per  ton. 

The  demand  from  Bessemer  steel  makers  for  ores  free  from  phospho- 
rus and  of  a high  grade  has  tended  to  keep  the  price  of  such  ores  at 
our  mines  up  to  a point  that  doubtless  pays  a few  companies  that  have 
unusual  facilities  a fair  profit  on  their  investments,  but  meanwhile 
lower  grades  not  free  from  phosporous  are  sold  lower,  and  pay  but 
little  profit.  The  large  companies  own  their  beds  or  mines,  while  smaller 
producers  usually  pay  a royalty  to  the  owners. 

The  wages  of  some  thousands  of  workmen  in  our  Lake  Superior  mines 
will  average  $2  per  day,  or  from  30  to  150  per  cent,  above  Canadian  and 
Spanish  labor  of  the  same  kind,  audit  is  this  labor  which  gives  its  prod- 
uct its  main  value,  the  raw  commodity  showing  a small  portion  of  profit. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  on  imported  iron 
ore  should  be  made  specific,  and  such  duty,  if  made  80  to  100  cents  per 
gross  ton,  would  be  equitable  to  pig-iron  producers,  and  other  iron 
workers  in  fair  proportion  to  present  duties  on  products  like  theirs,  and 


846 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  BURT. 


be  more  just,  as  well  as  more  sure  than  the  present  duty  to  pay  a fair 
revenue. 

These  statements  and  suggestions  will  apply  to  the  Wisconsin  ore  in- 
terests as  well  as  to  our  own  ; and  all  is  respectfully  submitted  for  your 
consideration,  and  for  comparison  with  other  statements  which  may  be 
made  by  ore  producers  and  by  iron  and  steel  workers.  Our  wish  and 
aim  is  to  have  such  adjustment  of  duties  on  ores  and  iron  and  steel  as 
may  be  just  to  all,  and  may  recognize  the  close  relation  and  mutual  in- 
ter-dependence  of  these  branches  of  what  is  really  one  great  industry, 
working  to  a common  end.  u Live  and  let  live”  is  the  tit  motto  for 
us  all. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  What  would  you  recommend  as  the  duty  on  iron  ore?— 
Answer.  Eighty  cents  or  a dollar  a ton. 

Q.  What  effect  would  the  readoption  of  the  reciprocity  treaty  with 
Canada  have  on  your  industry? — A.  The  probable  effect  would  be  to 
lessen  the  price  of  iron  ore  in  the  market,  to  some  extent;  to  what  ex- 
tent I cannot  say.  The  cost  of  mining,  and  the  cost  of  labor  of  all  kinds 
is  much  less  in  Canada  than  on  this  side  of  the  lakes.  The  only  real 
effect  would  be  that  produced  by  this  difference  in  wages. 

Q.  You  think  that  the  effect  would  be  injurious? — A.  Yes;  I think  it 
would  be  very  injurious  to  the  general  interests  on  this  side. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Have  you  any  statistics  as  to  the  difference  in  wages  for  the  last 
two  years  ? — A.  I have  not  come  here  provided  with  detailed  statistics 
on  the  subject.  I made  my  statement  from  general  observation.  And 
my  statement  is  corroborated  every  day  even  by  our  free-trade  papers. 
Wood  can  be  had  011  the  other  side  for  $3  a cord  which  on  this  side 
costs  $5  a cord.  Mr.  Hawley  referred  this  morning  to  the  difference  in 
the  price  of  stone.  Its  cost  here  is  no  doubt  much  greater  than  it  is 
there  on  account  of  the  extra  price  of  labor  here  in  quarrying  it.  In 
fact,  the  Canadians  are  constantly  coming  over  here,  especially  in  the 
upper  portions  of  the  State  (the  iron  districts),  on  account  of  their  being 
better  paid  for  their  work. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  recommend  a specific  duty  on  iron  ore. — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Without  any  reference  to  the  value  of  the  ores  ? — A.  I should  say 
from  80  cents  to  a dollar. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  the  rate  should  vary  according  to  the  value  of 
the  ore? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  it  would  be  an  ad  valorem  duty  ? — A.  That  is  very  true. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  sentiment  of  the  people  of  Detroit 
in  reference  to  the  reciprocity  treaty  with  Canada? — A.  The  sentiment 
is  generally  adverse. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  labor  being  lower  in  Canada  than  here;  the  condi- 
tions being  similar.  Are  they  as  prosperous,  and  are  values  as  high,  on 
the  other  side  as  on  this  side? — A.  They  do  not  seem  to  me  to  be  nearly 
as  prosperous. 

Q.  Do  people  often  go  from  this  side  to  the  other  side  to  go  into 
business? — A.  Ko ; but  people  come  from  the  other  side  over  here.  Very 
few  go  from  here  to  the  other  side  except  to  have  their  residence  there, 
"While  they  do  busiuess  here.  Living  is  cheaper  on  the  other  side. 


JOHN  BURT,  j 


MICHIGAN  IKON  ORE. 


847 


Q.  (Jan  you  give  an  idea  of  the  average  value,  per  ton,  of  ore  in  the 

S A01'6T  rnen0Ugh  “ P^rns  to  pass  the  Bessemer  requiie 
ment . A.  The  average  value  of  Bessemer  ore  at  present,  and  for  the 

It  thaTpricS8’ 18  1 * t0n  m the  gr0und-  The  consumers  compete  for it 
By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

_ Q.  Does  its  value  depend  on  the  amount  of  metallic  iron  contained  in 
the  PennsyllCaTre  con~  “free6  from" 

to  o-foentlTnTh^lJtr^"8  °f  Steeh  °tber  °reS  are  worth  fr0IU  ^ 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Would  a specific  duty  of  so  much  per  ton  for  every  ton  of  metallic 

klni  ofoeJe*0fAf0Tery  ,8rS  t0n)-’  be  a fair  test  of  value  of  the  different 
kind  of  oie,—  A.  It  would  approximate  much  closer,  but  it  would  not  be 

exactly  equal,  because  it  costs  more  to  assimilate  and  to  put  into  pig  iron 

saar* of  rich  °re- More  fuei  ra 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

shSmlHlrVetsi^"01"6  tbe  al,a'ySiS  °f  6Ver>’  carg°  every 
Q.  Do  you  not  find  from  your  experience  that  it  is  very  difficult  to 
Tlfe a,‘ exact  ana,ysis  of  iron  ore?— A.  Yes;  it  is  utterly  impossible 
The  ores  iuu  so  uneven  that  it  is  impossible  to  get  the  same  grades  and 

1O  ThV  r°re  ?0Q!  th?  same  mi“e  two  years  m succession 
y.  Ihen  1 understand  you  to  recommend  from  80  cents  to  a dollar  a 

A T0!'  “ commerciall.V  called  ore,  by  weight,  not  by  unit  of  irorJ 

A.  I do  not  see  any  other  mode  of  reaching  it  but  a specific  duty. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

undervaluation  ?— a[  Yes,  slr.^  & ^ W°Uld  prevent  a11  *»ud»  by 
ores  ? effeCt  °f  **  "°L'ld  be  the  importation  of  better  classes  of 
i Q-  ^ndthatit  would  be  a benefit  to  our  people?— A.  It  would  be  a 

irttaasa xcoc^  ^ **** 


848 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  T.  JENNINGS. 


WILLIAM  T.  JENNINGS. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  William  T.  Jenning-s,  manufacturer  of  clothing,  spoke  on  the 
subject  of  that  industry.  He  said : 

From  my  long  experience  in  the  clothing  business  I can  speak  of  it 
with  great  confidence.  Fifty  years  ago  I realized  a large  fortune  from  it, 
in  New  York  City.  Fire,  flood,  and  rascality  took  away  my  fortune,  and 
now  I sympathize  with  the  makers  of  clothing.  When  I see  pantaloons 
made  for  $1.50  a dozen,  vests  for  $1  or  $1.50,  and  coats  for  75  cents 
apiece,  I cannot  refrain  from  expressing  indignation.  An  erroneous  im- 
pression is  abroad  that,  in  consequence  of  the  tariff,  the  workingman  is 
paying  too  much  for  his  clothing.  There  never  was  a time,  within  sixty 
years  past,  when  clothing  was  so  low.  A man  pays  from  $35  to  $50  for 
a suit  of  clothes,  made  to  measure,  and  the  color  is  there  til!  the  clothes 
are  worn  out.  But  a suit  of  ready-made  clothes,  costing  from  $18  to 
$20,  made  in  imitation  of  the  foreign  article,  is  the  dearest  suit  that  the 
workingman  can  wear.  The  color  fades  out  before  he  has  worn  the 
clothes  thirty  days.  The  only  relief  for  the  poor,  down-trodden  working 
men  and  women  is  to  open  the  markets  of  the  world  to  them.  The 
style  and  character  of  American-made  garments  will  obtain  preference 
over  any  other  manufacture.  I never  saw  an  English  ready-made  gar 
ment  that  I would  buy.  Give  us  the  markets  of  the  world  and  we  fear 
nothing.  The  prices  for  making  clothing  in  Toronto  and  Montreal  are 
higher  than  in  this  city.  I do  feel  for  the  poor  working  men  and  wo- 
men. All  that  I have  to  say  is  that  the  markets  of  the  world  is  the  thing 
that  is  wanted. 


THOMAS  D.  HAWLEY. 


MALT  AND  BARLEY. 


849 


THOMAS  D.  HAWLEY. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  {September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  Thomas  D.  Hawley,  of  Detroit,  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the 
Hawley  Malt  Company,  and  a member  of  the  executive  committee  of 
the  National  Association  of  Maltsters,  made  the  following-  statement : 

We  feel  that  the  present  tariff  has  done  great  injustice  to  us  maltsters 
of  Detroit.  I have  been  in  the  business  since  1860.  In  1860  we  were  sell- 
ing about  70,000  bushels  of  malt,  most  of  it  at  home.  We  had  some  little 
outside  trade  in  the  States — in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  perhaps  Pennsylva- 
nia. At  that  time  barley  came  into  this  country  from  Canada  free  (under 
the  reciprocity  treaty),  and  there  was  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  malt. 
At  that  time,  therefore,  there  was  no  malt  imported  into  this  country 
from  Canada,  and  there  were  no  malt  houses  in  Canada  except  a very 
small  one  at  Galt. 

Under  that  state  of  things,  with  our  barley  coming  in  free  and  with 
a duty  of  20  tier  cent,  on  malt,  our  malt  business  in  Detroit  grew  very 
rapidly.  It  reached  its  highest  point  in  1868,  when  it  had  gone  up  from 

70.000  bushels  to  96,000  bushels.  But  about  that  time  the  reciprocity 
treaty  was  terminated,  and  a duty  of  15  cents  a bushel  was  put  on 
barley,  while  no  change  was  made  in  the  duty  on  malt.  From  that  time 
our  business  began  to  decline,  and  malt  houses  began  to  spring  up  in 
Canada.  Now  malt  houses  all  over  Canada  are  exporting  malt  into  this 
country,  because  most  of  the  time  this  20  per  cent,  duty  on  malt  was 
less  than  the  duty  of  15  cents  a bushel  on  barley.  The  Canadians, 
therefore,  made  malt  at  an  advantage,  and  could  actually  send  their 
malt  into  this  country  at  less  duty  than  we  had  to  pay  on  the  raw  ma- 
terial. Of  course,  under  these  circumstances,  we  could  not  compete 
with  Canada  in  shipping  malt  to  Philadelphia,  New  York,  Baltimore, 
Washington,  and  various  Eastern  places.  One  year  I bought  Cana- 
dian malt  myself,  paying  72  cents  in  Canada  for  a bushel  of  36  pounds 
(our  bushel  being  only  34  pounds),  and  a little  over  13  cents  a bushel 
for  duty  (20  per  cent.).  So  that  I could  actually  buy  the  manufactured 
article  and  pay  less  duty  on  it  than  I had  to  pay  on  the  raw  material — 
the  barley.  I have  not  bought  malt  for  a good  many  years,  but  I have 
been  buying  Canadian  barley  every  year  since  1860. 

The  greater  number  of  years  malt  has  been  imported  into  this  coun- 
try at  less  rates  of  duty  than  we  had  to  pay  on  the  raw  material.  Con- 
sequently, the  malting  trade  of  Detroit,  so  far  as  shipping  malt  is  con- 
cerned, has  declined.  Where  we  used  to  ship  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
bushels  to  the  various  Eastern  States,  we  now  do  no  shipping  trade  of 
any  extent.  But  malt  houses  have  grown  up  all  over  Canada.  There 
is  a large  one  at  Windsor,  right  across  the  river,  a large  one  in  Chatham, 
a large  one  in  Toronto,  in  Guelph,  in  Aurora,  in  Galt,  in  Dundas,  and 
at  almost  every  prominent  point  where  there  is  a good  barley  country. 
They  ship  their  malt  into  this  country  and  j>ay  less  duty  upon  it  than 
we  pay  upon  the  raw  material.  This  is  an  anomaly  in  the  tariff  which 
ought  to  be  corrected.  Under  it  our  shipping  trade  declined  at  least 

100.000  bushels  from  1868  to  the  present  time.  Under  any  true  adjust- 
ment of  the  tariff  Detroit  could  be  manufacturing  hundreds  of  thou- 

H.  Mis.  6 54 


850 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THOMAS  D.  HAWLEY. 


sands  of  bushels  of  malt,  and  supplying  the  Easter 

barley  is  the  best  barley  that  is  raised  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

AOumfcount  of  the  coXssof  the  climate  the  Canadian  barley  is  gen- 
era%  beavTer  and  generally  brighter  in  color,  and  produces  a superior 

eTcalV“hehatteSn°ofthe  Commission  to  the  fact that  Jj^e^acase 

3SX  CyajSfK  zzsxz  >»“  to * 

trade. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : . 

Question.  Is  not  barley  raised  to  a great  extent  in  Ohio  and  hew 
York!— -Answer.  Yes;  New  York  is  the  greatest  barley-growing  State 

i*1  O^Istheie  an  y reason  why  barley  should  not  be  raised  of  as  good 
quaiity  on  the  southern  side  of  the  lakes  as  on  the  northern  side  .—A. 

a*  wit ;i i i<  the  reason! — A.  The  reason  is  a climatic  one. 

Q.  Does  not  the  region  of  country  between  Lake  Michigan  and  Lake 
Huron  and  the  northwestern  part  of  Michigan,  enjoy  the  same  cli 

mate  as  Canada  A.  To  a certain  extent  the  climate  is  similar  And 

yet  there  must  be  a difference.  Whether  they  have  more  moisture  in 
Canada  than  here,  or  whether  the  soil  is  different  I cannot  saj  y 

i tmtcS  to  think  that  there  are  differences  in  the .soil  on ^oun 
of  a greater  proportion  of  lime  in  certain  localities  of  Canada.  That  has 
something  to  do  with  the  superior  quality  of  their  barley.  , . 

Q Is  it  not  more  an  opinion  than  a fact  that  the  Canadian  ba  y 
superior  to  ours?- A.  No,  sir.  It  is  a matter  that  is  snswp table  oi  ac- 

cnrate  demonstration,  and  it  is  determined  every  another 

mnLPoo  prew  if* he  brews  one  day  malt  from  State  barley , ana  anornei 
Tv  brews  malt  from  Canadian  barley,  and  weighs  his  product  he  finds 
& unfformly  he  gets  5 per  cent,  more  malt  from  the  Canadian  barley. 

Q.  Do  you  state  that  as  a fact?— A.  1 do.  ,.f.  | 

Q.  What  is  the  malt  used  for?-A.  Ninety-nine  per  cent,  of  ff  is  used 
for  the  making  of  beer-lager  beer-and  ale,  and  all  kinds  ot  malt 

liqQ0rDo  you  recommend  that  the  duty  be  taken  off  barley,  or  increased 

on  malt!— X.  It  makes  no  difference  to  us.  We  want  the  thing  adjusted 
If  you  leave  the  15  cents  a bushel  duty  on  barley  we  wantt.e  duty  on 
malt  raised  ; or,  if  you  take  off  the  15  cuts  duty  on  barley  we  are  sat- . 
isfied  with  the  present  duty  on  malt. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : . 

Q.  How  would  it  be  if  the  duty  were  taken  off  both  ?— A.  I think  that  , 
we  here  in  Detroit  could  stand  it. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

O If  the  duty  on  malt  were  raised  to  25  cents  a bushel,  vroul  ^ 
suffice  l — A.  Yes;  if  you  gave  us  a difference  of 

tween  barley  and  malt  we  would  be  satisfied  with  that.  At  the  present 
W things  have  somewhat  altered  in  Canada  They  used  to  haveqmte 
an  advantage  of  us  in  the  price  of  labor  and  other  items.  To-day  I 
think  they  pay  the  same  wages  in  ourbusinessthatwe  pay. 

Q.  If  both  barley  and  malt  were  free,  wouid  not  that  prevent  1 
raising  of  barley  in  New  York  and  Ohio  .—A.  No,  sir,  I do  nl* 

it  would. 


mOMAS  D.  IIAWLEY.] 


MALT  AND  BARLEY. 


851 


Q.  Would  not  all  maltsters  seek  the  superior  article  of  •barley? — A. 
Yes;  but  there  are  some  lands  in  the  State  of  New  York  that  are  pecu- 
liarly adapted  for  the  raising  of  barley — that  are  better  adapted  for  bar- 
ley than  for  other  grains— and  those  lands  will  be  always  used  for  the 
raising  of  barley.  The  same  is  true  in  Canada.  In  many  cases  in  Can- 
ada they  grow  inferior  barley,  but  the  general  average  in  Canada  is 
ahead  of  our  general  average.  Wherever  we  have,  on  this  side,  supe- 
rior land  for  the  raising  of  barley,  barley  will  continue  to  be  raised 
there.  We  have  some  such  land  here  on  Lake  Michigan  and  near  Port 
Huron  where  they  raise  as  fine  barley  as  in  Canada. 

Q.  Why  not  buy  that  barley"? — A.  We  do  buy  it;  but  of  course  the 
quantity  is  limited.  They  do  not  raise  more  than  a couple  of  hundred 
thousands  of  bushels  of  barley.  In  Canada  they  raise  12,000,000  bush- 
els of  barley. 

Q.  How  many  million  bushels  of  barley  are  consumed  in  this  coun- 
try ? — A.  The  production  of  beer  and  ale  in  this  country  now  is  about 

16.000. 000  barrels,  and  the  usual  estimate  is  2J  bushels  to  a barrel. 
That  would  make  40,000,000  bushels  of  barley.  I think,  however,  that 
the  estimate  is  somewh^  high.  I do  not  think  that  more  than  36,000,000 
bushels  of  barley  are  used. 

Q.  Then  there  are  36,000,000  bushels  of  barley  consumed  every  year 
in  the  United  States  in  the  making  of  beer? -A.  Yes;  of  which  only 

1.000. 000  bushels  come  from  Canada.  But  that  1,000,000  hits  us  at  De- 
troit and  Buffalo  more  than  it  hits  malsters  at  other  places. 


852 


TARIFI  COMMISSION. 


[CLARK  CORNWELL. 


CLARK  CORNWELL. 


Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  Clark  Cornwell,  of  Ypsilanti,  Mich.,  paper  manufacturer,  made 
a statement  to  the  Commission  in  connection  with  his  business. 

He  said  that  soda  ash  was  largely  used  in  the  manufacture  of  paper; 
that  all  the  raw  materials  for  making  soda  ash  (such  as  salt,  sulphur,  coal, 
&c.)  were  found  in  Michigan,  and  that  he  had  works  in  the  city  of  Jack- 
son  where  a large  quantity  of  it  was  made.  He  found,  however,  that  he 
could  not  compete  with  the  English  market,  because  the  English  wages 
were  not  more  than  half  of  the  wages  paid  here,  and  because  the  coal 
cost  more  here  than  in  England.  In  regard  to  salt,  both  countries  were 
about  on  an  equality.  The  present  duty  on  soda  ash  was  $5  a ton.  It 
would  cost  from  half  a million  to  a million  dollars  to  create  a good,  nice 
plant  for  making  soda  ash  profitably.  He  thought  that  with  a duty  of 
ten  or  fifteen  dollars  a ton  (in  order  to  givA  a company  the  chance  to 
establish  soda  ash  works)  this  country  would  be,  in  ten  years,  inde- 
pendent of  England  for  the  supply  of  soda  ash,  because  the  machinery 
that  would  be  introduced  into  the  business  would  more  than  equalize 
the  difference  in  the  price  of  labor.  But  the  great  trouble  was  to  get 
capital  invested  in  the  business.  Salt,  sulphur,  coal,  and  all  raw  mate- 
rial were  within  easy  reach  of  the  works  in  which  he  was  interested  in 
Jackson.  The  freight  from  Liverpool  was  so  small  that  the  English 
soda  ash  could  be  brought  here  cheaper  than  it  could  be  made  here. 

As  to  the  manufacture  of  paper,  in  which  the  witness  was  also  inter- 
ested, one  drawback  to  its  being  carried  on  profitably  was  the  compara- 
tively high  price  of  labor  here  as  against  England.  Another  drawback 
was  in  the  item  of  soda  ash,  which  enters  largely  into  the  manufacture 
of  paper,  and  which  has  to  be  imported,  while  the  foreign  paper  man- 
ufacturer makes  his  own  soda  ash  on  the  spot ; and  another  drawback 
was  in  the  matter  of  patents — almost  every  piece  of  machinery  used  in 
the  business  being  patented,  and  wood  pulp  being  patented. 

Commissioner  Garland.  Do  you  propose  to  have  a patent  law  passed 
to  protect  your  interests  % This  Commission  has  nothing  to  do  with 
patents. 

The  Witness.  I am  aware  of  that.  What  we  want  to  be  protected 
against  is  foreign  manufactures.  The  patent  is  a bigger  drawback  in  most 
cases  than  the  tariff.  If  we  were  on  the  other  side  of  the  border  we 
would  have  no  such  drawbacks  as  patents.  The  royalty  on  wood  pulp 
is  810  a ton,  and  if  there  was  no  patent  upon  it  we  could  manufacture 
it  ourselves. 


6.  P.  COMFORT.] 


PHOTOGRAPHS. 


853 


G.  F.  COMFORT. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Prof.  G.  F.  Comfort,  of  Syracuse  University,  New  York,  submitted 
the  following  statement : 

I desire  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  one  inconsistency 
in  the  present  tariff  laws  with  reference  to  importations  for  the  use  of 
literary  institutions.  At  present  books  and  works  of  art  for  such  insti- 
tutions are  admitted  free  of  duty,  but  photographs  are  liable  to  a heavy 
duty.  As  photographs  of  buildings,  statuary,  paintings,  and  other  works 
of  art  are  now  largely  used  in  all  schools  of  art,  and  are  valuable  in  all 
institutions  of  learning,  I would  respectfully  suggest  that  photographs 
be  placed  on  the  free  list  when  imported  for  institutions  of  learning, 
the  same  as  books  and  works  of  art,  among  which  the  Treasury  De- 
partment at  Washington  rules  that  photographs  are  not  included. 


854 


T4RIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ DENIS  T.  BTAjN. 


DEEPS  T.  EYAE. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  September  1,  1882. 

Mr.  Denis  T.  Eyan,  of  Detroit,  made  the  following  statement: 

I am  engaged  with  my  brother  in  the  manufacture  of  knit  goods. 
We  employ  about  600  hands.  The  existing  duties  are  50  per  cent,  on 
wool,  and  35  per  cent,  on  knit  goods.  We  would  like  to  have  the  for- 
mer duty  abolished,  and  the  latter  cut  down  to  17  J per  cent.  As  it  is 
now  our  only  market  is  in  this  country.  We  cannot  send  goods  into 
Canada  at  all.  If  the  duty  on  wool  were  removed  the  article  which  we 
now  sell  at  $4  we  could  sell  at  $3,  and  we  could  then  find  a market  in 
Ontario,  Quebec,  and  Manitoba.  We  are  able  to  meet  competition  in 
the  particular  class  of  goods  that  we  make,  and  we  do  not  ask  any  pro- 
tection or  any  favor  except  to  be  allowed  to  buy  our  yarn  and  stuff  in 
the  cheapest  market.  And  we  are  willing  to  give  to  other  people  the 
same  privileges  that  we  ask  for  ourselves.  k 

The  President.  You  want  no  protection  on  your  goods  ? 

The  Witness.  We  would  like  from  15  to  17£  per  cent,  on  goods  and 
let  the  wool  come  in  free. 

The  President.  Why  should  not  the  wool-grower  have  protection 
as  well  as  you  ? 

The  Witness.  We  are  satisfied  to  let  the  goods  come  in  free  of  duty, 
if  we  can  have  the  wool  also  free. 


AQUILA  JONfiS.  I 


STEEL  AND  IRON  RAILS. 


855 


AQUILA  JONES. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  September  2, 1882. 
Mr.  Aquila  Jones,  representing  the  Indianapolis  Rolling  Mills,  ad- 
dressed the  Commission  as  follows  : 


Onr  mills  were  established  in  1857  for  making  iron  rails,  and  have 
been  running  almost  continuously  ever  since.  We  have  managed  all 
the  while  to  pay  our  debts,  and  have  made  some  money,  but  not  much. 
Up  to  the  present  time  we  have  made  only  iron  rails,  but  we  are  now 
arranging  to  make  steel  rails  from  blooms. 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 


Question.  The  present  duty  on  iron  rails  is  $15.75  a ton?— Answer 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  that  duty  be  reduced  with  safety  to  your  interests  ?— A.  It  can- 
not. E very  time  that  the  price  of  rails  drops  we  lose  money.  We  have 
not  made  money  this  year.  Sometimes  we  make  money,  and  then  again 
we  lose  it.  Last  year  we  made  money;  this  year  we  iose  money.  We 
are  arranging,  as  I said,  to  make  steel  rails  from  blooms,  but  at  present 
prices  we  could  not  do  so,  if  we  had  our  mill  ready,  and  make  money. 

Q.  What  reason  can  you  give  for  that?— A.  Prices  of  rails  are  too 
low.  Steel  rails  are  only  worth  $45  a ton,  and  we  have  to  pay  $36  for 
blooms  m New  York,  and  pay  the  freight  on  them  to  our  mills. 

Q.  What  are  iron  rails  worth?— A.  We  are  trying  to  get  $42  for 
them,  but  we  cannot  always  get  it.  We  have  had  to  sell  them  at  a loss. 

Q.  Where  is  your  market,  mainly  ?— A.  The  railroads  coming  in  here 
give  us  mainly  all  the  work  that  we  have  to  do.  We  are  making  rails 
to-day  to  go  to  Holly  Springs,  Miss. 

• 9,1  lbnX  do  the  wa£es  which  y°u  Pay  compare  with  the  wages  paid 
in  the  States  east  of  you— Pennsylvania,  for  example  ?— A.  I think  our 
wages  are  a little  higher  than  theirs.  At  any  rate,  we  have  had  no 
trouble  with  our  laborers.  Things  have  gone  on  without  a jar  in  our 
mills,  but  I think  we  are  paying  rather  more  than  we  ought  to  pay. 

We  could  not  get  our  wages  down  without  trouble. 

Q.  Ho  you  mean  to  roll  steel  rails  from  blooms,  or  to  put  up  convert- 
ers?— A.  We  have  arranged  our  building  to  put  up  converters,  but  fbr 
the  time  being  we  thought  we  would  restrict  ourselves  to  making  rails 
from  blooms. 

Q.  The  reason  of  your  not  making  money;  is  it  not  because  iron  rails 
are  not  used  any  more?— A.  There  has  not  been  much  demand  for  iron 
rails  lately,  but  the  price  that  we  have  to  pay  for  the  old  rails  is  too  hi«h 
compared  with  the  price  that  we  get  for  the  new  rails. 

Q.  You  have  been  holding  to  the  making  of  an  article  which  is  not 
wanted  Iron  rails  have  become  obsolete.— A.  There  is  a demand  for 
!ron  rails,  but  the  price  is  too  low.  There  is  hardly  a day  that  we  have 
not  offers  for  rails,  but  we  cannot  afford  to  make  them  at  the  prices 


Q.  Why  do  railroad  companies  use  iron  rails  at  $42  when  thev  can 
f n teel  8 $45  •— A-  1 do  not  know  that  I can  answer  that  question 

to  the  satisfaction  of  everybody,  but  there  are  some  railroad  men  who 

rails  ^ 0n  a n<iW  road‘bed’  the-y  would  rather  have  iron  rails  than  steel 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fAQUILA  .TONES. 


856 


Q.  Is  that  because  of  the  “give”  of  the  iron  rails  on  a road  that  is 
not  well  ballasted? — A.  Yes;  that  is  the  argument  of  some  of  our  best 
railroad  men. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  within  a few  years,  notwithstanding  that 
reason,  there  will  be  no  iron  rails  used  at  all,  and  no  demand  for  any 
but  steel  rails? — A.  I do  not  think  there  will  be  any  great  demand  for 
iron  rails.  Still  there  will  be  some  iron  rails  made. 

Q.  Then  you  would  recommend  that  there  be  no  change  in  the  rate 
of  duties  on  iron  rails  ? — A.  I do  not  see  how  the  rate  can  be  reduced, 
and  iron  rail  manufacturers  live. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recommendation  to  make  in  regard  to  steel  rails  ?— 
A.  I am  not  so  well  versed  on  that  subject. 


BOBT.  MINTON  TATI, OK. 


ENCAUSTIC  TTLES. 


857 


ROBERT  MINTON  TAYLOR. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  September  2,  1882. 

Mr.  Robert  Minton  Taylor,  superintendent  of  the  United  States 
Encaustic  Tile  Company,  was  asked  to  explain  to  the  Commission  some- 
thing about  the  manufacture  of  tiles,  and  how  long  and  in  what  capacity 
he  had  been  connected  with  it.  He  said:  My  first  association  with  the 
manufacture  of  encaustic  tiles  took  place  in  1859,  with  my  uncle,  Mr. 
Robert  Minton.  Since  then,  almost  entirely,  1 have  been  actively  em- 
ployed in  the  manufacture  of  encaustic  tiles.  In  1840  my  uncle,  Her- 
bert Minton,  conceived  the  idea  of  reviving  the  lost  art  of  making  en- 
caustic tiles,  which  had  been  so  extensively  used  in  the  Mediaeval  Ages 
in  England  for  the  decoration  of  the  floors  of  churches,  national  build- 
ings, and  private  residences,  for  the  ornamentation  of  walls,  and  for 
building  purposes  generally.  He  found  very  great  difficulty  in  the  way. 
To  begin  with,  all  clays  do  not  contract  alike.  Their  contraction  varies 
from  one-fourth  of  an  inch  to  three-fourths  of  an  inch  in  0 inches.  Gen 
erally  the  plastic  tiles  contract  three-fourths  of  an  inch  in  6 inches,  and 
the  dust  tiles  one-half  an  inch.  My  uncle  associated  with  himself  Mr. 
Welby  Pugin,  acknowledged  as  the  greatest  architect  of  the  present 
century,  not  only  in  Great  Britain  but  all  over  the  Continent  of  Europe. 
Being  a good  draughtsman,  he  undertook  to  reproduce  all  the  old  de- 
signs  of  the  Mediaeval  period,  and  for  that  purpose  he  visited  all  the 
ruins  in  England  and  elsewhere  where  he  could  find  specimens  of  an- 
cient encaustic  tiles.  The  encaustic  tile  is  of  two  clays,  one  inlaid  into 
the  other,  differing  from  the  Dutch  tile,  which  is  simply  a painted  tile 
made  of  a certain  composition  of  clay.  He  redrew  all  these  designs 
and  constructed  models  in  clay  of  these  antique  patterns.  From  these 
models  he  had  plaster  of  Paris  molds  made,  and  the  first  plastic  tiles 
were  manufactured  from  these  molds,  not  only  in  red  and  bull*,  but 
eventually  in  more  elaborate  colors.  Especially  must  1 allude  to  the 
celebrated  Jasper  wares  which  Wedgwood  himself  invented,  and  which 
my  uncle  had  the  appreciation  to  adopt  for  the  purpose  of  ornamenting 
encaustic  tiles.  After  a while  this  plastic  encaustic  tile  process  attracted 
very  great  attention,  not  only  in  England  but  in  France  and  Germany 
and  other  countries. 

After  the  plastic  process  had  been  developed  to  a great  extent,  Mr. 
Prosser,  a Birmingham  gentlemen,  introduced  himself  to  my  uncle, 
Herbert  Minton.  My  uncle  at  once  saw  the  very  great  importance  of 
Mr.  Prosser’s  process,  and  immediately  purchased  from  him  his  patent. 
The  patent  consisted  in  reducing  plastic  clay  to  an  absolutely  chalky 
consistency,  thoroughly  dry,  after  which  that  clay  was  ground  in  mills, 
like  flour.  After  the  grinding  a certain  moisture  had  to  be  imparted  to 
the  clay.  This  was  done  by  spreading  the  clay  on  plaster  of  Paris 
slabs,  these  slabs  being  slightly  dampened  with  water.  After  the  clay 
was  on  these  slabs  for  8 or  10  hours  a sufficient  moisture  would  rise 
from  the  plaster  of  Paris  slab  to  impregnate  the  clay  to  a consistency 
sufficient  to  make  it  adhere  properly,  when  the  pattern  came  on  it  in 
the  process  which  was  made  specially  for  the  compressment  of  these 
tiles.  The  pressure  varies  from  25  to  450  tons,  according  to  the  size  of 
the  tile.  The  principle  of  this  patent  being  once  established,  it  became 
easy  for  the  potter  who  knew  how  to  manipulate  various  kinds  of  clay 
to  produce  all  geometrical  forms.  This  invention  of  Prosser’s  was  only 


858 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| noBT.  Minton  tayloR 


practicable  in  the  production  of  geometrical  forms.  The  natural  colors 
previously  were  red,  buff,  and  white.  In  order  to  produce  all  other 
colors  the  introduction  of  metallic  oxides  was  necessary.  All  colors 
except  the  natural  colors  were  produced  by  metallic  oxides.  Later  on, 
Mr.  William  Boulton  conceived  the  idea  not  only  of  making  plain  tiles 
(tiles  of  one  color)  from  steel  or  brass  molds,  but  he  thought  it  possible 
to  make  encaustic  or  inlaid  tiles  in  one  or  in  many  colors.  He  thought 
it  possible  to  make  inlaid  tiles  from  pulverized  clay.  After  some  con- 
siderable experiments,  he  introduced  a patent  (now  well  known  in  Eng- 
land) called  Houlton’s  patent,  whereby  these  tiles  [showing  a specimen] 
can  be  produced  from  pulverized  clay,  just  as  well  as  they  can  be  pro- 
duced by  the  plastic  process  which  had  been  originally  adopted  and 
used  by  Herbert  Minton. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  Have  you  as  good  clays  in  this  section  of  country  to  make 
tiles  as  they  have  in  England? — Answer.  We  have  all  the  clays  in  In- 
diana that  are  required  to  make  a complete  tile;  all  of  them  equal,  and 
many  of  them  superior,  to  those  found  in  England,  especially  the  red 
clay,  which  is  better  than  what  we  eall  the  marl  in  England. 

Q.  Have  you  skilled  labor  here,  or  have  you  to  instruct  your  work- 
ers?— A.  We  have  instructed  them  as  far  as  we  possibly  can.  But 
for  the  plastic  process  it  was  necessary  to  have  men  who  served  an  ap- 
prenticeship to  the  business.  There  skilled  labor  comes  in  as  a neces- 
sity. It  is,  in  all  the  processes,  necessary  to  have  very  careful  labor, 
and  in  some  places  it  is  necessary  to  have  skilled  labor. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  price  of  labor  in  your  line  between 
England  and  this  country? — A.  I should  say  that  our  wages  average 
between  50  and  75  per  cent,  more  than  the  English  wages. 

Q.  Then  you  want  to  be  protected  to  the  extent  of  the  difference  be- 
tween the  foreign  and  the  American  wages? — A.  Yes;  not  only  to  that 
extent,  but  also  to  the  extent  of  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  the  raw 
material.  Although  the  raw  material  may  be  considered  very  cheap 
here,  it  is  nearly  double  the  price  of  the  English  rawr  material. 

Q.  That  is  simply  because  the  raw  material  represents  the  labor  of 
mining  it  and  bringing  it  to  market? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  You  are  prepared  to  make  as  good  work  as  is  made  abroad;  I 
mean,  that  you  have  the  materials? — A.  We  have  the  materials.  There 
are  some  materials,  such  as  cobalt  and  things  of  that  kind,  which  we 
have  to  get  abroad.  Our  clays  produce  a homogeneous  mass  of  hard- 
ness that  is  naturally  superior  to  that  produced  by  the  clays  in  Eng- 
land. Our  clays  have  a greater  freedom  from  iron,  which  is  very  preju- 
dicial to  the  clear  surface  of  the  tile.  There  is  a spottiness  and  specki- 
ness  observed  in  the  buff  forms  of  English  tiles,  which  are  not  found 
in  our  American  buff  clay. 

Q.  What  are  you  prepared  to  recommend  in  the  way  of  duty  ? — A.  I 
would  rather  leave  that  to  the  secretary  of  the  company.  The  duty  is 
now  35  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  work  on  tiles  is  hand  labor,  and  what 
proportion  machine  labor?  1 understand  that  the  clay  is  taken  out  of 
ground  by  hand  labor. — A.  Yes ; it  is  mined  by  hand  labor,  and  is  taken 
to  the  factory  by  railroad  cars.  It  is  blended,  washed,  and  mixed  with 
other  materials,  and  is  strained.  Then  it  is  dried — partially  dried  for 
the  plastic  process,  and  entirely  dried  for  the  dust  process. 


ROBT.  MINTON  TAYLOR. } 


ENCAUSTIC  TILES. 


859 


Q.  Is  that  drying  done  by  hand  work  or  by  machinery? A.  The 

matter  is  pumped  up,  by  machinery,  to  vats  that  are  heated  by  steam. 

Q.  What  next?— A.  Then  it  is  ground  in  the  mill.  That  is  done  bv 
machinery.  ,r 

Q.  What  next?— A.  In  one  process  all  the  drying  is  done  by  h ami 
labor  Then  it  is  sent  to  the  press;  it  being  either  carried  down  or 
sent  down  m chutes. 

Q.  These  dies  are  filled  by  hand?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  is  the  pressure  applied?— A.  In  the  one  case  by  steam- 
power,  and  in  the  other  case  by  hand-power. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  spoke  of  an  encaustic  tile  and  of  the  Boulton  process  Is 
that  where  depressions  are  filled  with  clay?— A.  Yes:  the  interstices 
in  the  plates  are  filled  up  with  various  colored  clays  and  put  into  the 
body  of  the  tile. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  I come  back  no  w to  my  former  question  : What  proportion  of  all 
the  labor  is  machine  labor,  and  what  proportion  is  hand  labor,  from  the 
e clay  reaches  the  factory  until  the  time  the  goods  are  deliv- 
ered".— A.  About  one-fourth  is  machine  labor,  and  three- fourths  hand 
labor. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Are  your  designs  original  ? — A.  The  majority  of  our  designs  are 
original.  We  never  copy  any  designs  except  on  the  order  of  a chs 
tomer. 

Q.  Have  you  adopted  any  American  plant-form  designs  ? A.  We 

have  adopted  some  of  the  flower  forms,  and  it  is  our  purpose  to  adopt 
some  of  the  leaf  fprms,  too. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  What  is  the  amount  of  pressure  brought  to  bear  on  one  of  these 
encaustic  tiles?— A.  About  14,000  pounds  to  the  square  inch  It  is 
steam  pressure. 

Q.  Are  you  working  under  this  Boulton  process? A Yes  The 

patent  was  registered  here  as  well  as  in  England. 

Q.  Have  you  an  American  patent? — A.  \Ye  have  one  for  plain  tiles. 
By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  The  tiles  for  which  the  government  paid  $1.25  per  square  foot  some 
years  ago,  m the  Federal  building  here,  you  are  prepared  to  furnish 
now  at  45  cents.— A.  Yes. 

Q.  So  that  the  effect  of  your  factory  has  been  to  reduce  the  price  on 
imported  encaustic  tiles? — A.  Very  materially. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  if  the  American  tile  industry  is  destroyed 
the  price  of  tiles  will  be  again  increased  ?— A.  I certainly  think  so.*  ’ 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  What  quantity  of  tiles  can  you  turn  out  of  your  establishment  .in 
a month? — A.  Forty  thousand  square  feet. 

Q.  You  say  you  have  to  pay  twice  as  much  for  your  raw  material  on 
the  ground  as  is  paid  on  the  other  side?— A.  Yes.* 

9*  Would  you  recommend  the  duty  to  betaken  off'  the  English  clay? 
—A.  No.  V e could  not  use  the  English  clay.  The  freight  by  sea  and 
railroad  would  put  our  use  of  it  out  of  the  question  entirely. 

, Q.  Are  there  many  deposits  of  such  clays  in  various  parts  of  the 


860 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[robt.  Minton  taylor. 


United  States  ? — A.  I am  not  aware  o £ any  except  in  this  State  and 
Ohio. 

Q.  You  have  given  us  an  illustration  of  how,  by  yoar  own  competi- 
tion you  have  reduced  the  price  of  tiles ; why  cannot  the  price  of  the 
clays  be  reduced  in  the  same  way  ? — A.  My  experience  is  that  the  Ohio 
(days  cost  us  about  the  same  rate  as  the  Indiana  clays.  Some  of  the 
clays  we  get  from  Delaware. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  is  its  average  cost  per  ton,  delivered  at  your  works? — A. 
From  $2.75  to  $3  ; that  is,  with  all  the  foreign  matter  in  it. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Suppose  that  all  tiles  were  put  at  an  average  rate  of  25  per  cent, 
ad  valorem,  what  would  be  the  effect  on  your  industry  ? That  would 
be  increasing  the  present  rate  on  plain  tiles  and  reducing  it  on  encaus- 
tic tiles. — A.  I am  not  now  prepared  to  answer  the  question,  but  will 
furnish  an  answer  in  one  of  the  printed  forms. 

Mr.  W.  WT.  Lyon,  secretary  of  the  United  States  Encaustic  Tile  Com- 
pany, stated  that  the  tile  manufacturers  were  satisfied  with  the  duty  as 
it  now  stands,  but  would  rather  have  it  increased  than  decreased.  They 
could  not  sustain  themselves  if  the  duty  were  removed.  They  had  to 
pay  more  for  their  material,  and  they  had  to  pay  duty  on  some  things 
which  they  imported.  They  imported  cobalt,  Cornish  stone,  manganese, 
borax,  feldspar,  and  oxides  of  tin.  These  things  were  not  produced  here. 
Some  of  them  were  free  of  duty,  but  the  Cornish  stone  paid  10  per  cent., 
and  20  per  cent,  if  powdered.  Oxide  of  tin  represented  about  7 per  cent, 
in  the  cost  of  some  tiles,  and  was  not  used  in  others. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  If  the  duty  is  retained  at  35  per  cent.,  you  can  compete  suc- 
cessfully?— Answer.  Yes;  we  are  satisfied  with  the  duty  as  it  now  stands. 

Q.  Have  you  any  suggestions  to  make  as  to  the  mode  of  collecting 
the  duty,  whether  it  should  be  specific  or  ad  valorem? — A.  The  present 
duty  is  one  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  plain  tiles,  and  35  per  cent, 
on  encaustic  tiles  and  on  all  enameled  and  glazed  tiles. 


A.  C.  HARRIS.] 


ENCAUSTIC  TILES. 


861 


A.  C.  BARKIS. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  September  2,  1882. 

Mr.  A.  C.  Harris,  representing  the  United  States  Encaustic  Tile 
Company  of  Indianapolis,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

The  United  States  Encaustic  Tile  Company,  of  this  city,  desires  to 
lay  before  the  commission  some  facts  connected  with  their  industry.  At 
the  Centennial  Exposition  at  Philadelphia,  in  1876,  no  American  tile 
were  on  exhibition.  Indeed,  prior  to  that  time,  no  one  had  sought  to 
manufacture  encaustic  tile  in  America,  at  least,  to  any  extent.  This 
company  was  formed  in  1877.  It  had  come  to  be  known  that  in  portions 
of  this  State  very  superior  qualities  of  clays  and  kaolin  might  be  had, 
excellently  suited  for  this  branch  of  manufacture.  Some  of  our  citi- 
zens determined  to  make  the  experiment  of  utilizing  these  clays  in  the 
manufacture  of  tiles.  To  this  qnd  the  company  was  formed.  The  next 
year  was  spent  in  preparation,  in  building  machinery  and  preparing  for 
the  experiment,  for  it  was  purely  an  experiment.  Four  years  of  labor 
and  toil  have  demonstrated  that  the  purpose  and  expectation  have  not 
been  fruitless.  It  has  been  demonstrated  that  American  artisans,  with 
American  machinery,  can  make  out  of  our  home  clays  as  durable  and 
as  beautiful  tiles  as  any  in  the  world.  The  specimens  of  encaustic  tile 
which  the  company  now  lay  before  you,  I am  warranted  in  saying, 
upon  the  authority  of  those  who  are  competent  to  judge,  are  not  inferior 
in  design,  in  workmanship,  in  durability,  and  in  all  that  goes  to  make 
tiling  desirable,  to  the  best  of  English  manufacture.  The  growth  of 
this  company  is  an  earnest  of  its  future,  if  permitted  to  continue  as  a 
home  industry. 

The  company  has  a large  capital  invested  in  plant.  Beginning  w th 
some  40  employes,  it  now  has  150  men  and  women  on  its  pay-rolls,  with 
a capacity  to  manufacture  40,000  square  feet  of  tiling  per  month.  Up 
to  this  time  it  has  not,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  yielded  material 
dividends  upon  the  capital  employed.  Indeed,  it  could  not  be  expected 
of  hardly  any  new  enterprise  like  this.  It  is  a pioneer  in  this  art  in 
America.  There  are  but  three  other  manufactories  in  the  United  States — 
one  at  Zanesville,  Ohio,  one  at  Pittsburgh,  which  has  not  yet  fully  estab- 
lished itself,  and  another  at  Chelsea,  Mass.  This  company  is  now  not 
only  the  largest  manufactory  of  this  class  in  our  country,  but  in  capacity 
is  excelled  by  but  few  in  Europe. 

I shall  not  attempt  to  narrate  the  history  of  this  art.  Indeed,  tiles 
are  older  than  history.  They  are  found  to-day  in  the  old  abbeys  in 
England,  in  the  Alhambra,  in  the  ruined  temples  of  Rome  and  Greece, 
in  Egypt,  Persia,  and  India.  Antiquarians  tell  us  that  tiles  were  made 
in  China  2,000  years  before  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  The 
power  of  the  potter  over  his  clay  has  furnished  a proverb  for  the  lan- 
guage of  every  cultivated  people.  This  art  was  brought  to  great  per- 
fection during  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  in  England,  and 
used  in  ornamenting  the  abbeys  and  cathedrals.  Upon  the  rise  of  Puri- 
tanism, owing  to  the  figures  and  designs  impressed  upon  the  tiles,  their 
use  was  prohibited,  and  many  floors  and  walls  covered  or  destroyed. 
Indeed,  for  several  centuries  the  ornamentation  of  tiles  was  regarded  as 
a lost  art.  Some  forty  years  ago  an  Englishman,  Robert  Prosser,  dis- 


862 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A.  C.  HARRIS. 


covered  that  if  dry  clay  was  pulverized  and  reduced  to  the  consistency 
of  flour  and  subjected  to  great  pressure  in  molds  or  dies,  a more  perfect 
piece  of  pottery  coidd  be  made  than  by  the  old  process  of  using  wet 
clay.  Not  only  were  the  tiles  more  perfect  in  shape,  but  shrunk  less  in 
burning,  and  lienee  were  of  more  uniformity,  and  could  be  laid  with 
greater  precision  and  nicety.  This  at  once  gave  an  impetus  to  the  reviv- 
ing art,  and  Mr.  Minton  and  others  engaged  in  the  business  of  manu 
factoring  tiling  for  domestic  uses.  Some  fifteen  years  later  Boulton  and 
others  discovered  that  the  various  colored  clays  could  be  combined  by 
the  use  of  brass  plates  cut  in  figures,  and  thus  build  up  the  tile  as  a 
homogeneous  mass.  Before  this  time  ornamental  tiles  wrere  made  by 
painting  and  glazing,  or  by  filling  depressions  or  incisions  made  upon 
the  body  of  the  tile  with  colored  clays. 

Mr.  Harris  here,  by  the  use  of  the  ornamental  tile  present,  explained 
with  particularity  this  new  process.  He  then  said  that  some  years 
ago  Mr.  Hall,  an  American  inventor,  made  certain  improvements  in 
steam  power  by  which  steam  power  was  applied  to  the  dry  clay,  whereby 
the  dirt  was  subjected  to  an  enormous  pressure,  and  with  great  rapidity. 
This  company  began  the  present  enterprise  by  using  these  machines. 
They  also  use  hand-presses  for  some  classes  of  the  finer  work. 

1 now  desire  to  call  attention  more  particularly  to  the  point  of  special 
interest  to  the  proprietors  of  this  new  industry. 

It  is  evident  at  once  that  labor  is  the  chief  ingredient  in  the  manu- 
facture of  tiles.  Olay  is  cheap.  Dirt  is  the  symbol  of  cheapness.  The 
Avhole  process  of  manufacture  is  adding  value  to  an  almost  valueless 
material  by  changing  its  form  by  labor.  The  clay  is  dug,  carried  to  the 
factory,  washed,  dried,  ground,  sifted,  pressed,  ornamented,  burnt.  All 
this  is  accomplished  only  by  labor,  much  of  which  can  only  be  done  by 
experienced  workmen,  and  some  branches  call  for  the  highest  degree 
of  shilled  labor.  This  experience,  skill,  and  ability  calls  for  and  should 
be  rewarded  by  remunerative  wages.  Americans  do  not  expect  that 
our  laborers  and  artisans  shall  receive  no  better  wages  than  those  of 
the  same  class  in  the  tile-factories  in  England.  This  company  has  some 
Englishmen  in  its  service,  upon  whose  authority  I state  that  the  prices 
here  paid  are  from  50  to  100  per  cent,  higher  than  at  the  British  factories. 
Indeed,  competent  men  and  women  could  not  be  procured  here  at  the 
low  wages  paid  them.  In  order,  therefore,  to  encourage  and  promote 
this  industry,  now  giving  such  promise,  the  proprietors  rightly  feel  that 
the  government  should  aflord  them  such  protection  as  will  enable  them 
to  manufacture  and  provide  American  tile  for  the  American  people. 
The  success  already  earned  insures  greater  success.  These  tiles  have 
been  subjected  to  rigid  tests  by  competent  persons,  and  in  strength, 
hardness,  and  all  that  goes  to  make  a tile  desirable,  have  been  found  to 
be  equal  in  every  respect  to  English  tile.  Indeed,  I am  informed  that 
they  are  superior  in  strength,  bearing  20  per  cent,  more  pressure  under 
a hydraulic  press.  They  have  been  commended  by  many  builders  and 
architects,  and  are  in  use,  as  you  may  see  in  this  hotel  (Bates  House), 
in  the  Federal  buildings  at  Bo#k  Island  and  Harrisburg,  the  marine  hos- 
pital in  Detroit,  the  opera  house  in  Denver,  the  cotton  exchange  at  New 
Orleans,  and  many  other  public  buildings,  and  in  many  private  dwell- 
ings throughout  the  country.  I hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  Americans  to 
develop  our  country,  to  provide  labor  for  those  of  our  citizens  who  must 
earn  a livelihood  by  toil,  and  to  furnish  home  wares  for  home  use  when 
practicable. 

As  an  instance  of  the  effect  of  tile-making  in  America,  lam  informed 
by  the  jiromoters  of  this  industry,  and  therefore  state  it  on  their  author- 


A C.  HARRIS.] 


ENCAUSTIC  TILES. 


863 


ity,  that  some  years  since  the  government  paid  $1.25  per  square  foot 
for  imported  English  tiles  used  in  the  Federal  building  in  this  city,  and 
that  this  company  can  now  furnish  tiling  similar  in  every  respect  at  40 
cents.  At  that  time  the  price  of  tiles  in  America  was  regulated  by  a 
combination  of  British  manufacturers  and  our  importers.  The  produc- 
tion of  tiles  in  America  has  greatly  reduced  the  price. 

There  is  one  other  thought  I wish  to  present.  Encaustic  tiles  are 
coming  into  very  general  use  in  this  country;  they  are  found  in  floors, 
mantles,  in  grates,  upon  stoves,  on  interior  and  exterior  walls;  they 
combine  utility  and  ornamentation;  they  are  durable,  cleanly,  beautiful ; 
they  are  used  in  hospitals  for  floors,  and  for  lining  the  walls  and  ceil- 
ings, that  disease  may  find  no  lodgment;  their  use  indicates  and  pro- 
motes cleanliness  and  culture.  Wherever  found  in  present  use,  or  in 
the  ruins  of  the  past,  they  mark  a rise  in  civilization.  A French  lady 
once  spoke  of  symmetrical  architecture  as  frozen  music.  Using  the 
same  line  of  illustration,  it  might  be  said  that  ornamented  or  encaustic 
tiles  are  petrified  beauty. 

This  art  is  believed  to  be  worthy  of  encouragement.  The  proprietors 
themselves  will  explain  to  the  commission  what  rate  of  customs  dues  they 
think  necessary  to  secure  this  end.  Mr.  Bobert  Minton  Taylor,  a rela- 
tive of  Herbert  Minton,  who  brought  the  art  to  such  perfection  in  Eng- 
land, and  one  of  the  proprietors  of  the  tile- works  in  this  city,  is  present, 
and  I beg  to  present  him  to  you,  that  he  may  explain  with  greater  in- 
telligence and  accuracy  the  method  of  manufacture,  and  the  qualities  of 
their  production. 


864. 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[M.  TEMPEST. 


M.  TEMPEST. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  4,  1882. 

Mr.  M.  TE3IPEST,  of  tlie  Tempest,  Brockmann  & Sampsoii  Pottery 
Company,  of  Cincinnati,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  was  in- 
terrogated as  follows : 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  get  the  clay  that  you  use  in  your  establish- 
ment ? — Answer.  In  Delaware  County,  Pennsylvania,  inl^ew  Jersey,  and 
also  a considerable  amount  from  Missouri  and  Indiana.  There  has  been  a 
new  discovery  made  of  clay  in  Laurens  County,  Indiana.  There  is  only 
a certain  quantity  of  this  clay  in  Laurens  County  that  can  be  used, 
however,  in  making  pottery.  Then  there  is  another  clay  from  Missouri 
which  we  use,  and  we  also  get  some  flint  from  Missouri.  But  china 
clay  and  feldspar  we  get  from  Hardcastle,  Delaware  County,  Pennsyl- 
vania. That  clay  costs  us  815  a ton  there,  and  the  freight  is  about  87 
a ton,  while  the  same  grade  of  clay  in  England  ranges  from  18  to  22 
shillings  a ton.  So  that  you  see  we  pay  about  as  many  dollars  a ton 
for  our  clay  as  they  pay  shillings  for  the  same  clay  in  England. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  on  your  industry  if  clay  or  kaolin  should 
be  put  on  the  free  list? — A.  It  would  stop  at  once  the  development  of 
our  material  in  this  country,  and  1 think  it  would  be  very  unjust  towards 
that  industry.  We  could  import  clay  to-day  cheaper  than  we  can  buy 
it  here,  if  we  desired. 

Q.  Do  you  say  you  can  get  clay  in  England  for  as  many  shillings 
as  you  pay  dollars  per  ton  for  it  here? — A.  Yes,  sir;  about  that.  I say 
we  could  import  clay  cheaper  from  England  than  we  can  get  it  here; 
but  at  the  same  time,  if  we  did  so,  we  should  throw  ourselves  entirely 
into  the  hands  of  the  foreigner  and  stop  the  development  of  our  own 
material  here,  which  is  a thing  we  do  not  want  to  do.  The  clay  is 
lying  in  this  country  in  almost  inexhaustible  quantities — millions  of 
tons — but  it  has  got  to  be  developed,  and  we  are  anxious  of  course  to 
have  it  developed,  and  are  willing  to  pay  more  for  the  time  being  so 
that  the  American  production  of  clay  may  be  encouraged.  The  fact  is, 
the  cost  is  all  in  the  labor  and  transportation.  If  it  was  put  on  the  free 
list,  the  effect  would  be  to  close  all  the  mines  here,  and  it  would  stop 
the  manufacture  of  our  goods,  because  we  could  not  get  the  material  to 
manufacture  with. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  quality  of  English  and  American 
clay  ? — A.  We  contend  that  the  quality  of  the  clay  in  this  country  is 
equal  to  that  used  in  the  manufacture  of  English  goods.  About  two 
years  ago  there  was  a strike  in  England,  and  a gentleman  who  was  here 
on  a visit  took  some  of  our  0.  0.  and  white  granite  goods  over  there 
and  exhibited  them  to  the  board  of  arbitration,  and  it  was  admitted  that 
the  goods  he  exhibited  were  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  the  general  run 
of  goods  made  in  Staffordshire ; and  it  proved  to  them  that  what  had 
been  said  about  the  American  manufacturers  not  being  able  to  make 
these  goods  was  not  true. 

Q.  Then  it  is  a fact  that  the  white  ware  made  in  this  country  is  better 
than  that  made  in  England? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  better  in  color.  The 


M.  TEMPEST.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


865 


tint  of  the  goods  made  in  this  country  is  better  than  the  general  run  of 
English  white  ware.  The  general  ran  of  the  English  goods  have  more 
of  a green  tinge,  while  ours  is  a pure  white.  As  a rule,  however,  these 
fine  white  goods  are  more  liable  to  craze  than  those  made  of  clay  worked 
in  the  green  stage.  With  respect  to  crazing,  I desire  to  say  a word 
right  here.  There  used  to  be  some  difficulty  in  that  respect,  but  it  has 
about  passed  away.  I have  not  allowed  $5  in  five  years  for  crazage,  and 
there  never  was  as  much  of  it  in  American  goods  as  is  generally  believed. 
The  jobber  used  to  raise  the  hue  and  cry  that  the  goods  became  crazed, 
when  the  facts  did  not  warrant  such  assertions,  except  to  a small  extent. 
There  is  no  potter  living  who  does  not  make  crazed  ware,  more  or  less; 
that  cannot  be  helped.  Some  of  the  best  makers  in  England  have  been 
making  a great  deal  of  crazed  ware. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Objection  has  been  made  to  American  ware  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  too  thick  and  clumsy;  what  have  you  to  say  about  that0? — A.  It  is 
made  so  for  the  reason  that  the  dealers  won’t  buy  it  unless  it  is  made 
thick  and  heavy ; and  when  we  try  to  comply  with  that  demand,  then 
they  raise  the  cry  that  it  is  too  thick  and  heavy.  We  had  rather  make 
it  lighter  and  save  our  material. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  investigate  the  matter  so  that  you  can  state  defi- 
nitely to  the  commission  to  what  extent  geographical  location  protects 
your  industry  ? — A.  It  affords  us  very  little  protection.  At  present 
freights  from  Liverpool  to  .New  York  are  about  six  shillings  a ton,  and 
we  can  ship  from  here  to  Madison  for  less  than  10  cents  a hundred. 

Q.  Is  freight  the  only  consideration  in  that  matter? — A.  It  is  the 
principal  item ; there  is  not  much  expense  outside  of  that. 

Q.  How  about  the  cost  of  the  tracking? — A.  The  goods  are  packed  in 
crates,  but  the  crates  are  afterwards  sold  at  very  nearly  their  cost. 

Q.  Is  there  not  an  increased  likelihood  of  breakage  on  foreign  goods; 
that  is  to  say,  the  breakage  on  the  railways  in  England,  and  then  on 
the  steamer,  as  well  as  that  caused  by  reshipment  here  ? Of  course  you 
unpack  the  goods  after  they  get  here. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Isn’t  that  likely  to  increase  the  breakage  and  make  it  work  in  your 
favor?— A.  In  regard  to  that  I can  give  you  their  own  statements. 
When  they  come  to  buy  goods  from  us  we  offer  as  an  inducement  to 
deliver  our  goods  to  their  houses  free  of  breakage.  But  they  say  there 
is  hardly  anything  in  the  way  of  breakage  on  the  foreign  goods;  audit 
is  astonishing  what  a little  amount  of  breakage  there  is  in  crockery 
when  properly  packed. 

Q.  You  would  not  consider  that  then  an  important  item  ? — A.  No,  sir. 
We  have  shipped  goods  to  California  in  large  quantities  this  spring, 
and  we  have  had  word  sent  back  to  us  that  there  has  hot  been  a single 
piece  broken  in  a whole  package.  As  a rule  there  is  very  little  broken. 
Of  course  when  they  throw  a crate  out  of  the  car,  if  it  happens  to  catch 
on  one  corner,  and  it  is  hollow  ware,  it  will  break,  but  if  handled  prop- 
erly there  is  very  little  breakage. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  How  loDg  has  your  establishment  been  in  operation  ? — A.  I have 
been  making  white  ware  in  Cincinnati  about  eighteen  years, 

Q.  What  number  of  hands  do  you  employ  at  present? — A.  From  95 
to  100,  taking  the  men,  women,  and  children. 

Q.  Do  you  employ  women  and  girls  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

H.  Mis.  6 55 


866 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[M.  TEMPEST. 


Q.  They  are  mostly  engaged,  I suppose,  in  decorative  work? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  How  many  females  do  you  employ? — A.  About  18. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  an  opportunity  to  compare  the  rate  of  wages 
you  pay  your  hands  and  the  rate  paid  those  engaged  in  the  same  work 
in  English  potteries? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  average  difference  in  the  rate  of  wages? — A.  It  is 
fully  100  per  cent.  I have  with  me  a statement  which  gives  the  prices 
paid  in  potteries  in  England  and  America,  and  with  the  permission  of 
tne  Commission  I will  make  it  a part  of  my  statement.  I can  certify 
that  as  far  as  the  wages  given  in  this  country  are  concerned,  these 
figures  are  correct. 


Comparison  of  wages  paid  in  the  potteries  in  England  and  America. 

S 

pThe  English  prices  given  are  those  paid  November,  1880,  and  in  force  after  that  time  witha  deduction 
of  8 per  cent,  from  these  prices.  The  American  prices  are  from  the  established  printed  work  list- 
All  the  American  work  is  paid  for  “good  from  hand”  when  made,  the  loss  in  it  going  through  the 
kilns  falling  on  the  manufacturer.  The  English  is  paid  for  “good  from  kilns,”  the  workmen  suffer- 
ing the  losses  sustained  while  going  through  the  kilns.  All  other  lines,  as  C.  C.  ware  and  china 
compare  in  same  proportions  as  white  granite.] 


FOE  20  POTTEE’S  DOZEN  OF  36  TO  DOZEN. 


Ice  creams 

3 

s. 

4 

d. 

9 

s. 

10 

d. 

1 

112 

Do 

3* 

4 

4 

9 

10 

1 

112 

Do 

4 

9 

10 

1 

112 

Do 

5 

4 

9 

12 

7 

165 

Cups .... 

teas. 

6 

6 

10 

n 

9 

64 

Do *. 

coffee. 

6 

6 

13 

90 

Saucers 

teas. 

6 • 

9 

11 

10 

85 

Do 

coffee. 

7 

3 

14 

0 

84 

Mugs,  36  t.o  dozen 

36’s 

6 

6 

15 

0 

107 

“ 30  “ 

30’s 

7 

3 

16 

8 

130 

“ 24  “ 

24’s 

7 

3 

17 

6 

140 

Bowls,  36  “ 

36’s 

6 

6 

15 

2 

133 

“ 30  “ 

30’s 

6 

6 

16 

10 

158 

“ 24  “ 

24’s 

6 

6 

17 

8 

172 

PEE  DOZEN  (12  PIECES). 


Scalloped  nappies 

3 in. 

d. 

3 

d. 

83 

Do 

4 in. 

3 

6 

100 

Do 

5 in. 

4 

6 k 

7 

62 

Do 

6 in. 

5 

40 

Do 

7 in. 

5 

8 

60 

Do 

8 in. 

7 

9 

28 

M.  TEMPEST.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


367 


PER  DOZEN  (12  PIECES. ) 


Articles. 

Sizes. 

English  price. 

American  price.  , 

Percent,  of  Amer- 
ican over  EDg- 
! lish. 

s.  d. 

s.  d. 

Scalloped  nappies 

9 in. 

0 8 

0 10 

25 

10  in. 

0 8 

1 0 

50 

3 in. 

0 4 

0 5 

25 

Do 

4 in. 

0 4 

0 5§ 

37 

Do 

5 in. 

0 6 

0 06 

Do 

6 in. 

0 6 

0 Oi 

8 

Do 

7 in. 

0 6 

0 7 

16 

Do 

8 in. 

0 6 

0 8 

331 

Do 

9 in. 

0 7 

0 9 

28 

Do 

10  in. 

0 7 

0 10 

42 

Do 

11  in. 

0 7 

0 11 

57 

Do 

12  in. 

0 7 

1 0 

71 

3 in. 

0 4 

0 5 

25 

Do 

4 in. 

0 4 

0 5£ 

37 

Do 

5 in. 

0 6 

0 6 

Do 

6 in. 

0 6 

0 6| 

8 

Do 

7 in. 

0 6 

0 7 i 

16 

Do 

8 in. 

0 6 

0 8 

33 

Do 

9 in. 

0 7 

0 9 

28 

Do 

10  in. 

0 7 

0 10 

42 

Do 

11  in. 

0 7 

0 11 

57 

Do 

12  in. 

0 7 

1 0 

71 

Do 

14  in. 

0 10 

1 4 

60 

Do 

16  in. 

1 4 

1 8 

25 

Cake  plates 

0 8 

2 6 

275 

Sauce  tureens 

3 0 

4 2 

40 

Soup  tureens,  each 

9 in. 

0 8 

1 0 

50 

Do 

10  in. 

0 9 

1 li 

50 

Creams 

30’s 

1 2 

1 9 

50 

Do 

24’s 

1 3 

1 10* 

50 

Sugars 

30’s 

1 10 

2 8$ 

47 

Do 

24’s 

2 0 

2 11 

37 

Ten,  pots  _ 

24’s 

3 0 

4 2 

39 

Do 

18’s 

3 3 

5 1 

50 

Sauce  boats 

1 3 

1 9 

38 

Stands 

1 0 

1 6 

50 

Pickles  . 

1 0 

1 3 

25 

Ewers .. 

9’s 

2 9 

3 9 

36 

Do 

6’s 

3 0 

4 2 

38 

Basins 

9’s 

1 1 

1 8 

54 

Do 

6’s 

1 4 

1 10i 

40 

Covered  chambers 

6’s 

2 3 

3 lli 

76 

Do 

6’s 

2 3 

4 4* 

94 

Covered  soaps . 

2 0 

2 

27 

Brush  vases 

1 6 

2 1 

39 

36’s 

1 1 

1 6 

39 

Do 

30’s 

1 2 

1 9 

50 

Do 

24’8 

1 4 

1 ioi 

40 

Do 

12s 

1 8 

2 3| 

37 

Do  

6’s 

2 2 

2 11 

34 

Do 

4’s 

2 5 

3 7 

49 

Cover  dishes 

6 in. 

2 9 

4 2 

51 

Do : 

7 in. 

3 0 

4 7 

53 

Do 

8 in. 

3 3 

5 1 

54 

Do 

9 in. 

3 6 

5 3 

50 

Do 

10  in. 

3 9 

6 4 

64 

Cover  dishes,  round 

7 in. 

2 4 

4 4i 

87 

Do 

8 in. 

2 7 

4 10 

87 

Do 

9 in. 

2 10 

5 5 

94 

Do 

10  in. 

3 3 

6 0 

82 

HANDLING  (PER  SCORE  DOZEN). 


Count  20  dozen  of  35,  30,  and  24. 


Mugs. 

Cups 


s. 

s. 

d. 

36’8,30’s, 

24’s 

} 5 

12 

6 

150 

36’s 

3 

10 

0 

233 

868 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[M.  TEMPEST. 


TURNING  COUNT  AS  ABOVE. 


s. 

d. 

8. 

d. 

Mold  making  per  week 

40 

0 

80 

0 

100 

Kiln  men,  biscuit,  per  bung 

7i 

0 

o 

18| 

147 

Kiln  men,  gloss,  per  week 

30 

o 

50 

0 

66 

Dippers,  do.  

42 

o 

62 

6 

49 

Eireman,  good,  do.  

40 

o 

69 

0 

72 

Eireman  extra,  do.  

50 

o 

83 

4 

66 

Old  men,  per  week 

18 

0 

50 

0 

177 

Warehouse  women,  per  week 

10 

0 

25 

0 

150 

Warehouse  girls,  do.  

7 

0 

18 

9 

167 

Packers,  do.  ... 

30 

0 

62 

6 

108 

Gilders  and  painters,  do 

34 

0 

83 

4 

145 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  do  you  know  the  fact  in  regard  to  wages  paid  in  England? — 
A.  We  have  reports  all  the  time  from  potteries  there,  and  lists  of  prices 
paid  are  published  in  the  reports  of  the  board  of  arbitration.  These 
figures  1 have  taken  from  their  reports. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Did  you  exhibit  any  of  your  ware  at  the  Centennial  Exposition  ? — 
A.  I did  not  myself.  I have  exhibited  our  ware  in  the  Cincinnati  Ex- 
position every  year  until  the  present  time;  I have  not  this  year.  I have 
some  samples  here  which  I will  exhibit  to  the  Commission  at  the  con- 
clusion of  my  statement. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  What  class  of  pottery  is  it  that  you  make — that  for  general  con- 
sumption?— A.  Yes,  sir;  tableware,  teaware,  and  toiletware. 

Q.  Is  your  graniteware  the  same  as  the  old  English  queens  ware? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  but  it  is  a better  quality. 

Q.  Are  there  any  manufacturers  in  this  city  of  what  is  called  art  pro- 
ductions in  pottery? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  about  them  and  what  they  are  doing? — A.  There 
is  an  establishment  here  called  the  Rookwood  Pottery,  which  is  carried 
on  under  the  direction  of  Mrs.  Nicholls,  the  only  daughter  of  the  late 
Mr.  Longworth.  It  is  devoted  to  the  manufacture  of  art  pottery.  She 
is  doing  a very  good  work  indeed.  She  has  plenty  of  money  at  her 
command,  and  there  are  no  obstacles  of  that  kind  in  the  way.  She  has 
a class  of,  I think,  about  fifty  ladies  who  are  learning  designing  and 
modeling  and  are  being  trained  to  do  artistic  work.  There  is  a good 
deal  of  their  work  sold  at  Tiffany’s,  in  New  York,  and  in  the  jewelry 
stores  all  over  the  country,  manufactured  at  the  Rookwood  Pottery. 


m.  tempest.]  EARTHENWARE.  8G9 

The  work  they  do  is  very  good  indeed ; it  tends  to  advance  the  ceramic 
art. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  the  Centennial  Exposition  in  our  country  in 
1876  had  a decided  and  perceptible  effect  on  public  taste  in  that  direc- 
tion"?— A.  Yes,  sir;  most  assuredly. 

Q.  You  think  it  increased  the  demand  for  works  of  decorative  art,  and 
also  improved  the  character  of  the  goods  made  to  meet  that  demand ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  decidedly  so. 

Q.  You  have  noticed  a marked  difference  in  the  demand  for  that  class 
of  goods  since  that  time  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I heard  an  agent  of  one  of  the 
English  manufacturers  say  that  if  he  had  not  visited  the  Centennial 
Exposition  he  would  not  have  believed  that  it  was  possible  for  us  to 
make  as  fine  a class  of  goods  here  as  we  had  on  exhibition  at  that  time. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  a comparison  of  the  weekly  amount  of  wages 
earned  in  England  by  those  employed  in  the  earthenware  and  porcelain 
manufactories  and  weekly  amounts  earned  in  this  country?  In  the  list 
you  have  given  us  you  have  put  it  all  by  piece-work.  They  earn  in 
England,  according  to  this  statement,  31s.  a week. — A.  That  calculation 
is  made  from  the  prices  that  we  know  they  get  paid  for  making  their 
goods.  We  know  the  amouut  they  can  make  there  and  the  amount  they 
can  make  here,  and  we  have  made  a calculation  of  the  prices  in  that 
way. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  I believe  you  stated  that  certain  American  pottery  ware  was 
carried  by  an  Englishman  to  Staffordshire  and  shown  to  the  manufact- 
urers there.  What  was  the  effect  of  the  exhibition  of  that  pottery  upon 
the  English  manufacturers  ? — A.  It  caused  an  immediate  reduction  ot 
8 per  cent,  on  the  operatives’  wages. 

Q.  For  what  reason  ? — A.  Because  they  saw  they  had  those  goods  to 
compete  with,  and  they  knew  they  could  not  compete  with  them  unless 
they  made  the  reduction.  As  a result  there  was  a long  strike,  but  finally 
the  potters  had  to  submit. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  As  I understand,  you  recommend  a mixed  duty  on  imported  pot- 
tery, both  specific  and  ad  valorem  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  prepared  to  give  us  the  rates  you  would  recommend  ? — 
A.  Perhaps  not  positively,  but,  as  near  as  I can  estimate,  we  ought  to 
have  about  $25  a ton,  cubic  measurement — outside  measurement — crate 
and  all,  and  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  That,  it  seems  to  me,  would  give 
us  something  in  the  neighborhood  of  70  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Have  you  read  the  recommendation  made  by  the  potters  of  Tren- 
ton, N.  J.  ? — A.  No,  sir ; 1 have  not. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Would  that  not*  discriminate  against  the  cheaper  wares  and  make 
them  pay  relatively  a higher  duty  than  the  finer  wares  ? — A.  I think 
•it  would  probably,  to  some  extent,  but  still  it  would  give  new  factories 
a chance  to  spring  up  and  use  the  material  lying  dormant  in  the  soil, 
and  I do  not  think  it  would  be  a very  long  time  before  all  the  fine  goods 
used  in  this  country  would  be  made  right  here.  I am  satisfied  there  is 


870 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[M.  TEMPEST. 


material  enough  in  the  country  everywhere  to  supply  the  demand.  I 
have  received  specimens  within  the  last  week  from  Corinth,  Miss., 
of  as  fine  material  as  anybody  need  want,  and  the  proprietor  writes  me 
that  the  bank  is  40  feet  deep.  We  have  also  received  -samples  of  clay 
from  Georgia  in  abundance,  and,  with  proper  i>rotection,  potteries  would 
spring  up  almost  everywhere,  and  every  piece  of  ware  used  for  the  rich 
or  the  poor  man’s  table  could  be  made  here — the  fine  as  well  as  the 
common  ware. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  think,  although  it  would  be  to  your  present  interest  to  have 
this  restrictive  duty  on  the  raw  material  removed,  yet  in  the  long  run 
it  would  be  detrimental  to  your  interest? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  would  make  us  dependent  on  the  foreign  producer? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  And  the  foreigner,  taking  advantage  of  that  and  having  us  in  his 
power,  would  put  up  the  price  of  his  material? — A.  Yes,  sir;  as  they 
have  always  done  and  will  do  to-morrow  if  they  have  an  opportunity. 
I think  it  would  be  wrong  in  principle  to  legislate  in  such  a way  that 
our  mines  here  would  be  closed  up  and  we  should  be  left  entirely 
dependent  upon  the  foreign  production.  In  Missouri  we  own  a flint 
bank  50  feet  high  of  decomposed  flint.  Then  we  own  another  clay  bank 
where  we  have  dug  through  tbe  clay  for  G4  feet  and  have  not  got  to  the 
bottom.  How  deep  it  is  we  do  not  know,  but  I think  if  we  should  allow 
this  material  to  lie  there  and  throw  ourselves  into  the  hands  of  our 
enemies,  the  foreign  producers,  it  would  be  suicidal. 


GEORGE  SCOTT.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


871 


GEORGE  SCOTT. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  4, 1882. 

Mr.  George  Scott,  of  Cincinnati,  manufacturer  of  pottery,  made  the 
following  statement: 

I have  been  engaged  in  carrying  on  a pottery  in  Cincinnati  ever  since 
1845,  and  have  had  a great  deal  of  experience  in  all  branches  of  the 
business.  There  are  certain  classes  of  goods  that  will  craze  or  there 
must  be  a change  in  their  color ; for  instance,  yellow  ware,  if  it  gets  a 
hard  burning  that  will  prevent  it  from  crazing,  will  not  be  yellow  ware 
any  more,  but  a kind  of  a blue-tinted  ware.  If  you  burn  it  hard  to  get 
that  blue  tint,  it  will  not  craze  anywhere.  But  there  is  always  more  or 
less  crazed  ware,  and  must  of  necessity  be.  Certain  parts  of  the  kiln 
cannot  get  enough  heat  to  prevent  their  crazing.  But  with  a proper 
mixture  of  various  bodies  of  ware,  such  as  white  granite,  C.C.’s,  stone 
porcelain,  china,  &c.,  with  a proper  attention  to  mixing  and  sufficient 
fire,  there  will  not  be  a great  deal  of  crazing,  although  there  is  always 
a liability  of  having  some  portion  of  the  ware  crazed.  I do  not  believe 
there  is  a manufacturer  in  the  world  who  can  conscientiously  say  that 
he  has  never  had  crazed  ware.  All  manufacturers  have  more  or  less 
crazed  ware.  In  the  West,  here,  we  have  been  able  to  make  better 
goods  than  they  have  in  the  East,  on  account  of  the  materials  used. 
The  Western  materials,  as  a rule,  are  much  finer  than  those  used 
in  the  East,  and  we  are  not  liable  to  have  much  crazed  ware  in  Cin- 
cinnati and  East  Liverpool  for  that  reason.  I have  been  manufacturing 
white  granite  and  C.C.  goods  four  years  last  August.  It  has  been  cus- 
tomary with  all  potters  to  a\low  a reduction  for  crazed  ware,  and  the 
jobbers  and  dealers  have  been  in  the  habit  of  getting  crazed  ware  for 
nothing,  not  allowing  anything  for  it,  while  at  the  same  time  they  would 
sell  it  to  their  customers.  I adopted  a different  course  in  this  respect. 
I did  not  think  it  was  honest  that  it  should  be  sold  to  the  people  if  it  was 
not  paid  for  by  the  jobber,  and  I made  a rule  that  I would  not  guar- 
antee or  warrant  my  ware  not  to  craze;  but  I said  to  them:  “Gentle- 
men, if  you  buy  my  ware  and  it  crazes  on  your  hands,  I will  take  it 
back  at  my  cost.  It  shall  cost  you  nothing  for  freight  either  way.” 
With  that  understanding,  and  working  under  that  rule,  I have  never 
paid  one  dollar  during  the  four  years  for  crazed  ware.  I have  never 
had  but  three  dozen  ice-cream  dishes  and  one  punch  bowl  returned  to 
me  on  that  account  during  the  whole  four  years.  You  can  make  inquiry 
anywhere  in  the  country,  and  people  will  tell  you  that  my  ware  stands 
as  good  as  any  they  have  ever  seen.  There  has  been  a great  deal  of 
ware  made  in  this  country  by  people  whom  I call  amateur  potters. 
When  the  potters  were  getting  high  prices  for  their  goods,  during  the 
war,  of  course  it  stimulated  the  business,  and  capitalists  went  into  it, 
thinking  there  was  a bonanza  in  the  business,  and  employed  what  I call 
amateur  potters  to  manage  the  business  for  them.  Of  course,  they  met 
w ith  great  losses,  and  turned  out  some  very  poor  work  and  over-burned 
goods,  because  they  did  not  have  the  skill  necessary  to  conduct  business. 
But  those  who  understand  the  business,  probably,  have  not  suffered  so 
much  from  crazed  ware  as  inexperienced  persons  have. 


872 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  SCOTT. 


By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  How  many  years  have  you  been  interested  in  the  pottery 
business  ! — Answer.  I have  been  engaged  in  the  business  in  Cincinnati 
since  1845. 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that  during  the  last  thirty  years  wages  in  England 
have  increased  40  per  cent,  in  the  potteries  ! — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  consider  that  statement  the  truth,  so  far  as  your 
observation  is  concerned  ! — A.  I know  positively  that  they  have  not, 
and  I should  consider  such  a statement  as  very  incorrect. 

Q.  Should  you  also  say  that  during  the  corresponding  time  wages  in 
this  country  have  decreased  30  per  cent. ; what  would  you  think  of 
such  a statement! — A.  I know  they  have  not  decreased  that  much. 
Before  the  war  the  wages  paid  in  Cincinnati  were  $1.25  a day;  when 
the  war  commenced,  wages  paid  in  x>otteries  never  went  up  as  high  as 
they  did  in  other  branches  of  business,  because  at  that  time  it  was  done 
on  a very  small  scale.  The  pottery  industry  was  not  developed  hardly 
in  1860.  There  was  but  one  pottery  in  the  United  States  then,  which, 
I believe,  was  making  white  ware,  and  was  situated  at  Jersey  City. 
There  were  quite  a number  of  yellow-ware  potteries  in  existence  up  to 
that  time  throughout  the  country,  but  the  yellow-ware  business,  although 
it  requires  skill  to  conduct  it,  is  different  from  the  manufacture  of  white 
ware.  When  the  war  commenced  and  the  premium  on  gold  went  up, 
it  gave  more  or  less  stimulus  to  the  business  and  they  got  very  good 
prices  for  their  work,  and  wages  went  up  in  a corresponding  degree. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  that  the  wages  did  not  decrease  during  that 
period  ! — A.  Yes,  sir  ; and  they  have  only  decreased  about  10  per  cent, 
since  the  war. 

Q.  Were  the  wages  paid  the  workmen  in  potteries  higher  in  1858  or 
1859  than  they  are  now! — A.  No,  sir;  not  so  high.  We  were  paying 
$1.25  then,  and  we  are  paying  $2.25  to  $2.50  now. 

Q.  Then  the  statement  made  that  wages  in  the  pottery  business 
have  decreased  since  the  war  is  not  correct ! — A.  No,  sir ; it  is  not 
correct.  At  one  time  during  the  war,  when  gold  was  very  high,  wages 
increased  to  $2.50  and  $3,  and  since  then  there  has  been  a decrease  of 
10  per  cent,  only  from  that  highest  period. 

Q.  Speaking  from  your  experience  as  a manufacturer  for  over  thirty 
years,  you  feel  quite  sure  that  wages  have  not  increased  in  England  40 
per  cent,  during  the  period  of  time  spoken  of! — A.  No,  sir;  they  have 
increased  a little,  but  they  have  not  increased  40  percent.;  1 am  willing 
to  swear  to  that.  1 get  letters  from  my  relatives  who  live  near  the 
Staffordshire  potteries,  and  I have  visits  from  them.  One  paid  me  a 
visit  last  year,  and  in  that  way  I know  what  the  prices  are  there.  I 
have  imported  fourteen  workmen  from  there  in  the  last  two  years,  and 
1 know  what  they  were  getting  paid  in  Staffordsire. 


W.  S.  SAMPSON,  JR.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


873 


W.  S.  SAMPSON,  Jr. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  4, 1882. 

Mr.  W.  S.  Sampson,  Jr.,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  secretary  and  treasurer 
of  the  Tempest,  Brockmann  and  Sampson  Pottery  Company,  made  the 
following  statement : 

Gentlemen:  Being  connected  with  a business  for  which,  unfortu- 
nately, the  protection  afforded  by  the  jiresent  tariff  is  utterly  inadequate, 
we  desire  in  a few  words  to  present  our  reasons  why  a higher  duty  should 
be  imposed.  First,  in  our  business,  machinery  can  be  used  to  but  a 
very  limited  extent,  labor  being  the  chief  part  of  the  cost  of  production, 
or,  say,  over  90  per  cent.  The  materials  used  are  valueless  for  any  pur- 
pose until  labor  is  applied,  and  for  that  labor  we  pay  more  than  double 
the  price  that  England,  our  principal  competitor,  does  tor  work  of  like 
character.  All  the  material  used  by  us  with  the  exception  of  not  over  one- 
quarter  of  one  per  cent,  is  the  product  of  American  sldll  and  labor.  Work- 
ing potters  in  this  country  are  paid  no  more,  and  in  many  cases  less, 
than  is  paid  to  those  employed  in  other  branches  of  skilled  labor,  but 
unless  the  present  duty  is  increased  their  wages  must  be  reduced,  de- 
grading and  not  elevating  labor — a change  for  which  the  people  are  not 
prepared,  and  which  we  would  be  very  sorry  to  see. 

Our  industry  would  never  have  obtained  a footing  in  the  United  States 
had  it  not  been  that  the  high  prices  of  gold  during  the  rebellion  afforded 
additional  protection,  and  also  that  there  was  a demand  at  remunerative 
prices  for  all  that  could  be  produced,  even  that  which  would  now  be 
thrown  upon  the  dump  pile  finding  ready  sale.  Had  this  state  of  things 
continued,  no  change  would  have  been  necessary  and  none  would  have 
been  asked. 

That  the  increase  of  duties  would  be  borne  by  the  foreign  producer 
is  proved  by  the  fact  that  our  wares,  with  the  present  duties  of  40  per 
cent.,  are  lower  than  they  were  before  the  war,  with  a 24  per  cent.  duty. 
To  us  the  ad  valorem  system,  holding  out,  as  it  does,  a premium  to 
fraud,  is  disastrous.  For  instance,  into  the  port  of  Cincinnati,  in  the 
year  1878,  2,972  crates  of  earthenware  were  imported,  dwindling  down 
to  1,078  crates  in  1881  and  to  230  crates  in  the  first  three  months  of  the 
present  year,  and  this  not  because  fewer  goods  have  been  imported, 
for  the  reverse  is  the  case,  but  for  the  reason  given  by  a prominent  im- 
porter and  jobber  that  they  could  buy  cheaper  from  manufacturers’ 
agents  in  New  York  City,  notwithstanding  the  brokerage  and  other  ex- 
penses there,  from  whicli  they  would  be  relieved  wlieu  goods  are  im- 
ported direct,  by  reason  of  being  able  to  give  these  matters  their  personal 
attention.  The  amount  of  seconds  and  thirds  turned  out  in  any  estab- 
lished pottery  should  not  exceed  at  the  outside  25  per  cent.,  yet  of  all 
the  earthenware  imported  into  the  country,  the  per  cent,  of  firsts  is  nom- 
inal. There  is  evidently  a screw  loose  somewhere.  To  guard  against 
the  evils  resulting  from  this  state  of  things  we  should  deem  a mixed 
specific  and  ad  valorem  duty  necessary,  the  ad  valorem  principle  being 
employed  only  to  an  extent  sufficient  to  rectify  any  injustice  resulting 
from  the  heavier  duties  that  might  be  imposed  upon  the  cheaper  and 
bulkier  grades  of  ware  if  a purely  specific  duty  only  were  used. 


874 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  S.  SAMPSON,  JE. 


With  additional  protection,  and  the  feeling  that  the  interest  would 
not  be  liable  to  be  disturbed  at  any  and  every  session  of  Congress,  our 
industry  would  be  firmly  established ; improvements  in  the  manufacture 
of  our  wares  and  in  the  manipulation  of  the  raw  material  would  greatly 
cheapen  the  product,  and  the  consumer  would  thus  be  benefited.  Without 
this,  we  shall  be  driven  to  the  wall ; the  foreign  producers  will  have  a 
clear  field,  and  as  there  are  not  any  philanthropists  in  business  at  least, 
you  can  see  that  they  will  speedily  strive  to  replenish  their  pockets,  re- 
duced by  the  competition  of  American  potters. 

If  the  Commission  desires  to  ask  any  questions  concerning  the  prac- 
tical workings  of  the  business,  our  Mr.  Tempest  is  present  and  will  be 
happy  to  reply  to  them. 


W.  G.  UYNDMAN.j 


SHEET-IRON  ROOFING. 


875 


W.  G.  HINDMAN. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September,  4 , 1882. 

Mr.  W.  G.  Hyndman,  of  the  firm  of  W.  G.  Hyndman  & Co.,  of  Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio,  manufacturers  of  sheet-iron  roofing,  made  the  following 
statement: 

Gentlemen  : As  manufacturers  of  sheet-iron  roofing,  a purely  Ameri- 
can industry,  consuming  thousands  of  tons  of  home-made  sheet  iron 
annually,  we  daily  meet  ruinous  competition  from  tin  roofing  made 
from  tin  plates  which  are  manufactured  altogether  in  England.  This 
ruinous  competition  is  due  solely  to  the  fact  that  the  present  tariff  laws 
discriminate  very  materially  in  favor  of  tin  plates  (iron  plates  tinned) 
as  against  other  classes  of  sheet  iron.  This  discrimination  has  already 
killed  the  tin-plate  industry  of  this  country,  and  will  eventually  ruin  the 
rapidly-growing  manufacture  of  sheet  iron  into  roofing  unless  relief  is 
speedily  procured. 

1 therefore  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  unjust 
discriminations  of  the  present  tariff*  laws : 

First.  Tin  plates  are  admitted  at  a rate  of  1.1  cents  per  pound,  with- 
out regard  to  value,  all  grades  being  classed  as  tin  plates.  Sheet  iron 
has  three  classes : No.  20  wire  gauge  and  under,  1J  cents  per  pound ; 
over  No.  20,  and  not  above  No.  25,  1£  cents  per  pound;  over  No.  25, 
If  cents  per  pouud. 

Second.  The  sheet  iron  from  wThich  tin  plate  is  made,  being  of  lighter 
gauge  than  No.  25,  would,  if  imported  as  sheet  iron,  pay  a duty  of  If 
cents  per  pound ; but  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  these  sheets  are 
coated  with  tin,  and  their  value  thereby  doubled,  they  are  admitted 
at  a duty  of  1.1  cents  per  pound,  or  65  cents  per  100  pounds  less  than 
common  sheet  iron  of  the  same  thickness  and  one-half  the  value. 

Third.  Tin  plates  worth  in  Liverpool  cents  per  pound,  pay  a duty 
of  1.1  cents  per  pound  or  24  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; while  sheet  iron, 
worth  in  Liverpool  2f  cents  per  pound,  pays  a duty  of  If  cents  per  pound 
or  77  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; that  is,  common  sheet  iron  pays  more  than 
three  times  the  duty  on  tin  plates. 

Fourth.  Galvanized  sheet  iron,  which  is  nothing  more  than  black 
sheet  iron  coated  with  zinc,  pays  a duty  of  2J  cents  per  pound,  while 
tin  plate,  black  sheet  iron  coated  with  tin,  pays  a duty  of  only  1.1  cents 
per  pound ; being  a discrimination  iu  favor  of  an  article  coated  with  tin, 
in  preiereuce  to  one  coated  with  zinc,  of  1.4  cents  per  pound. 

Fifth.  Sheet-iron  roofing,  worth  in  Liverpool  $3  per  100  pounds,  is  ad- 
mitted into  this  country  (under  the  “not  otherwise  provided  for”  clause) 
at  a rate  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  or  $1.05  per  100  pounds,  while  the 
sheet  iron  from  which  it  is  made,  if  imported,  would  pay  a duty  of  $1.75 
per  100  pounds,  making  a difference  of  70  cents  per  100  pounds  in  favor 
of  manufacturing  in  Liverpool. 

There  was  imported  into  this  country,  for  the  year  ending  June,  1881, 
(see  report  Bureau  of  Statistics),  190,000  tons  of  tin  plate,  every  pound 
of  which  could  have  been  made  in  this  country.  Block  tin  being  im- 
ported free  of  duty,  there  has  been  established  in  this  country  several 
large  rolling-mills  for  the  manufacture  of  tin  plates;  but  these,  after  a 
long  struggle  for  existence,  have  been  compelled  to  close  on  account  of 


876 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


\ 


[W.  G.  HYNDMAN. 


the  inadequate  protection  afforded  them,  and  thus  millions  of  dollars 
which  might  have  been  spent  in  labor  in  this  country  have  gone  to  Eng- 
land. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  manufacture  of  galvanized  iron,  under  the 
present  tariff,  being  properly  protected  (duty  cents  per  pound),  has 
grown  to  immense  proportions,  and  the  importation  in  1881  was  re- 
duced to  180  tons. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  we  believe  that  all  sheet  iron,  tin  plate,  gal- 
vanized iron,  and  all  manufactured  articles  of  which  these  are  the  com- 
ponent j>arts  of  chief  value,  should  pay  a uniform  ad  valorem  rate  of 
duty,  and  such  rate  should  be  high  enough  to  properly  remunerate  both 
laborers  and  manufacturers. 

I hope  these  points  may  have  your  earnest  consideration,  and  that 
your  report  may  embody  a recommendation  for  the  correction  of  these 
discriminations  and  the  establishing  of  a uniform  ad  valorem  rate  of 
duty  on  all  the  articles  mentioned. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  Your  recommendation  is  that  a uniform  ad  valorem  rate  of 
duty  be  imposed? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  because  we  think  there  is  no  other 
way  of  establishing  a fair  rate  of  duty. 

Q.  Could  not  a specific  duty  of  so  much  a pound,  ranging  from  a low 
rate  for  the  common  iron  to  a higher  rate  for  the  better  quality  and  the 
tinned,  be  imposed? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  could  be  done,  I suppose. 

Q.  You  state  that  roofing  iron  is  made  in  Liverpool  and  brought  to 
this  country.  Has  there  been  much  of  that  imported,  and  if  so,  for  how 
long  a time? — A.  A firm  of  this  city  have  moved  their  machinery  to 
England,  and  they  are  manufacturing  this  year  probably  from  350,000 
to  400,000  tons,  which  they  are  now  importing  here  under  the  35  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  rate. 

Q.  That  makes  the  duty  about  1 cent  a pound? — A.  About  $1.05  a 
hundred  pounds,  while  the  sheet  iron  from  which  it  is  made  pays  a 
duty  of  $1.75  a hundred. 

Q.  This  firm  take  the  English  iron  and  finish  it  in  Liverpool? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  work  is  put  on  it  there? — A.  It  costs  50  to  75  cents  a 
hundred  pounds  to  make  it  there. 

Q.  Do  you  include  in  that  the  corrugated  iron? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is 
included. 

Q.  And  the  manufacturers  here  send  to  Liverpool  and  have  it  made 
and  bring  in  the  finished  article  at  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  35  per  cent., 
making  the  duty  about  1 cent  a pound,  when  the  material  out  of  which 
roofing-iron  is  made  would  pay  what  rate  of  duty? — A.  The  sheet  iron 
from  which  it  is  made  pays  If  cents  a pound  duty. 

Q*  The  effect  of  that  is  to  make  the  rate  lower  on  the  finished  article 
that  you  are  making,  than  on  the  material  of  which  it  is  made? — A. 
Yes,  sir.  This  party  I spoke  of  has  sent  circulars  out  through  the  coun- 
try offering  to  sell  the  manufactured  iron  at  about  55  cents  a square  of 
80  pounds,  or  less  than  the  manufacturers  can  make  itvlor  here.  Cin- 
cinnati uses  perhaps  0,000  or  7,000  tons  of  sheet  iron,  for  this  purpose 
alone  each  year. 

Q.  Is  the  practice  of  putting  on  iron  roofs  increasing? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it 
is  increasing.  I have  been  in  the  business  for  the  last  seven  years.  The 
first  year  we  used  about  50  tons  of  sheet  iron,  but  for  the  last  year  the 
amount  of  iron  used  in  Cincinnati  for  roofing  purposes  must  be  some- 
where in  the  neighborhood  of  12,000  or  15,000  tons. 


\Y.  G.  HYNDMAN-1 


SHEET-IRON  ROOFING. 


877 


By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  This  iron  roofing  that  you  refer  to  is  the  plain  iron  roofing,  with- 
out any  additional  preparation  to  increase  its  durability? — A.  We  take 
the  plain  iron  and  it  is  trimmed  straight  on  the  edges ; the  edges  are 
then  turned  up  and  it  is  painted  with  linseed  oil  and  iron-ore  paint  as 
a cover,  and  packed  and  shipped. 

Q.  There  is  no  other  preparation  of  it  except  being  painted  in  the  way 
you  have  mentioned? — A.  The  edges  are  crimped  also. 

Q.  But  I mean,  is  anything  else  done  to  add  to  its  durability? — A. 
Ho,  sir;  the  durability  of  the  iron  is  secured  by  the  use  of  this  iron-ore 
paint,  which  is  mixed  with  the  linseed  oil. 

Q.  How  long  has  that  description  of  roofing  been  known  to  last? — A. 
I know  an  instance  in  Madison,  Iowa,  where  it  has  been  on  for  30  years 
and  is  still  good.  It  has  been  repainted,  of  course. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  It  is  painted  with  ocher  or  oxide  of  iron? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  KenTSer: 

Q.  Does  it  require  to  be  painted  frequently? — A.  As  often  as  you 
would  paint  a tin  roof — every  three  or  four  years. 

Q.  Is  it  liable  to  be  affected  by  the  heat  of  the  sun  or  by  cold ; the 
heat  of  the  sun  expanding  it  and  the  cold  contracting  it? — A.  Ho,  sir; 
that  is  obviated  by  the  crimping.  It  is  not  like  tin,  which  is  soldered 
together.  The  iron  is  loose,  and  where  it  laps  together  it  is  allowed  to 
give. 

Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  a roof  of  that  kind  per  square? — A.  It  is  now 
selling  at  the  factory  at  from  $4.75  to  $5  a square. 

Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  putting  it  on? — A.  Twenty-five  to  50  cents, 
according  to  the  description  of  the  roof. 

Q.  Then  the  total  cost  is  not  over  $6  a square  when  it  is  put  on? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  number  iron  do  you  generally  use  ?— A.  Ho.  26  gauge,  usu- 
ally. 

Q.  Isn’t  that  rather  light? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  a light  iron,  but  that 
is  commonly  used.  For  warehouses  and  such  places  we  use  heavier- 
iron. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  The  same  differences  have  existed  since  the  passage  of  the  original 
act  of  1864,  between  iron  in  sheets  and  iron  when  painted  in  sheets. 
The  duty  now  on  tinned  iron  is  less  than  the  duty  on  the  sheets  of  which 
the  tin  plates  are  made.  Has  that  been  the  case  all  the  time? — A.  If  I 
understand  the  matter,  when  the  law  was  first  framed  it  contemplated 
2J  cents  a pound  duty — the  original  tariff  law — and  that  duty  was  col- 
lected for  some  time.  Then  there  was  a decision  from  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  which  reduced  the  rate  to  1-^  cents  per  pound  by  plac- 
ing a comma  mark  between  the  words  “tin”  and  “ plates.”  That  existed 
until  February,  1875,  when  Congress  passed  a law  making  tin  plates 
pay  a duty  of  1-^  cents  a pound.  I think  the  original  law  contem- 
plated a duty  of  2J  cents  a pound  on  tin  plates. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  That  decision  you  refer  to  was  made  July 
22,  1864,  and  that  held  until  the  6th  of  June,  1872,  when  tin  plates, 
sheets,  &c.,  were  made  to  pay  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  fift<  en  per  centum. 
Then,  in  1875,  they  were  put  at  1^  cents  a pound.  So  that  your  com- 


878 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  G.  HYNDMAJS. 


plaint,  it  seems  to  me,  must  have  gone  back  to  1872,  ten  years  ago. 
Did  you  oppose  the  passage  of  this  act  of  1875? — A.  No,  sir;  I had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  iron-roofing  business  at  that  time. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  point  you  make  is  that  you  cannot  see 
the  reason  for  putting  tin  plates  at  l^  cents  a pound  duty,  and  putting 
the  iron  out  of  which  they  are  made  at  If  cents  a pound  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  I understand  that  perfectly ; but  Congress 
had  all  those  facts  before  it  at  the  time.  Tin  plates  were  paying  a duty 
of  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem  in  1872,  and  the  iron  of  which  the  tin 
is  made  was  paying  the  same  rate  of  duty  that  it  now  pays  of  1J  and 
If  cents  a pound.  Then  Congress  took  up  tin  plates  in  a special  act 
and  put  them  at  T^  cents  a pound,  or  at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty  then 
put  on  iron.  Were  the  tin-plate  manufacturers  in  existence  at  the  date 
of  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1875  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; I think  so. 

Q.  Do  you  know  if  they  placed  their  case  before  Congress  ? — A.  I 
think  so.  I have  been  so  informed. 


SCOTT  & CO.] 


SHEET-IRON  ROOFING. 


879 


SCOTT  & CO. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5, 1882. 

Messrs.  Scott  & Co.,  of  Cincinnati,  manufacturers  of  sheet-iron  roof- 
ing, submitted  the  following  statement  in  regard  to  specific  duties  on 
black  and  galvanized  sheet  iron,  tin  plates,  &c. : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  Referring  to  the  report 
of  the  Treasury  Department,  of  home  consumption  and  imports  on  im- 
ported merchandise  entered  for  consumption  in  the  United  States,  with 
rates  of  duty  and  amounts  of  duty  collected  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1881,  prepared  by  Joseph  Mmmo,jr.,  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of 
Statistics,  Washington,  D.  C.,  the  following  comparisons  of  specific  and 
ad  valorem  duties  appear: 

Galvanized  sheet  iron,  2J  cents  per  pound  specific,  about  44  per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  Tinned  sheet-iron  plates,  commercially  known  as  tin  plates, 
1.1  cents  per  pound  specific,  about  28  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Black  taggers’  sheet  iron  (rolled  almost  as  thin  as  paper),  30  per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  Black  sheet  iron,  No.  26  gauge,  If  cents  per  pound  spe- 
cific, equal  to  about  51  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

These  importations  of  black  sheet  iron  referred  to  are  made  up  chiefly 
of  the  higher  grades,  the  common  grades  of  greatest  consumption  being 
almost  excluded,  as  the  tariff  on  that  class  of  material  approximates  80 
per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Comparison  of  prices  at  the  average  dutiable 
talue  on  black  sheet-iron  importations  for  1881  being  $3.40  per  100 
pounds,  and  common  sheet  being  worth  at  the  same  time  about  $2  per 
100  pounds,  shows  clearly  that  but  little  of  the  lower  grades  has  been 
imported  for  the  reasons  assigned. 

Importations  ending  June  30,  1881,  of  black  sheet  iron  thinner  than 
No.  25,  amounted  to  less  than  500  tons  at  If  cents  per  pound  duty,  and 
importations  of  tin  plates  about  190,000  tons,  fully  one-half  of  which  is 
used  for  tin  roofing.  We  take  No.  26  gauge  for  comparison  as  the 
gauge  for  practical  use,  that  is  nearest  to  the  lighter  (No.  32)  gauge  of 
tin  plate,  which  discriminates  in  favor  of  the  latter,  as  the  lighter  gauges 
are  more  expensive. 

Pig  iron  is  assessed  at  $7  per  ton,  equal  to  34  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Tin  plates,  or  tinned  sheet-iron  plates,  are  therefore  admitted  not  only 
at  the  lowest  ad  valorem  rate,  but  likewise  at  the  lowest  specific  rate, 
excepting  pig  iron.  It  is  the  most  costly  material,  and  involves  a higher 
proportionate  expenditure  of  labor,  in  all  its  details,  than  all  other 
grades  of  sheet  iron  mentioned.  The  sheet  iron  forming  its  component 
part  of  chief  value  is,  principally,  a high  grade  of  charcoal  iron  of  the 
lighter  and  more  expensive  gauges,  and,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
supplemental  process  of  tinning  and  handling  in  small  sheets,  represents 
a maximum  of  labor  production  at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty  as  compared 
with  other  sheet  iron.  Tin  plate  being  the  highest-priced  article  and 
the  most  expensive  in  its  production  pays  16  per  cent,  less  duty  than 
galvanized  sheet  iron;  2 per  cent,  less  duty  than  black  taggers’;  6 per 
cent,  less  duty  than  pig  iron  of  common  quality  ; 23  per  cent,  less  duty 
than  high-priced  No.  26  black  sheet  iron,  and  about  52  per  cent,  less 
duty  than  common  sheet  iron  of  general  use  for  stove  pipes,  stove  fur- 


880 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[SCOTT  & CO. 


nishing,  roofing  and  siding  of  buildings,  &e.  Sheet  iron  of  the  grade 
and  quality  used  in  the  manufacture  of  sheet-iron  roofing  and  siding, 
under  our  present  specific  duty,  can  be  imported  only  in  limited  quan- 
tities and  at  rare  intervals,  as  the  specific  duty  of  If  cents  per  pound 
increases  the  ad  valorem  rate  to  nearly  80  per  cent.  The  manufacturing 
interest  of  sheet-iron  roofing  is  thus  brought  to  compete  with  tin  roofing 
made  from  charcoal  sheet-iron  tinned  plates,  known  to  commerce  as 
u tin  plates,”  which  is  directly  aided  and  fostered  by  legislation  in  the 
payment  of  50  per  cent,  less  duties  than  common  black  sheet  iron  that 
forms  the  basis  of  sheet-iron  roofing.  The  aid  of  the  government  is 
thus  invoked  to  create  a monopoly  of  tin  roofing,  to  the  destruction  of 
a healthy  competition,  and  in  the  prostration  of  an  important  manu- 
facturing industry,  which  could  hold  its  own  if  the  same  ad  valorem  or 
specific  duties  proportionate  to  cost  of  production  applied  to  both. 

Tin  roofing  (the  product  of  tin  plates  or  tinned  iron  plates)  is  the 
foreign  article.  Sheet-iron  roofing  is  the  home  article,  and  legislation 
is  and  has  been  directed  for  more  than  twenty  years  toward  the  de- 
struction of  sheet-iron  roofing  industries  by  building  up  a monopoly  in 
tin  roofing.  We  have  been  sometimes  met  by  the  suggestion  that  this 
duty  on  tin  plates  does  not  affect  general  interests,  and  more  especially 
the  interest  of  its  own  manufacture  in  the  United  States ; that  it  is  not 
made  in  this  country  to  any  considerable  extent,  and  is  not  one  of  our  pro- 
ducts. In  considering  this  view  the  fact  is  lost  sight  of  that  the  com- 
ponent part  of  chief  value  of  tin  plates  is  sheet  iron ; that  it  is  only  sheet 
iron  coated  with  tin ; its  basis  is  sheet  iron,  which  cannot  be  made  in 
the  United  States,  as  it  is  permitted  to  enter  the  country  under  the 
guise  of  tin  plates.  Is  it  a matter  of  surprise  and  conjecture  that  the 
manufacture  of  tin  plates  is  not  entered  into  more  largely  in  America 
when  the  manufacture  of  sheet  iron  that  forms  their  basis  cannot  be  made 
on  account  of  discriminating  duties'? 

The  tariff  largely  regulates  prices  of  labor.  When  labor  conforms 
to  a level  of  75  to  80  per  cent,  on  common  sheet  iron,  it  cannot  be  profit- 
ably employed  in  the  manufacture  of  a higher  rate  of  sheet  iron  (re- 
quiring more  labor)  at  50  per  cent,  less  duty.  As  the  duty  regulates 
prices  of  labor,  it  must  therefore  be  conclusive  that  when  fixed  on  the 
higher  rate  it  prevents  production  at  the  lower  rate.  Equalize  the 
duty  on  each  in  proportion  to  value  and  cost,  and  the  manufacture  of 
tin  plates  or  tinned-iron  plates  will  become  one  of  our  large  industries. 
Tin  ore  can  be  imported  here  as  cheaply  as  in  Great  Britain. 

As  heretofore  stated,  tinned  iron  plates,  known  on  the  market  as* tin 
plates,  being  largely  used  for  roofing,  appear  as  our  most  formidable 
competitor,  against  which  we  cannot  contend  with  equal  show  for  suc- 
cess. We  meet  it  in  opposition  everywhere,  and  if  not  supported  by  an 
unequalized  tariff,  but  placed  ou  the  same  equal  plane  with  us,  we  could 
meet  tin  roofing  successfully  and  favor  the  public  with  a cheaper  and 
better  material  for  roofing  purposes.  Tin  plates,  such  as  used  for  loot- 
ing purposes,  are  now  dutiable  at  one  and  one-tenth  of  a cent  per  pound, 
ranging  from  17  to  22  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  based  on  prices  of  material 
obtained  in  Staffordshire,  England  (as  hereinafter  shown),  during  1881, 
while  common  sheet  iron  at  the  same  time  was  assessed  at  77  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  on  1^  cents  per  pound  specific  duty.  In  reference  to  duty 
on  tin  plate,  note  IleyPs  Tariff,  schedule  of  duties,  page  70,  referring  to 
clause  1050,  page  1G0,  also  clause  788,  page  129,  also  page  59,  clause 
335,  wherein  the  latter  clause  refers  to  the  interpretation  at  the  bottom 
of  the  page,  ruling  that  tin  plates  must  be  galvanized  before  a duty  of 
2i  cents  per  pound  shall  prevail,  thus  providing  for  their  admission  at 


scorr  & co.l 


SHEET-IRON  ROOFING. 


881 


1.1  cents  per  pound,  whereas  common  sheet  iron  (a  much  less  expensive 
material)  is  assessed  If  cents  per  pound — a direct  interpretation  in  favor 
of  one  industry  to  the  detriment  and  injury  of  another. 

We  refer  you  now  to  the  following  prices  received  during  December, 
1881,  from  Staffordshire,  on  tin  plates  and  common  sheet  iron,  which  is 
a fair  criterion  of  comparative  prices  and  which  will  obtain  generally: 
Large-sized  sheets  of  tin  plate-s,  No.  20  gauge  (size  and  gauge  of  com- 
mon iron  that  we  use  for  roofing),  are  quoted  at  30  shillings  per  cwt.,  112 
pounds,  equaling  $0.51  per  100  pounds;  at  the  present  duty  of  1^  cents 
per  pound  on  tin  plate,  the  ad  valorem  would  be  about  17  per  cent. ; at 
2£  cents  per  pound,  39  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I.  C.  charcoal  is  quoted 
at  25  shillings  per  box  (120  pounds),  duty  22  per  cent,  ad  valorem  at  1^ 
cents  per  pound,  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  at  2J  cents  per  pound. 
At  the  time  named,  common  sheet  iron,  such  as  we  use,  could  be  ob- 
tained in  Great  Britain  at  $2.25  per  100  pounds,  duty  If  cents  per  pound, 
77  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Transportation  to  central  points  like  Pittsburgh 
and  Cincinnati,  25  per  cent,  additional,  increasing  the  cost  to  more  than 
100  per  cent,  over  European  prices.  You  will  please  note  that  tin  plate, 
at  1-iV  cents  per  pound  duty,  is  admitted  at  from  58  per  cent,  to  00  per 
cent,  less  ad  valorem,  and  at  2J  cents  per  pound  duty  at  from  27  per 
cent,  to  35  per  cent,  less  ad  valorem  duty  than  common  sheet  iron.  We 
desire  to  add  that  the  foregoing  estimates  are  based  only  on  the  reports 
of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  which  shows,  according  to  importations, 
that  galvanized  iron  comes  in  on  a 44  per  cent,  ad  valorem  rate.  This 
estimate  will  not  thoroughly  apply  to  the  facts  at  issue.  Galvanized 
iron  in  Great  Britain  is  now  quoted  from  $2.84  to  $4.42  per  100  pouuds, 
lowest  to  best  quality.  The  ad  valorem  rate  on  a specific  basis  of  2J 
Gents  per  pound  would  rate  from  56  to  87  per  cent.,  averaging  72  per 
cent.,  being  in  excess  of  the  rate  charged  on  tin  plate  nearly  50  per  cent. 

When  labor  strike  curtails  production  at  home  to  that  extent  as  to 
force  us  to  buy  in  the  foreign  market,  we  are  met  by  the  difference  in 
duty  alluded  to,  which  operates  disastrously  against  our  business.  Last 
season  the  five  months’  strike  in  this  vicinity  (Cincinnati)  was  severe 
upon  us,  and  now  the  great  labor  strike  at  Pittsburgh  threatens  results 
even  more  serious,  forcing  up  prices  to  a prohibitory  point,  as  compared 
to  plate  and  tin  roofing. 

We  therefore  request  your  honorable  body  to  institute  a comparison 
of  ad  valorem  and  specific  rates  as  reported  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics, 
showing  the  relative  application  of  duties  the  different  classes  of  sheet 
and  other  iron  bear  to  each  other,  and  the  percentage  of  taxation  in 
proportion  to  value  and  labor  expended  as  well  as  the  relative  prices  we 
have  named.  Common  grades  of  sheet  iron,  with  a minimum  of  labor 
in  their  production,  having  the  greatest  consumptive  demand,  are  met  by 
unjust  and  burdensome  legislation,  which  prevents  the  same  opportu- 
nities for  importation  and  foreign  comiietition  in  supply  that  are  granted 
to  the  higher  grades  as  named,  with  the  maximum  of  labor  attached, 
by  the  disproportionate  application  of  duties.  These  evils  can  only  be 
eradicated  by  changing  from  a specific  to  the  same  ad  valorem  rate,  or- 
determining  the  specific  rates  by  the  average  dutiable  value  on  all. 

It  has  been  urged  that  frauds  will  occur  under  ad  valorem  methods; 
that  false  values  and  invoices  will  be  made  under  sworn  statements* 
thus  depriving  the  governmentof  revenue.  This  argument  is  far-fetched. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  law  bears  strongly  on  this  point,  and  the  pen- 
alty of  confiscation,  and  perhaps  imprisonment,  for  its  violation  is  suffi- 
cient to  deter  any  from  adopting  a course  so  hazardous.  However  much 
they  might  feel  inclined,  the  prospect  of  gain  is  so  small  that  such  views 
H.  Mis.  6 56 


882 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[SCOTT  & CO. 


will  not  be  entertained.  Besides,  the  co  operation  of  the  foreign  ship- 
pers will  be  required  in  swearing  to  false  invoices  (simply  for  the  sake 
of  a little  gain  to  another),  to  which  they  will  not  become  parties. 

Custom-house  officials  are  able  and  efficient  experts,  and  no  great  de- 
parture on  values  can  escape  their  detection ; and  should  ad  valorem 
methods  require  greater  care  on  the  part  of  the  custom-house  officials, 
it  is  not  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  great  benefits  that  will 
be  bestowed  on  the  various  industries  by  adopting  them. 

We  note  a revision  of  the  tariff  is  contemplated,  and  request  your 
honorable  body  to  report  on  all  classes  of  sheet  iron,  embracing  tin 
plates,  galvanized  sheet  iron,  black  taggers’,  &c.,  black  sheet  iron  of  all 
qualities  and  gauges,  the  same  ad  valorem  rate  of  percentage  that  may 
be  agreed  upon  as  the  basis  of  revenue  taxation. 

As  sheet-iron  roofing  manufacturers  and  others,  we  especially  petition 
you  to  recommend  that  discriminating  duties,  which  favor  tin  plate 
against  black  sheet  iron,  be  removed. 

But  should  it  be  deemed  advisable  to  continue  specific  duties  on  sheet 
iron,  galvanized  iron,  tin  plates,  &c.,  we  ask  that  specific  rates  may  be 
so  adjusted  as  to  apply  according  to  the  value  of  the  material  and  cost 
of  labor  and  production,  taking  as  a basis  the  same  ad  valorem  rates 
on  an  average  value  of  imports  during  the  past  three  years  and  equal- 
izing the  specific  rates  accordingly.  Taking  for  computation  tin  plate 
at  an  average  rate  of  28  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  or  cents  per  pound  5 
specific  and  common  black  sheet  iron  a+  an  average  rate  of  80  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  or  If  cents  per  pound  specific  for  No.  26  (tin  plate  being  about 
No.  32,  a lighter  and  more  expensive  gauge),  the  equalization  of  specific 
rates  should  either  raise  the  duty  on  tin  plate  to  over  3 cents  per  pound 
specific,  to  equalize  it  with  the  iron  at  If  cents  per  pound,  or  lower  the 
duty  on  common  black  sheet  iron  to  six-tenths  of  a cent  per  pound  specific, 
to  equalize  it  with  tin  plates  at  1^  cents  per  pound. 

Scott  & Co.,  Cincinnati. 

W.  G.  Hyndman  & Co.,  Cincinnati. 

Porter  Iron  Roofing  Co.,  Cincinnati. 

Eureka  Iron  Roofing  Co.,  Cincinnati. 

Corrugating  Iron  Co.,  Cincinnati. 

Garry  Iron  Roofing  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

T.  C.  Snyder  & Co.,  Canton,  Ohio. 

Edward  E.  Scribner,  Saint  Paul,  Minn. 

Winslow  Car  Roofing  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 


JAMES  II . LAWS.] 


LOUISIANA  SUGAR. 


883 


JAMES  H.  LAWS. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  James  H.  Laws,  of  the  firm  of  James  H.  Laws  & Co.,  wholesale 
grocers  and  commission  merchants,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  made  the  follow- 
ing statement: 

I desire  to  state  that  any  change  in  the  tariff  which  materially  inter- 
feres with  the  production  or  distribution  of  the  sugar  of  Louisiana  will 
materially  affect  the  interests  of  the  entire  South  and  West.  It  is  a well- 
known  fact  that  the  raising  of  sugar-cane  in  Louisiana  is  an  industry 
which  needs  all  the  encouragement  we  can  give  it,  as  there  are  but  a 
very  few  months  in  the  year  when  the  crop  can  be  grown  and  gathered ; 
and  during  that  time  its  culture  is  often  interfered  with  by  changes  in 
the  weather,  and  the  inability  to  command  sufficient  labor  at  the  neces- 
sary time.  So  that  if  any  obstruction  is  placed  in  the  way  of  its  culti- 
vation by  interfering  with  the  present  tariff,  and  the  price  to  be  ob- 
tained is  reduced,  it  would  be  impossible  to  raise  a crop  of  sugar  in 
Louisiana,  or  anywhere  else  in  the  South.  At  least  one-third  of  the 
amount  realized  from  the  sugar  crop  of  Louisiana  is  returned  to  the 
South  in  the  form  of  machinery  made  at  the  North,  while  two-thirds  of 
the  amount  is  expended  in  labor.  If  there  should  be  an  interference 
by  reason  of  tariff  legislation  with  the  conditions  now  existing,  there  is 
no  other  agricultural  product  that  could  be  substituted  in  the  place  of 
sugar  in  those  sections,  especially  in  Louisiana,  and  the  result  would 
be  that  200,000  or  more  people  would  be  thrown  out  of  employment; 
the  sugar  interest  would  be  abandoned,  and  it  would  be  a great  loss, 
not  only  to  the  Southern  States,  but  to  the  West,  from  which  the  South 
draws  its  supplies  of  food  and  machinery.  We  in  the  West  and  South- 
west, who  have  devoted  ourselves  to  the  handling  of  raw  sugars,  hope 
there  will  be  no  such  interference,  but  that  the  Louisiana  sugar  interest 
may  be  carefully  guarded  and  encouraged  in  any  changes  that  the  Com- 
mission ma^  recommend  in  the  tariff  laws. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  I believe  you  represent  the  grocers7  interest,  although  I do 
not  see  your  name  attached  to  the  papers  which  have  been  submitted. — 
Answer.  I represent  that  interest. 

Q.  Your  business  is  that  of  wholesale  grocer  and  handler  of  these 
products  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  I would  like  to  know  what  the  feeling  is  among  the  business  men 
of  this  city  in  regard  to  any  radical  changes  in  the  present  tariff  laws; 
as  to  whether  they  are  in  favor  of  any  radical  changes  in  the  revision 
of  the  tariff? — A.  I think  I may  safely  say  that  the  general  sentiment 
is  that  there  should  be  no  material  interference  with  the  present  tariff 
laws  in  any  respect.  We  have  adapted  ourselves  to  the  rates  of  pro- 
tection we  now  enjoy,  and  think  they  had  better  remain  as  they  are  at 
present. 


884 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  H.  LAWS. 


By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  a material  reduction  of  the  tariff  upon 
the  stocks  of  goods  which  you  have  on  hand? — A.  That  would  depend 
very  much  upon  the  time  of  year,  as  regards  the  article  of  sugar.  At 
the  present  time  our  stocks  of  sugar  are  very  low.  I am  speaking 
wholly  with  reference  to  the  grocery  trade  and  the  handlers  and  dis- 
tributers of  groceries,  and  I think  it  is  their  desire  that  no  radical 
changes  should  be  made  in  the  tariff. 


GEOKGE  II.  MCKEE.] 


HEMP, 


885 


GEORGE  R.  McKEE. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5, 1882. 

Mr.  George  R.  McKee,  attorney-at-law,  representing  the  Ken- 
tucky River  Mills,  of  Frankfort,  Ky.,  made  the  following  statement : 

I desire  to  say  a few  words  in  regard  to  the  duties  on  manila,  sisal, 
and  hemp.  I do  not  come  here  as  the  representative  of  any  particular 
class  of  manufacturers ; but  I desire  to  make  a statement  of  one  or  two 
facts  within  my  own  knowledge  in  regard  to  these  articles.  You  are 
perhaps  aware  that  the  area  devoted  to  the  cultivation  of  hemp  is  lim- 
ited in  this  country,  and  one  reason  why  I should  like  to  see  a perma- 
nent duty  put  on  these  articles  is,  so  that  the  manufacturer  of  hemp  in 
Kentucky,  where  I reside,  can  know  with  more  certainty  what  the  price 
of  these  products  will  be.  The  prices  at  present  are  variable.  The 
farmer  or  the  planter  cannot  raise  the  article  at  a profit  if  the  price  is 
less  than  $5  a hundredweight.  It  very  frequently  goes  below  that 
price,  and  again  it  gets  up  to  a very  high  price,  so  that  the  manufac- 
turers cannot  use  it  to  advantage  in  competition  with  manila  or  sisal 
hemp.  I am  connected  with  a small  manufactory  in  Kentucky  which 
makes  what  is  called  binding  twine,  used  for  binding  wheat  and  other 
grain.  It  is  a new  industry  in  the  country. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  This  binding  twine  takes  the  place  of  wire  ? — Answer.  Yes, 
sir  j it  is  a substitute  for  wire,  and  it  is  manufactured  of  manila  and 
also  of  hemp.  The  difficulty  we  encounter  is  in  the  variation  of  the 
tariff  rates  of  duty.  If  there  was  a fixed  duty  on  these  articles  of 
manila  and  sisal  it  would  regulate,  of  course,  the  price  of  hemp.  When- 
ever the  price  of  hemp  exceeds  $7  or  $8  a hundredweight  it  cannot  come 
in  competition  with  the  manila  or  sisal.  It  can  come  in  competition 
witli  it  if  the  price  is  between  $5  and  $G  a hundredweight;  $6  would 
be  about  the  normal  price  for  hemp.  There  is  another  view  also  to 
be  taken  of  the  case.  If  the  duty  on  these  articles  was  made  perma- 
nent, the  price  of  hemp  would  be  more  stable,  the  farmer  would  de- 
vote his  time  more  exclusively  to  the  cultivation  of  it,  and  would  not 
change  his  crops  so  often.  When  it  goes  below  $5,  the  farmer  would 
not  raise  it  at  all,  except  for  the  fact  that  it  is  an  article  calculated  to 
clear  the  ground  for  other  crops ; it  clears  it  of  all  extraneous  sub- 
stances. In  that  way  he  is  often  induced  to  sow  and  raise  hemp  when 
he  would  not  do  it  for  the  profit  he  gets  from  its  sale.  The  cost  of 
labor  necessary  to  raise  it  is  to  some  extent  increased,  and  taking  into 
consideration  the  cost  of  sowing  the  hemp,  the  price  of  the  seed,  the 
price  of  cutting  it  and  preparing  it  for  market,  you  can  see  that  $5  will 
barely  pay  him  to  cultivate  it. 

There  is  one  other  view  of  the  case  that  might  be  taken.  There  was 
a process  invented  some  years  ago  for  what  we  call  “rotting”;  that  is, 
detaching  the  fiber  from  the  stalk.  In  Kentucky  we  mostly  rot  it  by 
spreading  it  out  and  letting  it  lie  on  the  ground  until  the  rain  or  snow 
detaches  the  fiber.  There  was  a process  invented  some  years  ago  by 
which  this  could  all  be  done  by  steam.  Hemp  is  a cumbersome  article, 


886 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  R.  MCKEE. 


and  will  not  bear  the  expense  of  transportation  in  its  natural  condition. 
If  there  was  such  a duty  placed  upon  the  imported  article  as  would  in- 
sure the  farmer  a permanent  price,  it  would  be  a great  advantage  to  our 
country. 

I hope  the  Commission  will  excuse  me  for  making  these  crude  re- 
marks, for  I have  had  no  time  for  preparation,  and  I shall  ask  permis- 
sion to  file  a supplementary  written  statement. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  sisal  or  manila  are  grown  in  this  country 
at  all? — A.  No  sir.  I think  sisal  is  grown  in  Yucatan,  principally;  I 
do  not  think  it  is  grown  in  the  United  States. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  attempt  to  grow  it  has  ever  been  made 
here? — A.  I do  not  think  it  has. 

Q.  The  general  effect  of  the  introduction  of  these  two  articles  of  sisal 
and  manila  into  this  country  would  be,  probably,  to  destroy  the  culti- 
vation of  hemp  altogether  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I do  not  think  it  would  de- 
stroy it  altogether,  but  it  would  have  the  effect  of  unsettling  the  prices 
so  that  the  farmer  would  have  no  inducement  to  permanently  devote 
himself  to  the  cultivation  of  hemp  ; and  as  the  cultivation  became  more 
and  more  limited,  of  course  the  manufacturer  would  be  dependent  upon 
the  foreign  supply  instead  of  being  able  to  rely  upon  the  home  produc- 
tion. The  binding  twine  which  we  manufacture  is  not  made  from  manila 
mixed  with  sisal,  but  of  hemp  exclusively. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I believe  you  are  from  Kentucky  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Does  Kentucky  produce  a large  amount  of  hemp  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; 
I believe  as  much  or  more  than  any  other  State  in  the  Union. 

Q.  More  than  Missouri  ? — A.  I think  it  does.  There  is  but  one  other 
manufactory  of  any  note  of  the  kind  I speak  of  in  this  country  except 
our  own,  and  that  is  located  in  Pennsylvania,  not  far  from  Pittsburgh. 
The  industry  is  in  its  infancy. 

Q.  Is  this  twine  you  speak  of  superseding  the  use  of  wire  for  bind- 
ing?— A.  Yes,  sir.  It  has  been  found  that  the  wire  used  for  binding- 
mixes  with  the  straw  and  unfits  it  for  use  as  food  for  animals.  That 
was  one  of  the  principal  reasons  for  discontinuing  the  use  of  wire. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  hemp  is  grown  in  the  United  States  ? — 
A.  I am  not  prepared  to  give  the  statistics  at  the  present  time. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  the  value  of  the  product  or  the  amount  of  the 
yield  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I do  not. 


SAMUEL  R.  REED.] 


PROTECTION  AND  THE  WORKMAN. 


887 


SAMUEL  ROCKWELL  EEED. 

* Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  Samuel  Bockwell  Reed,  of  Cincinnati,  addressed  the  Coin 
mission  as  follows: 

I liave  the  honor  to  present,  briefly,  a view  of  the  relation  of  the  work- 
man to  a protective  tariff. 

I assume  it  to  be  granted  that  the  object  of  a protective  tariff  is  to 
add  to  the  price  of  the  home  article  the  amount  of  the  duty,  in  consid- 
eration of  higher  wages  to  American  workmen. 

As  labor  is  the  chief  element  of  cost  in  all  production,  and  as  skilled 
labor  is  higher  than  unskilled,  it  is  plain  that  the  protective  duty  must 
be  in  ratio  to  the  degree  and  quality  of  the  labor. 

If  a protective  duty  be  laid  on  materials,  then  a higher  duty  in  pro- 
portion to  the  greater  amount  and  higher  skill  of  the  work  must  be 
laid  on  the  articles  made  from  such  materials,  in  order  to  give  the  man 
ufacturer  his  fair  protection. 

The  protective  duty  does  not  begin  to  work  to  the  manufacturer  until 
it  has  risen  above  the  duty  on  materials.  Thus,  if  the  duty  on  materials 
be  20  per  cent,  and  on  manufactures  30  per  cent.,  the  real  protective 
duty  to  the  manufacturer  is  10  per  cent.,  although  it  sounds  like  30. 
If  20  per  cent,  be  a judicious  tariff  on  materials,  10  percent,  is  an  insig- 
nificant protection  on  manufactures;  yet  on  top  of  the  other  it  sounds 
like  the  large  protection  of  30  per  cent.  If  the  duty  on  the  product  be 
twice  as  high  as  on  materials,  still  it  makes  no  allowance  for  the  greater 
amount  and  higher  quality  of  the  labor. 

If  the  duty  on  materials  is  20  per  cent.,  and  on  products  50  per  cent., 
then  the  manufacturer’s  protection  is  30  per  cent.,  and  the  allowance 
for  the  greater  amount  and  higher  skill  of  the  work,  over  that  in  crude 
materials,  is  10  per  cent.  This  does  not  seem  large,  yet  by  this  the 
protective  duty  has  got  up  to  50  per  cent.,  which  does  seem  large. 

When  a protective  tariff  founds  itself  on  a duty  on  materials,  it  be- 
comes at  this  one  step  a tariff  of  high  range.  If,  for  example,  30  per  cent, 
be  deemed  a judicious  tariff  on  materials  such  as  iron,  steel,  copper,  lead, 
tin,  leather,  wool,  wood,  dyes,  chemicals,  and  so  on,  it  is  plain  that  accord- 
ing to  this  ratio  a compensating  and  fair  protection  on  the  articles  pro- 
duced from  these  materials,  and  requiring  a higher  degree  and  kind  of 
labor,  must  be  as  high  as  70  per  cent.  And  this  high  rate  allows  only 
10  per  cent,  protection  for  the  greater  amount  and  higher  skill  of  the 
work  on  the  manufactured  article.  This  is  the  main  principle  of  a pro- 
tective tariff,  and  this  gives  an  idea  of  the  way  in  which  a tariff  of  high 
duties  may  be  so  wrongly  adjusted  as  to  work  the  reverse  of  protectively, 
and  to  stimulate  instead  of  restrict  importations  of  manufactured  goods. 

It  is  rational  that  the  manufacturer  should  desire  free  trade  in  mate- 
rials ; but  he  has  to  consent  to  give  compensation  for  his  own  protec- 
tion, in  protective  duties  on  materials.  If  he  gives  more,  in  effect,  than 
he  gets,  he  suffers  by  the  protective  tariff. 

The  primary  object  of  a protective  tariff  is  not  to  get  a revenue  from 
imports,  but  to  keep  out  the  foreign  article,  and  to  enable  our  manufact- 


888 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[SAMUEL  R.  REED. 


nrers  to  add  to  tlieir  prices  the  amount  of  the  duty  aud  of  the  charges 
of  importation.  The  object  is  to  make  high  prices  to  the  consumer  of  our 
manufactures,  in  order  to  pay  high  wages.  But  the  fact  that  the  work- 
man is  the  consumer  of  our  manufactures  makes  necessary,  in  framing 
a judicious  tariff,  to  consider  its  operation  on  him.  They  make  an  error 
who  theorize  upon  the  idea  that  people  are  divided  into  producers  and 
consumers.  The  producers  are  the  consumers.  In  general,  workmen 
consume  to  the  full  amount  of  their  wages.  The  most  thrifty  save  but  a 
narrow  margin.  And  their  consumption  is  in  the  thing^vhose  price  is 
raised  by  protection. 

Our  protective  tariff  has  continually  grown,  and  it  now  reaches 
directly  or  indirectly  all  the  articles  of  the  workman’s  consumption.  In 
general,  the  duties  are  higher  ou  the  fabrics  of  common  use  than  on 
those  of  finer  texture.  Bread  and  meat  form  but  a small  part  of  the 
family  expenditure;  but  if  we  deny  that  the  producer  of  these  and  of 
other  home  articles  of  food  gets  higher  prices  because  of  protection, 
we  concede  that  the  protective  tariff  robs  the  farmer  in  making  him 
pay  protection  prices  and  giving  him  no  compensation. 

The  workman  pays  the  high  prices  laid  on  home  and  imported  articles 
by  protective  duties.  If  he  gets  higher  wages  by  protection,  on  the  one 
hand,  he  lays  them  out,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  higher  prices  which 
protection  gives  to  all  that  lie  consumes. 

If  the  higher  wages  are  equivalent  to  the  higher  cost  of  living,  the 
workman  comes  out  even. 

If  the  increase  of  wages  is  greater  than  in  the  cost  of  consumption, 
then  the  workman  gains  by  protection. 

If  the  increase  of  wages  by  protection  is  greater  than  the  protective 
duty,  then  the  manufacturer  loses  by  protection. 

If  the  protective  tariff  increases  the  cost  of  consumption  more  than 
it  raises  wages,  then  the  workman  loses  by  protection. 

Among  these  practicabilities,  it  is  quite  practicable  that — to  use  the 
cant  phrase — protection  may  not  protect,  even  with  an  extreme  height 
of  duties.  It  is  also  quite  practicable  that  its  unequal  raising  of  home 
prices  may  unwholesomely  stimulate  importations.  Our  country  is.  not 
unacquainted  with  these  untoward  workings  of  a protective  tariff.  This 
gives  au  idea  that  a protective  tariff  is  a very  complex  affair,  which  can- 
not be  dispatched  unthinkingly,  off-hand,  by  the  catch  words  of  “free 
trade”  or  “tariff  for  revenue  only,”  nor  even  by  an  intelligent  concep- 
tion of  general  principles,  without  knowledge  of  business  details,  and 
that  even  the  most  fervent  belief  in  the  beneficence  of  protection  may^ 
not  of  itself  qualify  a man  to  frame  a tariff  which  will  work  protectively. 
It  shows  also  that  when  we  lay  a tariff  on  materials,  the  whole  struct- 
ure of  protection  on  manufactures  must  be  put  on  top  of  that,  and 
that  this  necessarilyr  brings  it  to  high  figures. 

But  whatever  the  benefit  of  protection  in  the  home  market,  the  fact 
that  its  object  is  to  increase  the  cost  of  production  of  manufactured 
goods  limits  their  market  to  our  own  country.  It  cuts  off  our  manu- 
factures from  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  this  limitation  restricts 
also  their  consumption  of  the  materials  which  we  produce,  as  well  as  of 
such  as  we  do  not  produce. 

This  is,  and  must  continue  to  be,  its  operation ; for  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  the  outcome  of  protection  is  to  be  free-trade  wages,  to 
enable  us  to  compete  with  British  manufacturers  in  foreign  markets. 

Two-thirds  or  three-quarters  of  the  people  of  the  world  are  in  such  a 
state  as  to  offer  a market  for  the  products  of  the  skilled  labor  and  labor- 
saving  machinery  of  civilization.  The  American  people  have  great  me- 


SAMUEL  It.  REED.] 


PROTECTION  AND  THE  WORKMAN. 


889 


chanical  genius  and  aptitude,  and  if  they  do  not  possess  their  share  of 
this  held,  it  is  a subject  for  the  investigation  of  statesmen.  If,  besides 
this,  we  but  partly  possess  our  own  market  with  the  products  of  labor- 
saving  machinery,  the  need  of  inquiry  is  the  greater. 

We  must  also  accept  the  benefit  of  the  high  prices  of  protection,  at 
the  cost  of  the  extinction  of  the  shipping  industry  in  all  the  free  car- 
rying trade.  As  to  the  simple-minded  remedy  of  free  importation  of 
ships,  which  many  recommend  as  the  way  to  restore  our  shipping,  the 
same  high  wages  and  high  cost  of  consumption  which  make  us  unable 
to  build  ships  in  competition  with  the  British,  would  make  us  unable 
to  run  them  if  we  had  imported  them  free.  And  free  trade  in  ships 
would  give  up  our  coast  trade  to  foreign-built  ships,  and  all  the  ship- 
building which  is  now  created  by  that  large  trade. 

Is  not  all  this  a counsel  of  moderation  in  the  rates  of  a protective 
tariff,  as  well  as  of  care  and  discrimination  in  their  adjustment  i Does 
it  not  counsel  a reduction  in  the  number  of  articles  embraced  in  the 
tariff',  and  in  general  a release  of  materials,  and  a pretty  liberal  con- 
struction of  the  somewhat  indefinite  term,  materials'?  Does  it  not 
counsel  in  general  a return  toward  the  tariff'  as  it  was  before  it  was 
crudely  made  a drag-net  under  the  pressure  of  war  expenses  and  cur- 
rency inflation  ? 

The  policy  of  protection  professes  to  consider  in  chief  the  workman. 
The  workman  is  the  consumer  of  the  articles  whose  price  is  raised  by 
protection. 

There  is  much  reason  for  a thorough  investigation  and  reform  of  the 
tariff';  but  great  and  sudden  changes  should  be  avoided,  even  if  they 
are  certainly  in  the  right  direction  ; for  they  all  disturb  business  and 
revenue. 

The  enormous  amount  of  our  importation  of  manufactured  goods, 
particularly  of  the  goods  of  universal  consumption,  and  of  labor-saving 
machinery,  which  should  be  made  in  our  country,  although  we  have  a 
tariff*  greatly  higher  and  more  comprehensive  than  the  fathers  of  the 
American  system  ever  thought  of;  the  circumstance  that  the  higher 
the  duty  the  greater  the  apparent  need  of  the  manufactures  for  more; 
the  shrinking  of  our  exports  of  manufactures,  and  their  altogether  in- 
significant proportions,  in  comparison  with  the  enormous  expansion  of 
those  of  Great  Britain  in  the  last  twenty  years;  the  extinction  of  our 
ocean  shipping;  the  general  discontent  of  workmen;  the  small  balance 
which  high  prices  on  all  that  he  has  to  buy  leaves  to  the  farmer;  these 
and  other  symptoms,  in  .the  face  of  that  which  is  supposed  to  be  a high 
protective  tariff,  suggest  that  something  is  radically  wrong.  Perhaps 
the  tariff  is  not  all.  Perhaps  currency  inflation  is  doing  its  share  of 
disturbance.  But  there  is  enough  to  make  the  belief  that  there  is  not 
before  the  American  people  so  important  an  affair  as  that  which  this 
Commission  is  investigating. 


800 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JAMES  S.  BURDSAL. 


JAMES  S.  BURDSAL. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  James  S.  Burdsal,  of  Cincinnati,  president  of  the  Western 
Wholesale  Drug  Association,  made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  I desire  to  state  that  the 
Western  Wholesale  Drug  Association  at  its  annual  meeting  held  in  Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio,  November  9 and  10,  1881,  unanimously  passed  the  follow- 
ing resolution  : “ That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  association  that  Congress 
should  levy  a duty  of  10  per  cent,  on  all  salts  of  quinine.” 

The  views  of  the  association  were  briefly  these:  That  the  trade  would 
be  better  protected  in  the  uniform  prices  of  these  goods  if  our  home 
manufacturers  should  have  a small  protective  duty  as  against  duties  on 
crude  materials,  and  cheap  labor  in  Europe;  that  as  France  and  Italy 
lay  a tax  on  these  articles  and  protect  their  manufacturers,  it  would  be 
manifestly  unjust  to  admit  their  quinine  into  this  country  free;  that  if 
the  removal  of  the  duty  on  quinine  was  intended  to  cheapen  the  price, 
it  has  not  had  that  effect;  and  if  the  government  by  the  removal  of 
duties  seeks  to  cheapen  the  prices,  the  same  rule  should  be  applied  to, 
and  all  duties  should  be  removed  from  cotton,  silks,  woolens,  potteries, 
pig  iron,  and  other  home  productions.  If  the  policy  of  our  government 
is  to  afford  a small  protection  and  foster  home  manufactures,  it  should 
not  discriminate  against  any  particular  interest  and  favor  others. 


JAMES  M.  GLENN.] 


SUGAR,  MOLASSES,  AND  RICE. 


891 


JAMES  M.  GLENN. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  James  M.  Glenn,  representing  the  Grocers’  Association  of  Cin- 
cinnati, made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen:  A committee, consisting  of  Mr.  L.  C.  Keever,  I).  A. 
White,  and  myself,  was  appointed  by  the  Grocers’  Association  of  this 
city  to  present  to  the  Commission  the  views  of  the  trade  on  the  ques- 
tion of  duties  on  sugar,  molasses,  and  rice.  We  beg  leave  to  submit  a 
few  statements  of  fact  which  we  believe  will  be  indorsed  by  a majority 
of  dealers  in  the  entire  West.  The  interests  of  the  great  West  are  identi- 
cal with  those  of  Louisiana,  Texas,  Florida,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia, 
where  these  staples  are  produced,  on  these  important  questions,  because 
of  the  large  and  steadily  increasing  commercial  interchange  in  all 
branches  between  these  two  sections.  With  an  increase  in  the  produc- 
tion of  these  important  staples,  under  the  fostering  stimulation  of  a 
protective  tariff,  there  comes  in  return  a largely  increased  demand  for, 
and  consumption  of,  Western  produce  of  every  kind,  provisions,  manu- 
factures, and  coal.  Our  great  lines  of  water  and  railroad  transporta- 
tion are  also  largely  benefited  by  the  resulting  increased  carrying  trade 
•in  this  inter  State  commerce.  The  sections  named  have  the  capacity 
to  produce  sufficient  of  these  great  necessary  staples  to  supply  the  en- 
tire West,  if  not  the  whole  country,  and  a continuation  of  a wise  and 
liberal  policy  of  protection  must  so  rapidly  develop  and  increase  the  pro- 
duction, as  in  a few  years  to  establish,  permanently,  sources  of  vast 
wealth  in  sections  unfitted  for  other  agricultural  purposes,  and  from 
which  the  entire  country  must  reap  large  benefits,  besides  rendering 
us  independent  of  a foreign  supply,  thereby  relieving  us  of  the  present 
large  annual  drain  incurred  for  their  importation.  By  this  means  we 
not  only  keep  the  money  now  paid  for  a foreign  supply  at  home,  but 
also  vastly  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  sections  by  the  enlargement  of 
their  mutual  commercial  exchange  of  commodities. 

We  believe  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  government  to  continue  to  fully 
protect  these  great  industries,  now  struggling  to  recover  from  the  dis- 
asters of  war;  and  we  further  believe  that  it  will  be  immensely  to  the 
benefit  of  the  entire  country  that  they  be  re  established  on  a more  en- 
larged and  prosperous  basis  than  heretofore.  Our  own  city  owes  her 
early  welfare  and  rapid  growth  largely  to  her  profitable  commercial  in- 
tercourse with  the  once  wealthy  South,  and  especially  with  Louisiana, 
and  her  merchants  look  forward  to  an  early  return  of  this  former  valu- 
able traffic  with  Louisiana  under  the  rapid  development  of  her  sugar 
and  rice  interests,  whicli  must  soon  occur  with  a continuation  of  the 
protection  to  which  she  is  justly  entitled. 

We  therefore  strongly  urge  that  no  change  be  made  in  the  duties  on 
these  articles  which  will  afford  less  protection  than  is  now  extended  to 
them,  the  present  tariff*  giving  no  more  protection  than  is  actually  neces- 
sary to  encourage  their  production  and  stimulate  their  increase. 

We  unhesitatingly  venture  the  opinion  that  the  agricultural  people 
of  the  Mississippi  Valley  are  in  warm  sympathy  with  the  development 
of  these  great  Southern  industries,  fully  appreciating  as  they  do,  the 


892 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


(JAMBS  M.  GLENN. 


advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  establishment  of  large  permanent 
home  markets  for  their  products,  and  that  they  will  earnestly  unite 
with  other  Western  interests  in  a cordial  approval  of  a continuation  of 
the  present  policy  of  protection. 

We  also  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  production  of  sugars 
and  sirups  from  corn  and  sorghum  cane  is  now  becoming  an  important 
and  widely  spread  interest  in  the  West  and  Northwest,  and  one  that 
will  readily  commend  itself  to  you  as  an  additional  argument  in  favor 
of  the  continuance  of  a liberal  and  wise  policy  of  protection  to  these 
staples. 

In  the  event  of  any  modification  of  the  present  tariff  on  sugar,  we 
would  suggest  that  the  rate  on  Nos.  14,  15,  and  16  should  not,  as  now, 
be  scaled  so  high  above  refining  grades  as  to  exclude  them,  but  that 
the  scale  of  the  duty  should  be  so  graded  as  to  allow  their  importation 
at  a fair  advance  over  the  rates  fixed  on  refining  grades.  We  would 
further  earnestly  recommend  the  addition  of  the  polari scope  in  deter- 
mining the  intrinsic  saccharine  value  of  all  refining  grades,  that  high 
test  sugars  under  low  colors  may  no  longer  be  admitted  at  the  same 
rates  as  low  test  sugars  of  corresponding  colors. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  As  I understand,  you  represent  exclusively  the  dealers  in 
groceries;  you  do  not  represent  manufacturers  of  any  kind,  do  you? — 
Answer.  No,  sir;  we  represent  a mercantile  association  known  as  the 
Grocers’  Association  of  Cincinnati.  It  comprises  the  leading  grocery 
dealers  of  our  city. 

Q.  In  no  sense  are  you  connected  with  manufactures  of  any  kind  ? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  represent  the  sugar  refiners  of  the  country,  or  any  in- 
terest of  that  kind  ? — A.  No,  sir ; only  the  Grocers’  Association  of  this 
city. 

Q.  What  is  the  largest  quantity  of  sugar  that  has  ever  been  imported 
from  New  Orleans  to  Cincinnati,  so  far  as  you  know? — A.  Before  the 
war  that  was  a very  important  trade  to  Cincinnati.  The  entire  sugar 
trade  of  Cincinnati,  and  of  this  section  of  country,  was  with  the  State 
of  Louisiana.  We  had  no  Eastern  sugar  trade  before  the  war,  and  that 
is  the  reason  why  this  section  feels  such  a deep  interest  in  the  restora- 
tion of  this  Louisiana  trade.  I have  some  statistics  with  me  on  this  sub- 
ject, showing  the  receipts  of  sugar  and  molasses  at  this  port  from  the 
State  of  Louisiana  for  the  years  named,  as  follows: 


Years. 

Hogsheads 
of  sugar. 

Barrels  of 
sugar. 

Barrels  of 
molasses. 

1845-’46 

13, 710 
49,  229 
64,  461 
58,  885 

4, 956 

24,  001 

25,  441 
28,  359 

36,  510 
115, 112 

1852  ’53  

1853-54  

1858-’59  

116, 193 

We  did  not  know  any  other  sugar  in  those  days  than  Louisiana  sugar. 

Q.  How  did  you  pay  for  all  this  sugar  and  molasses  ; in  money,  or  in 
goods? — A.  We  paid  for  it  directly  in  money;  but  indirectly  we  paid 
for  it  in  Western  supplies.  Before  the  war  the  money  that  we  paid  to 
Louisiana  for  this  sugar  and  molasses  gra  vitated  back  here.  Louisiana 
was  a very  good  customer  of  the  West,  and  the  merchant  who  paid  the 
Louisiana  planter  money  for  his  sugar,  molasses,  and  rice,  received  it 
back  again  here  for  supplies  which  he  furnished  him.  We  sold  them 


JAMES  M.  GLENN.  ] 


SUGAR,  MOLASSES,  AND  RICE. 


893 


pork,  corn,  and  other  articles  of  consumption,  and  all  our  grocery  houses 
were  busy  loading  boats  with  produce  of  every  kind  to  ship  to  the 
planters  ; so  that  in  the  course  of  a year  a large  amount  of  this  money 
came  back  to  us.  We  also  sold  a large  amount  of  machinery  to  the 
planters  to  be  used  in  Louisiana. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  number  of  steamboats  employed  in  this 
business? — A.  No,  sir;  I have  not. 

Q.  How  long  does  it  take  a boat  to  make  a round  trip  from  Cincinnati 
to  New  Orleans? — A.  From  25  to  28  days,  allowing  time  in  loading  and 
unloading  in  each  port. 

Q.  One  boat  will  make  four,  five,  or  six  trips  a year,  then? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  During  an  active  business  season,  sometimes  we  would  load  a boat 
a day,  carrying  from  800  to  1,000  tons  freight  to  New  Orleans,  and  three 
or  four  boats  a week  was  not  an  uncommon  thing  during  the  business  sea- 
son, which  lasted  usually  from  September  until  May  or  June.  We  now 
are  able  to  load  three  boats  a week  here,  and  to  bring  back  three  boats 
a week,  while  not  long  ago  it  was  hard  to  get  one  cargo  a week;  which 
shows  that,  the  freight  is  increasing.  I understand  that  the  steamboat 
interest  will  appear  before  the  Commission,  and  they  can  probably  give 
you  some  information  on  this  point.  I think  that  every  member  of  our 
association  feels  the  importance  of  impressing  upon  the  Commission  the 
fact  that  this  Louisiana  shipping  trade  is  a great  interest  to  be  developed. 

We  get  Carolina  rice  here,  and  have  done  a large  business  in  it;  but 
since  the  rice  interest  has  grown  up  in  Louisiana,  this  particular  section, 
on  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  River,  gets  its  supply  mostly  from  Louisiana, 
and  it  was  a source  of  great  prosperity  to  us  before  and  up  to  the  time 
of  the  war.  We  feel  deeply  interested  in  encouraging  and  developing 
this  interest,  hoping  that  it  may  bring  back  that  prosperity  to  us  in  a 
larger  fold.  I think  I speak  the  sentiment  of  every  grocery  merchant 
connected  with  our  Grocers’  Association  when  I make  this  statement. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I know  it  to  be  a fact,  but  I want  it  to 
appear  on  the  record,  that  the  rice  that  is  made  on  both  sides  of  the 
Savannah  River,  Georgia,  is  classed  and  called  Carolina  rice. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  it  is.  There  is  no  grade  of  rice  here  known  as 
Georgia  rice.  We  only  know  two  kinds  of  rice — Carolina  and  Louis- 
iana. We  have  been  in  the  habit  of  buying  rice  in  Savannah  as  well 
as  in  Charleston,  but  when  it  goes  to  other  markets  it  all  goes  under 
the  head  of  Carolina  or  Louisiana  rice. 


894 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[e.  w.  COLE. 


C.  W.  COLE. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

The  following  statement,  giving  reasons  why  a specific  duty  should  be 
levied  upon  lava  gas  tips  and  slate  pencils,  was  submitted  by  Mr.  C. 
W.  Cole,  president  of  the  Anchor  Soap-stone  Company,  of  Cincinnati, 
and.  ordered  to  be  printed: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  Nearly  all  the  lava  gas 
tips  and  slate  pencils  used  in  the  United  Sta  tes  are  manufactured  in  Ger- 
many. This  is  the  case,  not  because  these  goods  cannot  be  manufact- 
ured in  this  country,  equal  or  better  in  quality,  but  because  of  the 
starvation  prices  paid  for  labor  in  Germany,  and  the  absence  of  a suffi- 
ciently high  tariff  to  enable  American  manufacturers  to  compete  with 
them. 

A specific  duty  of  say  $2.50  per  gross,  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
additional  on  lava  gas  tips,  and  say  $1.50  per  thousand  specific,  and  40 
per  cent,  additional  ad  valorem  on  slate  pencils,  would  make  no  appre- 
ciable difference  in  the  cost  of  these  goods  to  the  consumer,  but  w7ould 
foster  the  American  industries,  and  enable  the  manufacturers  of  these 
goods  to  pay  remunerative  wages  to  employes  and,  at  the  same  time, 
successfully  compete  with  German  manufacturers. 

For  many  years  it  was  thought  that  the  only  material  out  of  which 
lava  gas  tips  could  be  made  was  to  be  found  in  Bavaria,  and  conse- 
quently these  tips  were  all  imported  into  this  country,  costing  from  $4 
to  $5  per  gross.  A few  years  ago,  however,  the  material  from  which 
they  are  made  was  discovered  in  large  quantities  in  North  Carolina  and 
other  Southern  States,  and  their  manufacture  was  begun  in  this  country. 
In  a very  short  time  the  price  of  the  imported  tips  was  reduced,  until 
now  they  can  be  imported  at  a cost  of  75  cents  per  gross  or  less,  after 
paying  an  ad-valorem  duty  of  40  per  cent. 

A specific  duty  of  say  $2.50  per  gross,  in  addition  to  the  40  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  now  imposed,  would  not  only  build  up  manufactories  of  these 
goods  in  this  country  which  would  afford  remunerative  wages  to  many 
employes,  but  would  make  valuable  the  soap-stone  mines  in  the  South- 
ern States  which  are  at  present  without  value. 

It  need  hardly  be  mentioned  that  such  a duty  would  not  add  two 
cents  apiece  to  the  price  of  lava  gas  tips,  and  would  not  add  the  weight 
of  a feather  to  the  burden  of  the  consumer. 

What  has  been  said  above  in  reference  to  lava  gas  tips  applies  in 
equal  force  to  the  manufacture  of  slate  pencils.  A few  years  ago  slate 
pencils,  when  imported  from  Germany,  cost  from  $2  to  $3  per  thousand. 
Several  factories  were  started  in  this  country,  when  the  price  of  slate 
pencils  was  reduced  until  they  can  now  be  imported  at  from  00  cents  to 
$1  per  thousand,  after  paying  a duty  of  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The 
low  price  paid  for  labor  in  Germany — fsee  “State  of  Labor  in  Europe, 
1878,”  published  by  Congress] — is  the  reason  for  this. 

A specific  duty  of  say  $1.50  per  thousand,  and  in  addition  40  per  cent, 
ad  valorerp,  would  stimulate  the  manufacture  of  slate  pencils  in  this 
country,  and  as  now  the  consumer  would  get  his  slate  pencils  at  a cent 
apiece,  or  even  as  low  as  two  for  a cent. 

American  manufacturers  will  not  be  able,  for  many  years  at  least,  if 
ever,  to  supply  the  demand  for  lava  gas  tips  and  slate  pencils,  so  that 
the  additional  duties  suggested  on  these  goods  would  largely  increase 
the  revenues  of  the  government. 


M.  V.  DALY.] 


SUGAR,  MOLLASSES,  AND  RICE. 


895 


M.  V.  DALY. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  M.  V.  Daly,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  representing  the  Southern  Trans- 
portation Line  of  Steamboats,  made  the  following  statement : 

A committee  has  been  appointed  to  represent  the  steamboat  interest 
of  this  city,  as  regards  the  trade  between  New  Orleans  and  Cincinnati  ; 
and,  as  a member  of  that  committee,  I desire  to  present  my  views  to  the 
Commission  in  regard  especially  to  the  tariff  upon  sugar,  molasses, 
rice,  and  minor  articles  which  we  carry  largely.  We  are  in  favor  of  a 
moderate  tariff.  We  carry  freights  from  the  month  of  November  until 
March ; and  almost  two-thirds  of  our  cargoes  from  New  Orleans  to  Cin- 
cinnati are  composed  of  molasses,  sugar,  and  rice.  We  think  if  there 
is  free  trade  in  tli  ese  articles,  if  the  sugar  that  is  raised  in  Cuba  and  those 
other  slave-growing  countries  is  allowed  to  come  in  competition  with 
the  products  of  the  Southern  States,  it  will  have  a very  injurious  effect 
indeed  upon  the  whole  South  and  Southwest.  At  present  in  the  East 
they  have  almost  a monopoly.  They  have  large  sugar  refineries  and 
manufactories  in  Boston  for  making  rum  from  molasses.  They  have 
vessels  built  especially  for  carrying  the  molasses  in  bulk.  If  the  pro- 
duction of  sugar  and  these  other  crops  in  the  South  is  interfered  with, 
it  will  entirely  destroy  our  business  and  transportation.  We  represent 
the  only  line  of  steamers  running  from  Cincinnati  to  New  Orleans.  Oc- 
casionally there  may  be  a stray  outside  boat,  but  not  in  regular  com- 
petition. We  have  ten  or  eleven  fine  palatial  steamboats,  which  carry 
from  1,200  to  1,500  tons  each,  and  we  make  eight  or  nine  trips  each  sea- 
son, laden  with  these  products.  In  return  we  take  down  the  manufact- 
ures of  the  Northwest.  This  is  a great  manufacturing  city.  We  trans- 
port the  furniture  that  is  made  here ; we  take  down  a great  deal  of  the 
hardware  which  we  get  from  Pittsburgh  ; we  reship  it  here  on  our  boats. 
We  also  transport  the  meats  of  Cincinnati,  and  the  products  of  the 
Ohio  River  from  Evansville,  Mount  yernon,  Paducah,  and  so  on.  We 
also  take  large  quantities  of  nails  and  glass  from  Pittsburgh,  reship 
them  here  under  a system  of  pro-rating,  they  carrying  them  about  500 
miles,  and  we  carrying  them  the  balance  of  about  1,500  miles,  and  di- 
viding the  rate  into  three  parts,  they  taking  one- third,  and  we  two- 
thirds,  which  allows  them  a little  more  than  their  share  for  the  actual 
mileage. 

The  successful  prosecution  of  our  business  depends  upon  the  freight 
which  we  get  on  our  return  trips.  We  can  possibly  get  a trip  down  that 
will  nearly  pay  expenses,  for,  as  you  must  all  know,  running  a steam- 
boat is  a very  expensive  thing.  Our  boats  average  from  $6,500  to  $9,000 
atrip  expenses,  and  that  is  all  cash  paid  out;  we  do  not  get  anything 
on  credit;  it  is  all  cash.  We  not  only  must  get  enough  to  pay  our  ex- 
penses, but  we  must  also  get  a return  for  interest  on  capital  invested, 
or  steamboats  must  cease  to  be.  We  carry  large  quantities  of  glassware 
from  Pittsburgh,  also  immense  quantities  of  nails  for  the  South ; and  we 
get  this  freight  because  we  can  carry  it  cheaper  than  the  railroads  can. 
The  whole  question  is  one  of  cheapness.  We  carry  many  passengers 


896 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fM.  V.  DALY 


also.  We  take  a passenger  from  here  to  New  Orleans  on  an  excursion 
trip,  allow  him  to  stay  two  or  three  days  in  New  Orleans,  keep  him  on 
the  boat,  give  him  as  good  fare  as  he  can  get  in  a hotel,  and  bring  him 
back  to  Cincinnati,  a trip  occupying  twenty -three  to  twenty-five  days’ 
time,  and  all  we  charge  him  for  it  is  $40,  or  about  $1.60  a day.  Why 
do  we  do  it  ? Because  we  have  to  feed  a crew  of  fifty  to  sixty  men  on 
board,  and  when  we  cook  for  these  men  we  can  provide  for  an  additional 
number  without  much  extra  expense.  In  that  way  we  are  enabled  to  pay 
the  expense  of  feeding  our  crews.  All  the  Western  boats  feedtheir  own 
crews. 

We  have  not  a single  sugar  refinery  in  this  city.  They  tried  to  estab- 
lish two  factories  here  at  one  time,  but  they  soon  abandoned  the  busi- 
ness, because  they  could  not  compete  with  the  great  factories  in  the 
East.  I know  of  only  one  sugar  refinery  in  the  West,  and  that  is  at  Saint 
Louis.  You  are  all  aware  that  these  sugars  have  to  be  refined  after 
they  are  brought  here.  Take  the  different  varieties  of  low-class  sugars, 
and  they  are  all  sent  to  New  York  to  be  refined;  they  could  not  be  used 
before  refining,  for  they  are  as  black  as  ink.  We  have  no  refinery  here, 
and  there  is  no  refinery  in  New  Orleans,  and  they  have  to  go  to  New 
York.  It  would  be  unjust  to  Western  interests  particularly,  to  allow 
free  trade  in  these  foreign  goods,  besides  destroying  our  sugar  planters 
down  in  Louisiana,  who  consume  the  products  which  are  sent  to  them 
from  this  portion  of  the  country.  Those  planters  are  all  depending  on 
being  able  to  get  a marketable  price  for  their  sugar  to  enable  them  to 
pay  for  the  necessaries  of  life  which  they  consume.  If  you  allow  im- 
ported sugar  to  come  in  competition,  the  result  will  be  that  the  price  of 
their  sugar  will  fall  to  such  a figure  that  it  will  not  pay  them  to  culti- 
vate it  at  the  present  rate  of  wages,  and  their  plantations  will  again 
become  waste,  as  many  of  them  are  to-day,  and  it  will  inflict  a deadly 
blow  upon  that  industry  in  the  South. 

I think  I have  said  all  that  is  necessary  to  be  said  on  this  point.  I 
have  tried  to  condense  my  ideas  so  that  you  can  understand  the  position 
we  assume.  The  point  which  we  make  is  that  it  would  be  a great  injury 
to  the  transportation  business,  of  the  West  and  South  especially,  to  have 
free  trade  in  sugar.  It  would  bring  the  planters  of  the  South  in  direct 
competition  with  the  slave  labor  of  Cuba,  and  not  alone  that,  but  it 
would  divert  the  trade  to  New  York  and  Boston,  where  it  would  be 
monopolized  by  large  capitalists,  and,  as  a consequence,  we  would  be 
entirely  prostrated,  and  the  cultivation  of  sugar  in  the  South  would  be 
abandoned.  I thank  you  for  your  attention. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  As  I understand  you,  the  interest  which  you  represent 
desires  that  no  change  shall  be  made  in  the  existing  rates  of  duty  upon 
sugar  and  other  productions  of  the  South  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir ; we  want 
no  change. 

Mr.  Vincent  Shenkel,  of  Covington,  Ky.,  also  representing  the 
Southern  Transportation  Line,  said  : 

1 think  the  gentleman  is  mistaken ; we  want  a change.  The  Cuban 
sugar  comes  in  now  artificially  colored,  so  that  it  will  pass  at  a lower 
rate  of  duty.  We  want  the  duty  placed  at  such  a rate  that  it  will  pro- 
tect these  sugar  planters  in  Louisiana.  At  the  present  time  one-third 
of  the  plantations  there  are  lying  idle ; they  are  not  raising  sugar,  and 
we  want  to  protect  these  people  so  that  they  can  raise  sugar  there  again. 


M.  V.  DALY.] 


SUGAR,  MOLASSES,  AND  RICE. 


897 


By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  That  is  to  say,  you  want  the  present  tariff  laws  enforced  ? — 
Answer.  Yes,  sir ; have  the  present  rates  of  duty  enforced,  or  put  the 
rates  a little  higher.  In  regard  to  this  matter  of  coloring  the  sugar,  I 
understand  it  is  done  wholly  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  law  and 
bringing  in  foreign  sugar  at  a lower  price. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  You  want  the  present  duty  maintained,  and  a system  devised  that 
will  tax  the  sugar,  not  by  its  color,  but  by  its  saccharine  strength  ? — A. 
That  is  what  we  want,  exactly. 

H.  Mis.  6 — -57 


898 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  L.  PFAU. 


JOHN  L.  PFAU. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September'  5, 1882. 

Mr.  John  L.  Pfau,  of  the  Globe  Rolling  Mill  Company,  of  Cincinnati? 
Ohio,  made  the  following  statement: 

In  regard  to  the  subject  of  iron  roofing,  I will  state  that  as  long  as  tin 
stood  at  a high  price  in  England,  the  manufacturers  of  iron  roofing 
(those  who  took  sheet  iron  and  painted  and  crimped  it)  were  not 
brought  in  competition  with  the  article  of  tin  very  much,  because  the 
price  in  England  for  a number  of  years  was  quite  high.  But  for  the 
last  few  years  the  price  has  ruled  so  low  that,  as  Mr.  Hyndman  says, 
tin  with  the  lower  tariff  on  it  can  be  imported  cheaper  than  iron  can  be 
painted  and  prepared  in  this  country.  With  the  35  per  centum  ad 
valorem  duty  on  the  iron  painted,  they  can  also  introduce  it  cheaper 
than  it  can  be  made  in  this  country,  as  Mr.  Scott,  as  I am  told,  is  doing. 
He  consumes  about  seven  hundred  tons  of  sheet  iron  a year.  This 
industry  has  grown  very  rapidly  from  a consumption  of  three  hundred 
tons  in  1870  to  nearly  ten  thousand  tons  per  annum  for  the  last  few  years. 
It  has  received  a check,  however,  during  the  last  two  years,  by  reason 
of  tin  being  made  as  cheaply  as  iron. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  You  account  for  the  present  condition  of  affairs  in  this 
business  by  the  changes  in  the  relative  prices  of  the  two  articles? — 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  therefore  you  think  to  maintain  a fixed  standard  or  ratio  of 
proportion  between  the  two  it  will  be  necessary  to  place  a purely  ad 
valorem  duty  on  both  classes  of  articles'? — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not  say  that. 
I am  not  wedded  to  either  one  or  the  other  form  of  duty ; but  1 say  a 
relative  proportion  of  duty  should  be  imposed  on  tin  as  compared  with 
iron.  Iron  roofing  manufacturers  are  discriminated  against  by  the 
duties  upon  tin,  unless  the  iron  is  allowed  to  come  in  this  country  under 
a much  lower  tariff;  and  even  iron  can  be  imported  under  the  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty  at  less  than  it  can  be  manufactured  for,  because 
the  duty  will  be  much  less  on  the  manufactured  article  than  on  the  raw 
material.  As  long  as  there  was  a gold  premium  it  added  that  much  to 
the  tariff;  but  now,  under  the  ad  valorem  duty,  they  can  import  pre- 
l>ared  sheet  iron  ready  to  put  on  roofs  cheaper  than  it  can  be  made  by 
the  manufacturer,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
duty  makes  the  duty  (30  cents  a hundred  on  the  one  article,  where  it  is 
$1.75  on  the  other.  This  importing  of  sheet  iron  has  only  been  com- 
menced recently,  as  I understand. 


JOHN  L.  PFAU.] 


IRON. 


899 


JOHN  L.  PFAU. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  John  L.  Pfau,  secretary  of  the  Covington  and  Newport  Polling 
Mills,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Mr.  John  Mitchell  and  myself,  who  appear  before  you  in  a represent- 
ative capacity,  represent  eight  rolling  mills,  located  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Cincinnati,  employing  from  4,000  to  4,500  men.  The  action  we  take 
in  this  matter  is  unanimously  approved  by  the  rolling-mill  proprietors. 
We  have  prepared  the  following  statement  of  our  case : 

At  a meeting  of  the  rolling-mill  proprietors  of  Newport  and  Covington, 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  and  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  representing  eight  mills 
now  in  operation,  employing  3,500  workmen,  it  was  the  unanimous 
sense  of  the  meeting  that  it  would  be  unwise  and  injurious  to  the  iron 
interest  of  the  United  States  to  have  the  tariff  on  any  kind  of  iron  re- 
duced at  present,  especially  on  rolled  iron,  such  as  bar,  sheet,  plate, 
hoop,  angle,  and  other  shape  irons,  as  through  the  system  of  u protec- 
tion” to  American  industries  the  production  of  manufactured  and  pig 
iron  has  been  increased  fully  a hundred  per  cent,  since  the  year  1870, 
which  leads  us  to  hope  that  by  the  year  1890  ours  will  be  the  nation  hav- 
ing the  largest  production  of  iron  in  the  world,  should  not  action  in 
the  way  of  a reduction  of  the  tariff  on  iron  take  place,  which  would 
greatly  reduce  our  present  production. 

England  for  some  years  past  has  been  paying  her  iron  workmen 
on  an  average  40  per  cent,  of  the  amount  paid  iron  workmen  in  the 
United  States  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  This,  coupled  with 
accumulated  capital  and  cheap  money  in  commercial  circles,  and  easy 
and  cheap  connections  by  rail  and  water  with  sources  of  supply  of  raw 
material,  will  enable  England  to  undersell  us  in  the  markets  of  the  world 
for  some  years  to  come.  On  the  contrary,  continuing  our  protective- 
policy  will,  we  believe,  enable  by  us  holding  out  inducements  to  expend 
the  profits  of  our  works  in  new  and  costly  machinery  and  appliances,  to 
reduce  the  number  of  days7  labor  required  to  produce  a ton  of  manufact- 
ured rolled  iron  to  the  minimum,  and  pay  liberal  wages  to  our  workmen. 
Aided  by  the  development  of  new  and  cheap  railroad  transportation  it 
will  give  us  access  to  the  yet  comparatively  inaccessible  iron-ore  beds  of 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Tennessee,  especially 
to  those  of  northwest  North  Carolina,  with  its  inexhaustible  beds  of  black 
magnetic  iron  ore,  the  best  in  the  world,  as  well  as  northern  Georgia,  north- 
ern Alabama,  and  eastern  Tennessee  with  its  cheaper  grades  of  iron  ores 
and  cheap  fuel,  and  when  adequate  railroad  facilities  are  secured,  which, 
however,  will  take  some  years  yet,  it  will  assist  largely  in  placing  us  in  the 
line  of  competition  with  the  iron  markets  of  the  world. 

For  these  reasons  we  are  opposed  to  the  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  iron 
for  some  years  to  come,  and  believe  a very  decided  expression  in  that 
direction  by  your  honorable  board  to  Congress,  and  the  latter7s  approval, 
would  greatly  hasten  the  further  development  of  the  iron  industries  of 
the  United  States. 


900 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  L.  PFAU. 


But  should  any  changes  be  deemed  necessary,  we  submit  the  follow- 
ing proposed  rates  of  duty  on  plate,  sheet,  and  taggers’  iron  : 

PROPOSED  RATES  OF  DUTY  ON  PLATE,  SHEET,  AND  TAGGERS’  IRON. 

Boiler  or  other  plate  iron  and  sheet  iron,  common  or  black,  not  thinner 
than  No.  25,  wire  gauge,  one  cent  and  one-half  per  ponnd.  Thinner 
than  No.  25,  wire  gauge,  and  not  thinner  than  No.  29,  wire  guage,  one 
cent  and  three-fourths  per  pound.  Thinner  than  No.  29,  wire  guage, 
and  all  iron  known  commercially  as  taggers’  iron,  whether  put  up  in 
boxes  or  bundles,  two  cents  and  one-half  per  pound. 

Kussia,  polished,  or  glanced  sheet  iron,  or  sheet  iron  by  whatever 
name  designated,  polished  by  a hammering  process,  three  cents  per 
pound. 

Sheet  iron  by  whatever  name  designated,  which  has  been  pickled  or 
cleaned  by  acid,  or  by  any  other  material  or  process,  or  which  is  cold  or 
single  rolled,  or  polished  or  smoothed  by  rolling,  or  by  any  other  proc- 
ess not  herein  described,  without  reference  to  the  degree  of  polish, 
shall  pay  one-half  cent  per  pound  more  than  the  corresponding  gauges 
of  common  or  black  sheet  iron. 

PROPOSED  PROVISION  FOR  MANUFACTURES  OF  PLATE  AND  SHEET 

IRON. 

All  shapes  and  blanks  made  of  sheet  and  plate  or  other  rolled  iron, 
and  all  manufactures  of  sheet  or  plate  or  other  rolled  iron,  and  all 
articles  made  of  sheet  or  plate  iron,  or  of  which  sheet  and  plate  or  other 
rolled  iron  shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  whether 
wholly  or  partially  manufactured,  shall  pay  no  less  rate  of  duty  than 
is  imposed  on  the  sheet  or  plate  or  other  rolled  iron  from  which  they 
are  made. 


PROPOSED  PROVISION  FOR  TIN  PLATES. 

Sheets  or  plates  of  iron,  or  sheets  or  plates  of  steel  or  taggers’  iron, 
galvanized  or  coated  with  tin  or  lead,  or  a mixture  of  tin  or  lead  or 
other  metal  by  the  dipping  or  any  other  process,  shall  pay  a duty  of 
one  cent  more  per  pound  than  the  duty  on  the  respective  gauges  of 
the  sheets  or  plates  of  iron,  or  the  sheets  or  plates  of  steel,  or  the  tag- 
gers’ iron,  which  have  been  thus  galvanized  or  coated. 

PROPOSED  RUST  OR  DAMAGE  CLAUSE. 

No  allowance  or  reduction  of  duties  for  partial  loss  or  damage  shall 
be  made  upon  any  description  of  iron,  or  upon  any  manufactures  of 
iron,  or  upon  any  article  of  iron  partially  manufactured,  in  consequence 
of  rust. 

In  conclusion,  we  desire  to  say  that  a reduction  in  the  tariff  on  iron, 
means  reducing  the  wages  of  our  skilled  and  other  workmen,  and  de- 
priving them  of  the  comforts  necessary  for  a pleasant  home,  and  the 
means  to  suitably  educate  their  children;  all  of  which  we  believe  every 
American  workman  should  be  possessed  of.  We  do  not  wish  to  see  the 
wages  of  our  workmen  placed  on  a par  with  the  underpaid  semi-pauper 
labor  of  England  and  Belgium. 


JOHN  L.  PFAU.] 


IRON. 


901 


By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  It  has  been  stated  that  iron  manufacturers  in  the  interior, 
say  at  Cincinnati  and  Chicago,  being  so  far  removed  from  the  seaboard, 
are  protected  by  the  freights,  and  could  stand  a reduction  in  the  duty, 
because  of  the  fact  that  the  freight  on  iron  from  the  seaboard  to  the  in- 
terior is  a protection  to  them.  What  have  you  to  say  about  that? — 
Answer.  It  might  within  a very  short  radius  of  Cincinnati  be  a pro- 
tection to  the  extent  of  the  difference  of  freight  from  England  to  that 
point,  and  from  Cincinnati  to  that  point.  On  the  other  hand,  when 
you  take  our  entire  coast  country  from  Baltimore  to  Florida,  and  around 
to  Corpus  Christi,  at  every  point  from  Baltimore  to  Corpus  Christi  the 
English  importers  would  have  an  advantage  of  from  tep  to  fifteen  cents 
against  us  5 that  is  to  say,  they  would  be  better  off  on  account  of  freights, 
to  the  extent  of  10  cents  a hundred  on  an  average,  than  we  would  be, 
shipping  to  the  same  point.  Of  course  in  Texas  the  discrimination 
against  us  in  the  matter  of  freights  would  be  20  or  30  cents  a hundred, 
while  in  Baltimore  it  would  be  perhaps  only  from  5 to  10  cents  in  their 
favor,  and  in  Bichmond  about  the  same,  perhaps,  or  a little  more,  while 
down  in  Charleston  it  would  be,  say,  15  cents  in  their  favor.  The  fur- 
ther south  you  go  the  more  it  would  be  in  their  favor,  with  the  exception 
of  New  Orleans,  where  I suppose  it  would  be  only  about  10  cents  a hun- 
dred in  their  favor,  because  that  is  a leading  point  of  communication 
with  Cincinnati  by  the  direct  river  line.  At  Chicago,  in  the  summer 
months,  it  would  be  about  on  a par  with  direct  importations.  Parties 
are  now  importing  iron  to  interior  ports.  I saw  an  invoice  of  No.  27 
iron  at  Hibbard  & Spencer’s  office.  They  showed  me  the  freight  cost 
and  figured  it  up  at  $1.17 ; and  that  was  purchased  three  or  four  months 
ago.  They  probably  made  it  a little  less  than  we  would  make  it  to-day, 
because  that  iron  was  imported  perhaps  in  May,  before  any  of  the  labor 
troubles  occurring  here  could  have  induced  them  to  take  such  steps.  They 
certainly  must  have  ordered  it  by  the  middle  of  June.  I11  Buffalo,  Chi- 
cago, and  Milwaukee,  I think  the  freights  overland  by  rail  would  be 
practically  the  same  as  on  iron  imported  from  England,  unless  there 
was  a great  cutting  in  rates,  which,  of  course,  is  not  a normal  condition 
of  trade.  But  on  the  entire  coast-line,  the  English  would  have  the  ad- 
vantage over  the  American  rolling  mills  in  the  matter  of  freight,  ex- 
cept, of  course,  as  regards  a few  rolling  mills  located  at  Philadelphia. 
At  present  our  sources  of  supply  are  very  widely  separated.  At  Pitts- 
burgh they  pay  $11  a ton  for  ore  brought  from  the  uppermost  part  of 
Michigan.  They  take  the  ore  from  the  mine,  ship  it  by  rail  and 
boat  to  Cleveland,  and  then  put  it  on  the  cars  and  ship  it  to  Pitts- 
burgh. That  is  over  a thousand  miles  in  distance,  and  it  is  very  costly 
transportation. 


902 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  STRIBLEY. 


GEORGE  STRIBLEY. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  George  Stribley,  of  the  firm  of  Stribley  & Co.,  of  Cincinnati, 
Ohio,  manufacturers  of  ladies’  shoes,  addressed  the  Commission  as 
follows : 

• 

Gentlemen:  As  the  morocco  manufacturers  of  this  country  are  ac- 
tively laboring  to  advance  the  duties  on  tanned  and  finished  goat  and 
sheep  skins,  the  boot  and  shoe  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  who 
handle  these  articles  find  their  interests  imperiled  on  account  of  the 
inadequate  supply  of  finished  material,  and  a consequent  necessary 
advance  in  the  price  of  boots  and  shoes  to  the  consumer. 

The  larger  portion  of  ladies’,  misses’,  and  children’s  shoes  made  in 
the  United  States  are  manufactured  from  what  is  known  as  morocco 
and  kid,  which  are  made  from  goat  skins,  the  greater  portion  of  which 
are  imported  in  a dry  state  and  are  here  manufactured  into  kid  and 
morocco  stock  at  factories  located  at  Philadelphia,  Wilmington,  New- 
ark, Brooklyn,  Baltimore,  Boston  and  its  vicinity.  These  skins,  which 
come  to  us  in  a dry  state,  are  free  from  duty,  and  as  there  is  no  com- 
mercial value  attached  to  the  goats  except  for  their  milk  or  meat  when 
fresh,  and  their  skins,  they  do  not  receive  the  usual  care  with  herds- 
men to  cause  them  to  breed  and  multiply;  hence  their  skins  do  not  and 
will  not  increase  in  quantity  in  proportion  to  the  increasing  demand  for 
them. 

Within  the  last  ten  years  the  prices  of  these  skins  in  New  York  mar- 
ket in  first  hands  have  advanced,  for  Mexicans,  from  40  cents  to  57J 
cents  per  pound;  South  American,  from  35  cents  to  56  cents  a pound; 
Ouracoa  and  Rio  Hacha,  from  38  cents  to  60  cents  per  pound;  Patna 
(East  India),  from  25  cents  to  45  cents  a skin;  Mochas,  from  20  cents  to 
45  cents  per  pound,  and  others  correspondingly. 

During  the  past  three  years,  prices  of  finished  skins  from  first-class 
manufacturers  have  advanced  as  follows : At  this  time,  in  1879,  best  Cura- 
coa  and  Rio  Hacha  kid  were  worth  34  cents  a square  foot,  and  the  same 
stock  brings  now  42  cents ; Macha  kids,  26  cents,  now  32  cents ; fair  selec- 
tion of  Patnas,  17  cents,  now  24  cents ; best  Tampico  pebble,  22  cents, 
now  27  cents ; Cape  pebbles,  20  cents,  and  are  now  worth  24  cents.  This 
comparison  of  prices  is  made  on  standard  kinds  of  skins  from  manufac- 
turers who  are  noted  for  uniformity  of  selection,  and  who  have  continued 
to  use  standard  goods.  It  is  a well-known  fact  that  as  prices  advance 
the  selections  become  poorer,  and  consequently  the  intrinsic  advance  is 
very  much  more  than  it  appears  in  figures. 

Large  quantities  of  fine  kids  are  imported  from  France,  upon  which 
there  is  a duty  of  20  per  cent.,  and  as  there  is  no  possible  substitute  for 
this  kind  of  stock  in  the  United  States  it  should  come  free  of  duty. 

Duriugthe  last  few  years  a trade  in  East  India  tanned  sheep  and  goat 
skins  has  sprung  up,  upon  which  a duty  of  10  per  cent,  is  paid,  and 
which  amounts  at  this  time  annually  to  three  million  goat  skins  and  only 
a little  less  in  sheep  skins.  These  skins  have  also  advanced  in  value  in 


GOAT  AND  SHEEP  SKINS. 


GEORGE  6STRIBLEY.] 


903 


a ratio  with  the  raw  material  both  in  the  hands  of  importers,  and  with 
manufacturers  who  finish  them  into  kid  and  morocco. 

The  chief  supplies  are  as  follows  per  annum : From  Mexico,  one  million 
skins 5 South  America,  one-half  million;  Curacoa  and  Rio  Hacha,  one 
and  a half  million;  Patnas  (East  India),  four  million;  Mocha,  two  mil- 
lion ; Cape  Good  Hope,  Russia,  and  other  places,  four  million. 

The  market  is  constantly  bare  of  both  raw  and  finished  skins,  and  the 
importer  and  manufacturer  find  no  difficulty  in  disposing  of  all  their 
goods  at  full  value.  The  product  or  source  of  supply  being  continually 
kept  drained  by  an  excessive  demand,  as  shown,  there  cannot  possibly 
be  any  important  increase  in  the  importation  of  raw  skins. 

For  these  various  reasons  assigned,  I deem  it  unjust  to  the  shoe  trade 
and  detrimental  to  the  people  at  large  to  impose  a duty  on  either  tanned 
or  finished  kid  or  goat  stock.  Better  by  far  take  the  present  tariff  off 
from  both,  and  thus  afford  an  opportunity  to  boot  and  shoe  manufac- 
turers to  work  up  our  surplus  sole  leather,  which  we  now  sell  to  Europe 
to  the  extent  of  ten  million  dollars  per  annum,  and  thus  home  manu- 
facturers will  have  the  privilege  of  making  shoes  for  our  neighbors  in 
Mexico,  Central  America,  South  America,  and  the  adjoining  islands, 
instead  of  furnishing  the  material  to  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Ger- 
many, and  in  this  manner  assisting  foreign  manufacturers  to  supply 
these  countries  with  nearly  all  their  boots  and  shoes. 

My  reason  for  coming  before  you  is  this:  that  the  manufacturers  of  raw 
skins — that  is,  skins  brought  into  this  country  with  the  hair  on — have 
been  urging  on  Congress  an  increased  duty  on  tanned  skins,  which  are 
brought  mainly  from  the  East  Indies,  and  as  the  supply  of  these  raw 
skins  is  not  in  proportion  to  the  demand,  I think  it  would  be  impru- 
dent to  increase  the  cost  on  tanned  skins.  Some  few  years  ago,  when 
there  was  a duty  on  the  importing  of  hides  and  skins,  the  duty  was 
taken  off  hides  and  skins  in  the  raw  state,  as  a compromise,  and  a duty 
amounting  to  one-half  was  left  on  tanned  skins.  Now  the  manufacturers 
of  the  Eastern  States  ask  that  the  duty  on  these  tanned  skins  shall  be 
made  equal  to  the  duty  on  finished  stock.  I think  that  is  unnecessary. 
A short  time  since,  in  asocial  conversation  with  a large  manufacturer  of 
goat  skins,  when  the  question  of  tanned  and  raw  skins  and  the  duties 
upon  them  was  under  discussion,  he  said : 

If  they  will  ghre  us  tanned  skins  duty  free,  we  can  very  well  afford  to  compete  with 
European  manufacturers  of  morocco,  and  will  be  willing  that  the  duty  shall  be  taken 
off  all  finished  skius. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  interest  which  would  be  particularly 
injured  by  putting  skins  on  the  free  list? — Answer.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  see  any  reason  why  that  should  not  be  done? — A.  I do 
not;  because  all  the  supplies  of  raw  skins  which  can  be  procured  are 
in  active  demand,  and  the  price,  as  I have  said,  is  constantly  increasing. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  we  have  the  largest  single  manufactories  of 
boots  and  shoes  in  the  world;  is  not  one  in  New  England  the  largest 
manufactory  in  the  world  ? — A.  I think  the  Batchelor  factory,  at  North 
Brookfield,  Mass.,  is  the  largest  factory  in  the  world.  They  would  not 
be  affected  at  all.  They  manufacture  boots  and  shoes  and  use  domestic 
material  entirely ; and  since  the  duty  has  been  taken  off  raw  hides  the 
tanning  of  leather  has  increased  so  much  that  they  export  a large 
quantity,  and  I see  no  good  reason  why,  if  we  had  cheaper  upper  mate- 
rial, we  could  not  make  up  the  goods  needed  for  export.  In  fact,  the 
export  of  shoes  made  of  domestic  leather  now  is  in  excess  of  the  import 


904 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEOKGE  stbibley. 


of  shoes  made  of  fine  leather.  If  we  had  fine  leathers  cheaper,  we  conld 
create  an  export  trade  in  those  goods.  We  have  the  sole  leather,  which 
is  an  important  item,  and  which  mnst  go  into  every  kind  of  shoe,  in 
better  supply  and  in  better  quality  than  any  other  country. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  United  Sta  tes  to-day  makes  in  several  grades 
of  shoes  the  very  best  article  for  the  money  paid,  taking  into  considera- 
tion the  quality  of  the  stock  put  into  it? — A.  Yes,  sir,*  I think  that  is  so. 
Some  four  or  five  years  ago  I made  a trip  through  Europe  and  examined 
the  manufactories  of  boots  and  shoes  there.  The  machinery  which  they 
use  is  American  machinery,  with  scarcely  an  exception.  Their  method 
of  using  those  machines  in  all  kinds  of  shoe  factories  was  not  equal  to 
ours.  And  while  our  wages  are  much  higher,  we  can  produce  nicer 
goods  than  they  can,  at  the  same  cost  for  labor. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Are  these  East  Indian  tanned  skins  used  as  imported,  or  are  they 
dressed  and  finished  before  using? — A.  They  are  taken  off  the  animals 
in  the  interior  of  India,  where  they  have  tanning  material  in  abundance, 
and  are  tanned  there  and  are  shipped  here  in  a tanned  state.  They  are 
here  taken  by  the  morocco  manufacturers  and  dressed  and  finished 
before  they  are  used. 

Q.  Then,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  they  are  a raw  material  when 
they  come  here;  they  are  not  used  at  all  as  they  are  imported  ? — A.  Oh, 
no,  sir;  not  at  all. 


J.  B.  MITCHELL.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


905 


J.  B.  MITCHEL. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September  5,  1882. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Mitchel,  of  the  firm  of  J.  W.  Luhn  & Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 
importers  of  merchandise,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

I am  not  in  any  way  connected  with  the  manufacture  of  productions 
of  any  kind.  Our  firm  has  been  in  the  importing  business  ever  since 
this  city  was  made  a port  of  entry.  Importations  here  are  increasing 
because  of  the  facilities  we  have  enjoyed  since  that  time.  Many  in- 
stances have  come  under  our  observation  showing  the  present  complica- 
tion of  the  tariff  laws.  Our  importations  are,  of  course,  limited  in  num- 
ber; but  within  that  limited  number  so  many  changes  have  been  caused 
in  the  tariff  laws  in  regard  to  the  duties  on  our  special  class  of  goods, 
by  the  decisions  of  appraisers  and  rulings  of  the  department,  that  I judge, 
if  the  same  proportion  holds  good  throughout  all  classes  of  importations, 
a large  portion  of  the  force  of  government  employes  connected  with  the 
customs  service  must  have  their  time  almost  wholly  taken  up  in  acting 
simply  as  experts.  I have  made  a note  of  some  of  the  points  which  I 
wish  to  present  to  the  Commission,  and  I will  give  them  to  you  as  I 
have  noted  them  down. 

. The  duties  on  certain  articles  which  we  import  are  so  complicated  as 
to  have  caused  many  and  contrary  rulings  and  decisions,  as  well  as 
much  annoyance  and  loss  to  importers.  Numbers  of  decisions  on  these 
and  similar  articles  have  appeared  to  the  importers  to  be  against  the 
evident  intent  of  the  law;  and  after  vexatious  and  protracted  litigation 
many  such  decisions  have  been  reversed.  On  many  of  these  questions 
the  importers  have  been  unanimous  in  their  interpretation  of  the  in- 
tent and  meaning  of  the  law  as  against  the  decision  of  the  appraisers. 
I will  briefly  call  attention  to  some  of  these  articles,  all  of  which  we  are 
engaged  in  importing  and  selling;  and  I presume  any  importer  of  any 
other  class  of  goods  can  enumerate  a similar,  if  not  larger,  proportion  of 
disputed  articles. 

In  Italian  cloths  and  mohair  serges,  used  for  lining  in  clothing,  three 
classifications  exist. 

Those  under  4 ounces  per  square  yard  and  under  20  cents  per  square 
yard  pay  6 cents  per  square  yard  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Those  under  4 ounces  and  over  20  cents  per  square  yard  pay  8 cents 
per  square  yard  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Those  over  4 ounces  pay  50  cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem. 

On  account  of  these  different  classes  of  the  same  goods,  it  was  decided 
some  years  ago  that  all  figured  Italian  cloths,  &c.,  should  pay  the  high- 
est rate,  as  dress  goods.  Thousands  and  even  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  dollars  were  recovered  from  the  government  by  importers  who  pro- 
tested against  paying  these  rates,  after  months  and  even  years  of  costly 
and  vexatious  litigation. 

I would  suggest  that  all  this  class  of  goods  pay  one  rate  of  duty.  In 
one  lot  of  goods  imported  by  ourselves,  all  costing  under  20  cents  per 
square  yard,  part  were  colored  and  part  were  black.  The  portions  which 
were  finished  in  colors  were  slightly  heavier  than  the  blacks,  from  the 


906 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


|J.  B.  MITCHELL. 


nature  of  the  dye  and  finish.  The  blacks  weighed  just  under  4 ounces, 
and  the  colors  a shade  over  4 ounces  per  square  yard.  Consequently 
our  black  goods  cost  us  31  cents  per  yard  and  our  colored  ones  over  38 
cents,  because  of  this  slight  accidental  difference  in  finishing  two  por- 
tions of  the  same  goods. 

In  cottons,  for  many  years,  and  until  something  over  a year  ago, 
silesias  were  passed  at  5£  cents  per  square  yard  and  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  if  dyed,  printed,  or  colored.  Now  they  are  classified  along 
with  tickings,  &c.,  and  pay  6J  cents  per  square  yard  and  15  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  All  importers  of  these  goods  are  paying  the  new  rate  under 
protest,  well  convinced  that  on  a hearing  of  the  question  the  United  States 
courts  will  reverse  the  decision  of  the  department.  Many  of  these  goods 
are  printed  and  are  used  for  linings  in  clothings,  and  often  the  same  pat- 
tern is  printed  both  on  the  twilled  silesias  and  on  plain  woven  cottons, 
the  latter  paying  the  lower  rate  and  the  former  the  higher  rate  of  duty, 
both  being  used  for  the  same  purposes  and  not  differing  in  any  manner 
from  each  other,  except  as  to  a slight  difference  in  the  set  of  the  loom. 

In  manufactures  composed  of  silk  and  cotton  several  rates  of  duty 
are  collected,  from  35  per  cent,  to  00  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the  different 
rates  depending  solely  on  the  proportions  of  the  two  materials.  In 
these  goods  when  the  silk  is  under  25  per  cent,  in  value  the  rate  is  as 
cottons.  When  the  silk  is  over  25  per  cent,  and  under  50  per  cent,  the 
rate  is  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  When  the  silk  is  over  50  per  cent,  and 
under  75  per  cent,  the  rate  is  50  per  cent.  When  the  silk  in  over  75 
per  cent,  the  rate  is  60  per  cent.  On  account  of  the  difficulty  of  deter- 
mining the  actual  proportions  many  disagreements  arise  between  the 
importers  and  the  appraisers-  It  is  impossible  for  the  most  expert  ex- 
aminer to  be  conversant  with  the  various  grades  of  the  silk  and  cotton 
yarns  in  all  the  manufactories  of  the  world,  much  less  to  keep  informed 
of  the  various  and  unequal  fluctuations  in  the  market  values  of  these 
materials.  So  two  honest  appraisers  of  the  same  port  may  differ  on 
these  goods,  and  it  is  still  more  possible  for  appraisers  at  different  ports 
to  differ.  Many  such  cases  of  difference  have  arisen,  giving  the  mer- 
chant in  one  city  a great  advantage  over  his  competitor  in  another  city. 

An  examination  by  you  of  thousands  of  decisions  and  rulings  of  the 
department,  on  file  in  the  appraisers’  offices,  will  forcibly  illustrate  the 
complications  and  difficulties  arising  constantly  on  account  both  of  the 
ambiguities  of  the  law,  as  well  as  the  impossibility  of  the  appraiser  de- 
termining the  exact  proportions  of  the  value  in  many  mixed  goods. 

I would,  therefore,  respectfully  suggest  that  if  your  Commission  make 
no  recommendation  for  any  other  changes  in  the  tariff,  that  you  will 
meet  the  wishes  of  all  classes  of  citizens,  in  any  way  connected  directly 
or  indirectly  with  the  collection  or  payment  of  duties,  by  recommend- 
ing such  changes  as  will  simplify  the  classification  of  goods  for  duties. 
Such  changes  could  be  made  as  would  materially  reduce  the  cost  to  the 
government  of  collecting  those  duties  without  much  reduction  in  the 
aggregate  amount ; and  at  the  same  time  relieve  the  importers  and  man- 
ufacturers of  much  annoy auce,  uncertainty,  and  loss. 

It  will  no  doubt  have  become  quite  plain  to  you  by  your  present  ex- 
amination of  the  subject  that  no  radical  change  in  the  tariff,  such  as  a 
large  reduction  or  increase,  or  total  abolition  of  duties,  either  on  raw  ma- 
terials or  manufactured  articles,  will  meet  the  wishes  of  all  interests  or 
fail  to  arouse  the  most  decided  and  vehement  opposition  of  some  classes. 
The  very  fact  that  all  material  must  pass  through  many  stages  of  prep- 
aration and  manipulation  before  arriving  at  the  condition  of  a complete 
manufacture,  makes  it  difficult  to  define  or  distinguish  raw  material  and 


J.  B.  MITCHELL.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


907 


manufactures.  What  is  one  man’s  completed  manufacture  is  another’s 
raw  material,  such  as  iron  in  all  shapes,  yarns,  leather,  and  hunhreds  of 
other  articles. 

If  such  a simplification  of  the  tariff  laws  can  be  effected  by  your  Com- 
mission, while  many  interested  classes  will  not  have  obtained  all  and 
just  what  they  wanted,  all  classes  will  be  gratified  that  some  real  good 
has  been  done  by  making  plain,  simple,  and  certain  the  laws  affecting 
so  largely  their  mercantile  and  manufacturing  interests. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  Do  you  reside  in  Cincinnati  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  imports  made  directly  to  your  custom-house  here  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  They  come  in  bond  to  Cincinnati,  and  the  duties  are  collected  here. 

Q.  And  all  these  rulings,  to  which  you  have  referred,  have  occurred 
in  the  Cincinnati  custom-house  ? — A.  No,  sir,  not  all ; they  are  rulings 
made  in  New  York  by  the  board  of  general  appraisers,  and  by  the  de- 
partment at  Washington.  Any  decision  made  in  New  York  or  Wash- 
ington with  reference  to  an  article  affects  all  custom-houses  through- 
out the  country. 

Q,.  As  a rule,  do  you  find  that  the  appraisements  made  by  the  ap- 
praisers here,  agree  with  the  appraisements  made  at  the  custom- 
house in  New  York? — A.  Their  rulings  are  identical,  because  they  are 
guided  by  orders  from  the  department.  Their  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
classification  of  goods,  however,  1 find  are  different. 

Q.  Then  I will  inquire  of  you  as  to  the  classification.  We  have  been 
told  by  importers  elsewhere,  that  they  have  known  goods  to  be  im- 
ported into  Chicago,  classified  and  appraised  there,  the  duties  paid, 
and  then  returned  to  New  York  and  sold  at  a larger  profit  than  if  they 
had  originally  been  appraised  at  New  York.  Do  you  know  anything 
about  that? — A.  I believe  such  cases  occurred  some  years  ago. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  of  such  a thing  occurring  with  regard  to  the 
custom-house  here  ? — A.  No,  sir.  I have  heard  of  cases  of  that  kind 
occurring  at  the  Chicago  custom-house,  and  they  easily  could  occur,  as 
I explained,  in  regard  to  silk  and  cotton  goods.  The  classification  rests 
solely  on  the  judgment  of  the  appraiser  as  to  the  proportion  of  the 
two  parts  of  silk  and  cotton.  An  appraiser  here  at  the  Cincinnati 
custom-house  might  think  certain  goods  should  pay  a duty  of  35  per 
cent.,  while  in  New  York  they  might  classify  the  same  goods  as  subject 
to  a duty  of  50  per  cent.  We  have  imported  goods,  and  they  have  been 
passed  here  at  35  per  cent,  (that  was  some  years  ago,  before  the  matter 
got  into  its  present  shape),  when  I found  out  afterwards  that  the  goods  in 
New  York  were  raised  from  35  per  cent,  on  the  entry  of  the  merchant  to 
50  per  cent,  on  the  decision  of  the  appraiser.  That  of  course  depends 
on  the  judgment  of  the  appraiser  himself  as  to  the  value  of  the  com- 
ponent parts.  No  statement  is  made  in  an  invoice  as  to  the  value  of  the 
two  different  materials. 

Q.  In  importing,  do  you  purchase  your  goods  abroad $ or  are  you 
agents  for  foreign  manufacturers? — A.  We  purchase  our  goods  abroad 
entirely;  but  we  find  a great  many  articles  are  sold  here  by  agents 
of  the  manufacturer  at  such  a low  price  that  we  cannot  afford  to 
import  them.  That  is  a matter  which  1 brought  to  the  attention  of  a 
former  commission,  sitting  in  New  York  City  at  one  time.  I laid  the 
matter  before  them,  but  nothing  ever  came  from  it  as  a result  of  the 
recommendation  of  the  commission.  That  is  a matter  with  which  a 
great  many  merchants  have  found  fault.  I find  that  in  some  classes  of 
goods  we  are  unable  to  go  to  the  foreign  market  and  buy  the  goods  and 


908 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  MITCHELL. 


bring  them  here  as  cheaply  as  we  can  buy  them  of  the  manufacturer’s 
agent,  because  the  goods  are  consigned  to  the  agent  at  prices  we  can- 
not buy  them  for  abroad. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  That  would  only  atfect  you  where  goods  come  in  under  an  ad  va- 
lorem duty? — A.  Of  course.  Take  this  matter  of  linings.  We  can- 
not buy  them  in  Germany  and  import  them  as  cheaply  as  we  can  buy 
them  in  New  York  from  the  manufacturer’s  agent.  Whether  that  is 
caused  by  actual  undervaluation  of  the  goods  or  not,  I would  dislike  to 
say.  There  is  certainly  some  good  reason  for  it;  but  a reason  I never 
have  been  able  to  discover. 

Q.  In  the  custom-house  here,  are  invoices,  as  they  appear,  generally  ac- 
cepted ? — A.  Undoubtedly.  I do  not  know  of  any  case  in  our  experience 
where  an  invoice  has  been  questioned  in  any  degree  at  all. 

Q.  You  think  that  is  the  custom  in  regard  to  all  goods  imported  at 
Cincinnati  ? — A.  I think  with  most  of  them  it  is;  in  our  line,  I am  sure 
it  is.  There  are  very  few  houses  here  importing;  our  imports  are  lim- 
ited, in  comparison  with  those  of  the  Eastern  cities.  What  the  fact  is  in 
regard  to  the  importation  of  spirits  I cannot  say;  but  I have  heard  of 
an  instance  in  which  the  difference  of  duty  was  so  great  as  to  be  some- 
thing over  $7,000  on  an  estimated  duty  of  $500.  The  instance  occurred 
in  the  custom-house  here  where  a lot  of  cherry  juice  was  imported  and 
entered,  and  the  duty  amounted,  on  the  merchant’s  estimate,  to  some- 
thing over  $500,  while  the  appraiser  estimated  tke  duties  at  over 
$8,000. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  That  is  a very  wide  margin ; how  do  you  account  for  it? — A.  Fruit 
juices  pay  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I do  not  know  the 
exact  duty  paid  on  spirits;  but  I know  they  pay  a very  much  higher 
duty.  This  cherry  juice  contained  over  50  per  cent,  of  alcohol — not  by 
the  hydrometer  at  all,  as  the  appraiser  tells  me  the  hydrometer  shows 
none  in  these  fruit  juices;  but,  by  distillation,  they  got  over  half  the 
quantity  of  pure  alcohol. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Beturning  now  to  the  point  upon  which  I was  questioning  you : 
You  say  it  is  the  custom  generally  at  the  Cincinnati  custom-house  to 
accept  the  consular  invoice  as  entered  by  the  merchant  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  they  rarely  go  back  of  the  invoice  and  make  an  appraise- 
ment of  the  goods  ? — A.  They  always  examine  the  goods. 

Q.  Yes,  of  course ; but  I mean  that  they  rarely  change  or  increase 
the  value  of  the  invoice? — A.  I don’t  know  of  a case  of  changing  the 
value  represented  in  the  invoice ; it  may  have  occurred,  but  I never 
heard  of  it.  In  fact,  unless  the  examiner  was  a universal  expert,  he 
could  not  question  the  invoice.  Unless  he  found  two  invoices  from  the 
same  party  on  the  other  side  of  the  water,  of  the  same  identical  goods, 
at  different  prices,  he  would  know  nothing  about  it.  There  can  be  no 
such  thing,  of  course,  as  a universal  expert. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  it  is  the  practice  in  the  New  York  custom-house 
to  frequently  change  the  values  appearing  on  the  invoice? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  I know  that.  In  New  York  there  is  so  much  business  that  an 
examiner  has  one  class  of  goods  only  to  examine.  He  has  silk  goods 
to  examine,  or  sugars  to  examine ; in  fact  there  are  dozens  of  men  engaged 
in  the  examination  of  sugars  alone.  Each  man  has  a specific  class  of 
goods  under  his  supervision ; while  here,  one  examiner  examines  and 


J.  B.  MITCHELL.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


909 


appraises  all  varieties  of  goods.  Of  course,  a man  who  devotes  his  whole 
time  to  the  examination  of  one  class  of  goods  will  become  more  conver- 
sant with  the  value  of  those  goods  than  he  will  if  he  examines  many 
different  kinds ; and  in  New  York,  besides,  they  have  many  more  invoices 
to  compare  with  each  other,  on  account  of  the  larger  number  of  impor- 
tations. I understand  that  the  appraisers  in  New  York  have  a great 
many  undervaluations  and  disputed  valuations  to  contend  with ; but 
that  their  difficulty  chiefly  is  in  regard  to  the  classification  of  the  goods. 

Q.  But  here,  you  say,  it  is  the  custom  of  the  examiner  to  accept  the 
consular  invoice,  and  to  charge  the  duties  on  that  without  question? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I think  so.  And  perhaps  this  is  the  reason:  All  impor- 
tations to  Cincinnati,  I expect,  without  exception,  are  purchased  goods 
actually  bought  on  the  other  side.  In  New  York,  a large  proportion 
of  the  goods  are  received  on  consignment  to  agencies,  upon  which  they 
pay  the  duties,  and  then  sell  the  goods,  and  the  price  is  not  based  upon 
the  invoice  at  all,  but  is  fixed  by  the  manufacturer.  He  says  to  the 
agent  in  New  York, 11  Sell  the  goods  at  such  a price,  United  States  cur- 
rency, pay  the  duties  out  of  it,  take  your  commission,  interest,  storage, 
and  freight  out,  and  return  me  the  difference.”  That  is  the  way  it  is 
done.  The  invoice  does  not  represent  the  payment  for  the  goods  at  all. 


910 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[TORBITT  & CASTLEMAN. 


TOEBITT  & CASTLEMAN  ET  AL. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  September  6,  1882. 
The  following  communication  from  the  wholesale  grocers  of  Louis- 
ville, Ky.,  in  regard  to  the  duties  on  sugar,  molasses,  and  rice,  was  read 
and  ordered  to  be  printed : 


To  the  United  States  Tariff  Commission : 

Gentlemen:  The  undersigned,  wholesale  grocers  of  the  city,  beg  to 
express  their  concurrence  in  the  views  of  the  Grocers  Association  of 
Cincinnati,  as  set  forth  in  the  paper  presented  to  your  honorable  body 
on  the  5th  instant  by  their  committee,  on  the  question  of  the  duties  ou 
sugar,  molasses,  and  rice.  We  think  it  highly  important  to  the  general 
welfare  of  the  people  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  Valley  to  foster  these 
interests  in  our  Southern  States,  and  respectfully  urge  that  no  change 
be  made  in  the  duties  on  these  articles. 


Very  respectfully, 

Munell,  Cabell  & Co. 

Stege  & Belling. 
Overbacker,  Gilmore  & Co. 
A.  Enngelhard. 

Goddard  & Co. 


TORBITT  & CASTLEMAN. 
Morn,  Brunaker  & Co. 
W.  E.  Grimtead  & Co. 
Otter  & Co. 

Allen,  Atherton  & Co. 


MATTHEW  O’DOHEKTY.] 


PROTECTION. 


911 


MATTHEW  O’DOHERTY. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  Wednesday , September  G,  1882. 

Mr.  Matthew  O’Doherty,  of  Louisville,  representing  the  Irish- 
Amercan  Republican  Club,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made 
the  following  statement: 

Mr.  President  and  Members  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : I will 
state  that  the  club  or  organization  that  I represent  is  not  a manufact- 
uring company,  as  you  can  see  from  its  name.  It  is  composed  almost 
exclusively  of  workingmen,  and  the  only  reason  we  have  for  offering 
these  suggestions  is  this:  That  we  have  had  experience  both  here  and 
in  countries  where  free  trade  prevails. 

We,  the  committee  appointed  from  the  Irish  Republican  Club  of  this 
city,  in  pursuance  of  the  instructions  given  us,  and  with  a view  of  ren- 
dering you,  and  through  you  our  common  country,  all  the  aid  we  can 
afford  in  the  investigation  of  the  all-important  question  of  tariff*,  re- 
spectfully beg  leave  to  submit  that  many,  if  not  all  of  us,  know  by  act- 
ual experience  the  effect  which  iree  trade  and  what  is  called  protective 
tariff  have  upon  the  social  condition  of  the  masses  of  the  people  in 
countries  where  one  or  other  of  these  systems  prevails.  With  this  ex- 
perience to  guide  us,  we  would  be  false  to  our  duty  as  citizens  of  this 
republic  did  we  fail  to  declare  ourselves  unalterably  in  favor  of  high 
protective  tariff.  We  submit  the  following  as  the  result  of  our  experi- 
ence and  observation : 

1st.  That  the  essential  fact  to  be  remembered  in  considering  the  pres- 
ent tariff  laws,  and  lying  at  their  very  base,  is,  that  the  social  condition 
of  the  masses  of  European  workingmen  is  far  inferior  to  that  of  Amer- 
ican workingmen. 

2d.  That  free  trade,  or  any  material  reduction  of  the  present  tariff, 
would  necessarily  force  American  workingmen  into  competition  with 
European  workingmen,  and  that  such  competition  could  only  be  suc- 
cessfully maintained  by  forcing  American  workingmen  into  the  social 
degradation  of  their  European  competitors.  This,  in  our  opinion, 
would  mean  the  enslavement  of  American  labor,  the  pauperizing  of 
American  workingmen,  the  transfer  of  the  children  of  American  work- 
ingmen from  the  school  to  the  factory,  and  of  their  wives  and  daughters 
from  their  homes  to  the  workshop ; all  of  which  would  result  in  divid- 
ing the  people  of  this  country  into  two  classes — paupers  and  aristocrats — 
and  make  a mockery  of  the  maxim  which  declares  ours  to  be  a u gov- 
ernment of  the  people  and  for  the  people.” 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  From  what  country  have  the  members  of  your  club  come  ? — 
Answer.  They  are  nearly  all  Irishmen. 

Q.  And  therefore  you  speak  in  the  name  of  the  English  operatives  as 
well  as  the  Irish? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  make  the  comparison  you  make  it  between  the  English 
and  the  Irish  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Americans  on  the  other? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  are  no  French  or  German  members  of  your  club? — A.  Ko, 
sir. 


912 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[MATTEW  O’DOHERTY. 


By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  How  many  members  have  you  in  your  organization?— A.  One 
hundred  and  fifty. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  All  residents  of  Louisville? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  How  long  has  your  club  been  in  existence? — A.  I think  about  two 
ears. 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON.] 


ALCOHOL. 


913 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  September  6,  1882. 

Mr.  Goldsborough  Robinson,  of  Louisville,  secretary  and  treas- 
urer of  the  Louisville  Leaf  Tobacco  Company,  appeared  before  the  Com- 
mission and  made  the  following  statement: 

Mr.  President  and  Members  of  the  Tariff  Commission:  As 
the  industrial  interests  of  over  fifty  millions  of  people,  through  their 
representatives,  pass  in  review  before  you,  the  thought  must  strike  you 
painfully  at  times  that  it  is  impossible  to  so  adjust  the  revenue  laws  of 
the  country  that  all  interests  will  be  served  and  none  injured. 

I have  the  pleasure  of  presenting  for  your  consideration  a proposition 
in  which  every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  no  matter  how  humble,  is 
interested,  and  yet  by  the  favorable  consideration  of  which  every  citizen 
may  be  benefited.  1 refer  to  the  use  of  alcohol,  without  tax , in  arts  and 
manufactures. 

It  may  be  urged  at  the  outset  that  this  is  a question  not  of  tariff, 
but  of  internal  revenue.  I reply  that  this  question  will  affect  your 
consideration  of  the  adjustment  of  the  tariff  in  many  directions,  and 
that  it  has  already  been  brought  before  your  honorable  body  by  Mr. 
Bower,  of  Philadelphia,  by  Mr.  Meyer,  of  Cleveland,  and  that  Mr. 
Hewitt,  of  New  York,  introduced  a resolution,  during  the  session  of 
Congress  just  adjourned,  “that  alcohol  for  use  in  manufactures  should 
be  placed  upon  the  free  list.” 

It  is  true  that,  in  a discussion  afterwards  with  Mr.  Kelley,  he  ad- 
mitted that  “this  was  crudely  expressed,”  but  that  he  did  desire  to  see 
some  system  provided  which  would  grant  manufacturers  of  this  country 
alcohol  free  of  duty. 

It  will  be  impossible  for  you  to  consider  fairly  the  tariff  question 
without  gathering  some  fiicts  and  making  some  recommendations  in 
regard  to  its  relation  to  internal  revenue. 

As  to  the  importance  of  this  matter,  the  use  of  alcohol  is  necessary 
in  almost  every  art  and  manufacture]  and  our  present  system  of  laws 
cramps  our  industries  in  hundreds  of  ways,  unappreciated  until  the 
matter  is  investigated. 

We  are  the  more  injured  in  this  matter  from  the  fact  that  both  Eng- 
land and  Germany  allow  their  manufacturers  alcohol  free  of  duty]  and 
this  forces  the  consideration  of  the  tax  on  alcohol  whenever  you  con- 
sider how  our  revenue  laws  may  be  so  adjusted  as  to  protect  our  in- 
dustries. 

If  you  will  remember  that  in  every  foundry  in  this  country  alcohol  is 
consumed  in  the  varnish  of  the  patterns,  that  it  forms  a necessary  and 
considerable  part  of  the  expense  account  of  the  piano  manufacturer,  the 
sewing-machine  manufacturer,  the  furniture  manufacturer,  the  carpet 
and  oilcloth  makers,  the  painter,  the  plumber,  and  the  druggist;  you 
will  see  at  once  how  it  enters  into  every  industrial  pursuit,  aud  pow 
absolutely  necessary  it  is  that  our  people  should  have  its  use,  as  a raw 
material,  free  of  any  tax. 

Many  interests  have  appeared  before  you,  urging  action  that  they 
might  be  protected;  but  this  interest  asks  at  your  hands  not  protec- 
tion, but  that  it  may  not  be  burdened  by  a prohibitory,  unjust,  and  ex- 
cessive taxation. 


H.  Mis.  6 58 


914 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


Upon  the  best  authority  that  can  be  gathered,  as  was  brought  forth 
in  several  hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the 
Forty-seventh  Congress,  the  consumption  of  alcohol,  prior  to  the  levy- 
ing of  the  internal  revenue  tax,  in  arts  and  manufactures  was  35  per 
cent,  of  its  total  production  in  this  country.  It  is  now  estimated  at  5 
per  cent.,  so  that,  although  this  tax  is  so  injurious  in  so  many  ways,  it 
is  so  excessive  as  to  be  almost  prohibitory,  and  the  government  derives 
from  it  only  some  three  millions  revenue  per  annum. 

I do  not  think  the  statute  books  of  any  nation  can  show  a taxation 
as  injurious  and  as  useless. 

The  great  injury  done  our  industries  by  levying  a tax  on  so  necessary 
an  article  as  alcohol  has  forced  itself  strongly  upon  all  our  best  think- 
ers who  have  interested  themselves  in  revenue  legislation ; and  there 
is  no  stronger  argument  for  the  necessity  of  this  Commission  than  that 
Congress  after  Congress  has  adjourned  without  remedying  this  evil. 

During  its  last  session  Mr.  Hewitt  introduced  his  resolution  before 
mentioned.  Mr.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania,  stated  that  “this  tax  is  re- 
tarding our  manufacturing  progress  and  restricting  our  exports,”  and 
that  “the  relief  our  farmers,  manufacturers,  and  consumers  should 
have  is  an  immediate  reduction  and  the  earliest  practicable  repeal  of 
the  last  vestige  of  this  oppressive  and  restrictive  tax.”  The  Hon.  Ben- 
jamin Butterworth,  of  Ohio,  in  an  argument  before  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means,  on  this  subject,  spoke  as  follows: 

It  is  well  known  that  the  rate  of  tax  on  distilled  spirits  was  fixed  with  reference  to 
the  fact  that  spirits  are  deemed  to  he  a luxury,  and  it  was  regarded  as  a tax  upon  one 
of  the  luxuries.  But  it  will  not  be  claimed  that  alcohol  used  iu  the  arts  and  for  in- 
dustrial pursuits  can  he  classed  as  a luxury,  nor  would  it  as  such  he  a proper  subject 
of  taxation;  hence  it  appears  to  me  that  the  rule  which  would  impose  a tax  upon 
luxuries  would  not  include  within  its  terms  or  spirit  such  product  of  the  still  which 
is  used  solely  for  industrial  purposes ; and,  while  adhering  to  the  spirit  which  prompted 
the  enactment  of  the  present  law,  we  should,  as  a matter  of  public  policy,  freely  per- 
mit the  withdrawal  of  alcohol  for  use  in  industrial  pusuits. 

And  Mr.  Willis,  of  Kentucky,  urging  the  same  measure,  said : 

Let  us  not,  with  a Treasury  full  to  overflowing,  extort  further  tribute  from  either 
science,  commerce,  or  industry;  but  rather,  by  wise  and  beneficent  legislation,  widen 
their  operations  and  extend  their  usefulness. 

And  yet,  with  this  expression  of  opinion  from  the  leading  minds  of 
the  two  great  political  parties  of  this  country,  and  the  example  of  both 
England  and  Germany — our  great  commercial  rivals — before  them,  the 
Forty-seventh  Congress  adjourned  without  granting  any  measure  of 
relief. 

Mr.  Bower,  of  Philadelphia,  urged  upon  you  the  necessity  of  adding 
the  alcohol  tax  to  your  tariff  duty  on  every  article  imported  into  the 
manufacture  of  which  alcohol  entered.  This  proposition  is  impracticable 
upon  its  face,  for  you  cannot  determine  the  amount  of  alcohol  neces- 
sarily used,  and  it  would  be  most  wretched  public  policy,  tor  it  urges 
that  because  our  people  suffer  from  an  excessive  taxation  through  in- 
ternal-revenue laws  that  you  attempt  to  make  the  wrong  right  by  add- 
ing excessive  duties  to  the  tariff. 

There  is  an  easier  and  better  way.  It  is,  to  repeal  the  internal-revenue 
tax.  I think  it  will  be  evident  to  your  minds,  without  further  argu- 
ment, that  this  alcohol  tax  upon  industry  should  be  removed. 

The  question  remains  for  you  to  consider  how  best  it  can  be  done. 
There  are  but  two  practicable  methods.  One,  the  enactment  of  such  a 
bill  as  that  introduced  by  Mr.  Willis,  of  Kentucky  (H.  R.  5082),  during 
the  last  session  of  Congress,  and  which  I append,  marked  A;  and  the 
other,  the  total  abolition  of  the  whole  system  of  internal-revenue  taxation. 


GOLDSBOEOUGH  ROBINSON.] 


ALCOHOL. 


915 


In  regard  to  the  Willis  bill,  I append,  marked  B,  a full  report  of  the 
evidence  taken  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  which  evi- 
dence demonstrates,  conclusively,  the  feasibility  of  the  measure. 

As  to  the  internal-revenue  system,  Mr.  Carlisle,  in  his  great  free- trade 
speech  opposing  the  law  authorizing  the  appointment  of  this  Commis- 
sion said  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  consider  questions  of  tariff 
without  also  considering  questions  of  expenditure  and  income;  and  thus 
far  I agree  with  him. 

If  the  Commission  is  organized  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  our  in- 
dustries without  regard  to  revenue,  then  you  must  let  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  revenue  go.  But  if  it  is  organized  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
revenue  for  the  support  of  the  government  and  at  the  same  time  of 
protecting  our  industries,  then  you  must  consider  the  questions  which 
relate  to  revenue,  which  is  already  coming  in  at  the  rate  of  $150,000,000 
annually. 

Now,  if  this  honorable  Commission,  in  considering  these  questions, 
shall  be  able  to  devise  such  a system  of  tariff  revenue  as  shall  enable 
them  to  recommend  the  entire  abolition  of  the  internal-revenue  system, 
they  will  be  entitled  to  the  lasting  gratitude  of  the  whole  country. 
Such  a measure  will  relieve  us  of  the  support  of  four  thousand  agents 
of  this  department,  whose  unproductive  labor  costs  annually  some 
$5,000,000.  It  will  free  our  federal  courts  from  thousands  of  cases 
which  cost  the  people  millions  of  dollars  in  expense  and  loss  of  time, 
by  witnesses  and  principals,  in  cases  involving  petty  infractions  of  un- 
known laws  and  regulations.  It  will  prevent  the  wounding  and  killing 
of  over  a hundred  men  annually,  whose  lives  are  lost  in  enforcing  laws 
utterly  opposed  to  the  habits  of  thought  and  traditions  of  our  people. 

In  conclusion,  a certain  class  of  thinkers  have  heralded  this  Commis- 
sion to  the  world  as  appointed  for  the  sole  purpose  of  perpetuating  and 
increasing  the  burdens  of  the  people.  It  would  be  a noble  answer  to  this 
charge  if,  through  measures  devised  by  your  wisdom,  the  people  are  re- 
lieved from  the  system  of  surveillance,  vexatious  suits,  and  useless  man- 
slaughter entailed  by  this  remnant  of  the  war’s  miseries  called  “internal- 
revenue  taxation.” 

The  alcohol  question,  involving  almost  every  industrial  pursuit  of  our 
country,  and  regarded  as  so  grave  in  England  as  to  be  provided  for  by 
a special  system  of  laws  and  regulations,  will  force  you  to  face  this 
problem,  and,  in  the  words  ol  Mr.  Hewitt,  of  New  York,  “public  senti- 
ment demands  the  utter  abolition  of  this  whole  system,”  “the  utter  and 
absolute  repeal  of  these  internal  and  infernal  taxes.” 

I deal  very  lightly  with  the  bill  H.  R.  5082,  because,  as  a single  item 
of  internal-revenue  taxation,  I did  not  know  that  the  Commission  would 
care  to  go  into  it  to  any  great  extent.  My  remarks  apply  to  the  whole 
subject  of  internal  revenue  more  especially. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  About  what  amount  of  alcohol  is  used  in  the  arts? — Answer. 
That  was  brought  out  in  that  hearing  before  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means,  a report  of  which  I have  marked  B.  Before  the  war  about 
35  per  cent,  of  all  that  was  consumed  was  used  in  the  arts  and  the  man- 
ufactures in  this  country.  But  since  the  war  and  since  the  levying  of  this 
tax  (which  almost  prohibits  its  use)  it  is  only  about  5 per  cent.  Powers 
& Weightman,  of  Philadelphia,  formerly  used  alcohol  largety  in  the 
manufacture  of  quinine.  Now  they  use  fusel  oil,  a poisonous  substance. 
All  the  inventive  genius  of  this  country  has  been  endeavoring  for  twenty 
years  to  find  a substitute  for  alcohol  as  a solvent.  Germany  and  Eng- 
land, our  great  manufacturing  rivals,  have  it  free. 


916 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOEOUGH  ROBINSON. 


By  the  President  : 

Q.  Are  any  of  these  substances  used  as  solvents,  complete  solvents? 
— A.  Alcohol  seems  to  be  a solvent  for  almost  every  vegetable  growth. 
Among  the  substitutes,  however,  something  may  be  found  which  is  a 
solvent  for  one  thing,  but  not  for  others.  Alcohol  is  nature’s  great  gift 
in  that  direction. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  If  alcohol  and  spirits  containing  alcohol  are  admitted  duty  free, 
would  not  that  have  the  effect  to  destroy  the  distilleries  and  do  away 
with  the  internal-revenue  system,  so  far  as  it  applies  thereto? — A.  It 
would,  I think,  be  impracticable  to  admit  it  free  of  duty  and  then  have 
an  internal-revenue  duty;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  as  this  Commission 
is  brought  into  contact  with  the  internal-revenue  question,  it  might 
recommend  the  total  abolition  of  that  internal-revenue  tax.  It  would 
be  a perfectly  legitimate  proposition,  however,  to  tax  foreign  alcohol 
and  allow  our  own  to  be  made  free. 

Q.  Do  you  think  such  a measure  is  needed? — A.  Yes,  sir,  I do;  and 
for  this  reason,  that  the  distillers  last  year  lost  some  $300,000  in  a pool 
in  exporting  alcohol,  although  they  paid  no  duty.  The  production  was 
injured  to  that  extent. 

Q.  But  would  the  country  be  injured? — A.  That  is  all  abstract  ques- 
tion of  political  economy  with  which  I am  not  now  concerned. 

In  regard  to  Mr.  Willis’s  bill  (H.  B.  5082),  1 want  to  state  that  I am  very 
familiar  with  the  practical  working  of  the  internal-revenue  laws  from  their 
inception  to  this  time,  and  I believe  that  the  provisions  of  that  bill,  if 
enacted  into  a law,  can  be  easily  and  thoroughly  carried  out;  although 
I want  to  state,  in  perfect  candor,  that  the  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Be  venue  is  opposed  to  it. 

When  we  go  to  Congress  advocating  any  measure,  we  go  before  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  the  members  of  which  are  more  or  less 
influenced  by  local  considerations.  It  is  a great  boon  to  the  country, 
in  my  opinion,  that  the  industrial  interests  of  the  country  can  now 
come  before  this  body  of  men  gathered  from  different  parts  of  the  coun- 
try, who  are  not  too  largely  influenced  by  local  questions  or  by  their 
hopes  and  fears  in  regard  to  an  election  to  the  next  Congress. 

Appendix  A. 

[Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.] 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  13,  1882. 

Mr.  Willis  introduced  tlie  following  bill: 

A BILL  to  authorize  the  withdrawal  from  distillery  warehouse,  without  tax,  of  alcohol  and  other 
spirits  to  be  used  in  industrial  pursuits. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled , That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  giant  permission  to  any 
firm,  individual,  or  corporation  to  withdraw  from  bond  alcohol  or  any  spirit  contain- 
ing alcohol,  and  subject  to  internal-revenue  tax,  in  specific  quantities  of  not  less  than 
three  hundred  proof-gallons,  without  the  payment  of  the  internal-revenue  tax  on  the 
same,  or  on  the  spirits  from  which  it  may  have  been  distilled,  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
use  in  industrial  pursuits : Provided , That  such  spirits  shall  either  first  have  been  mixed 
with  one-ninth  of  their  bulk  of  methyl  or  wood  alcohol  of  equal  proof  strength,  under 
such  rules  and  regulations  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  adopt,  or  that  where  such  spirits  shall  be  with- 
drawn for  use  in  tobacco  factories,  or  such  other  industrial  pursuits  as  shall  entail 
their  complete  destruction  so  they  cannot  be  recovered  by  any  x>rocess  of  distillation, 
said  withdrawal  and  use  shall  be  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  to  bond,  stamps, 


GOLDSBORO  UGH  ROBINSON,  J 


ALCOHOL. 


917 


and  keeping  of  books  with  government  supervision  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  shall  adopt:  And  provided 
further,  That  any  person  who  shall  sell,  use,  or  willfully  permit  the  use  of  spirits  with- 
drawn under  this  act  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  specified  herein  shall,  for  each 
offense,  be  fined  not  less  than  five  hundred  nor  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  and 
be  imprisoned  for  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than  two  years : And  provided  f uriher, 
That  any  violation  of  the  rules  and  regulations  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  conformity  with  this 
act,  shall  be  x>unislied  by  a fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars 
for  each  offense. 


Appendix  B. 

WITHDRAWAL  OF  ALCOHOL  WITHOUT  TAX  TO  BE  USED  IN  INDUSTRIAL  PURSUITS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

March  30,  1882, 

Remarks  of  Mr.  G.  Robinson , of  Kentucky. 

Mr.  Goldsborough.  Robinson,  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the 
Louisville  Leaf-Tobacco  Company,  addressed  the  committee: 

Mr.  Robinson  said:  Judge,  with  your  consent,  I will  read  the  bill  itself.  Shall  I? 

The  Chairman  (Mr.  Kelley).  Go  on  as  you  think  best. 

Mr.  Robinson  reads  H.  R.  No.  5082,  and  then  proceeds: 

To  the  Hon.  William  D.  Kelley  and  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 

Means: 

Gentlemen:  In  considering  the  “ Willis  bill,”  which  grants  the  use  of  spirits  in  in- 
dustrial pursuits  without  tax,  there  can  be  but  two  questions  involved: 

First.  Is  the  object  of  the  bill  good  public  policy? 

* Second.  Are  its  provisions  such  as  to  attain  this  object,  and  that  without  permit- 
ting fraud  upon  the  revenue  ? 

Alcohol  is  nature’s  great  solvent,  and  is  required  in  nearly  all  industrial  pursuits. 
In  this  use  it  is  as  absolute  a necessity  as  machinery  or  a paint  brush,  and  in  taxing 
it  we  tax  a product  of  our  own  industry,  and  through  it  lay  a burden  upon  our  own 
manufacturers. 

The  tax  is  so  excessive  as  to  be  almost  prohibitory,  and  our  people  are  placed  at 
great  disadvantage  in  competition  with  those  of  foreign  countries  who  have  free 
alcohol. 

No  government,  wisely  conducted,  will  levy  excessive  taxation  on  its  own  industries. 

This  principle  is  so  well  established  that  machinery  is  in  many  cities  exempt  from 
local  taxation. 

On  that  point  I have  listened  with  a great  deal  of  interest  to  the  debates  in  the 
House,  and  I find  that  even  those  who  are  called  free  traders  did  admit  and  did  urge 
some  measure  showing  some  spirit  of  protection  toward  our  industries,  and  I am 
astonished  that  I should  have  to  stand  here  to-day,  not  merely  in  behalf  of  protection 
to  our  industries,  but  that  an  actual  blow  should  not  be  leveled  at  our  industries,  that 
they  should  not  be  positively  injured  by  unwise  laws. 

The  only  justification  of  the  extreme  tax  on  spirits  (it  is  six  times  their  value)  is  t he 
popular  belief  that  they  are  harmful  luxuries  and  should  therefore  bear  the  burden; 
but  this  justification  fails  utterly  where  spirits  are  used  in  manufactures,  in  the  prep- 
aration of  drugs,  as  a burning  fluid,  and  in  all  the  common  wants  of  the  people.  This 
tax  being  almost  prohibitory,  every  shift  has  been  adopted  to  escape  its  burden  ; ben- 
zine (dangerous  always)  is  substituted  as  a burning  fluid,  and  fusel  oil  (a  poison)  as  a 
solvent. 

All  inventions  leading  in  the  direction  of  a use  of  alcohol  are  barred.  It  has  great 
bleaching  powers,  and  might  be  employed  with  advantage  on  textile  fabrics,  but  its 
cost  prevents  any  experiment  in  this  direction.  For  nearly  twenty  long  years,  the 
most  progressive  years  in  the  world’s  history,  the  American  people  have  been  prac- 
tically deprived  of  the  use  of  this  great  solvent.  Its  absolute  necessity  in  scientific 
pursuits  has  been  admitted,  and  colleges  have  been  granted,  by  special  enactment,  its 
use  without  tax,  but  no  provision  has  been  made  for  that  army  of  humble  laborers  in 
the  scientific  fields,  to  whose  efforts  all  our  great  inventions  are  due,  and  who  have 
no  access  to  college  laboratories. 

The  constantly  increasing  surplus  in  the  Treasury,  the  impossibility  of  applying  that 
surplus  to  our  debt,  except  by  buying  bonds  at  an  extravagant  premium,  forces  the 
conviction  on  all  minds  that  taxation  must  be  reduced. 


918 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GO LDSBO ROUGH  ROBIXSOX. 


What  is  more  reasonable  than  that  this  reduction  should  take  place  in  that  direc- 
tion which  will  encourage  industries,  and  remove  from  the  burden  which  the  people 
carry  those  points  of  friction  which  gall  and  irritate  more  than  the  weight  of  the  bur- 
den itself?  The  people  have  made  no  complaint  of  the  tax  on  matches,  and  who  will 
thank  the  representatives  of  the  people  for  its  removal.  But  for  many  years,  petition 
after  petition  has  come  to  this  committee-room  for  relief  from  this  alcohol  tax  on 
industry. 

I just  note  a little  instance  of  that.  The  plumber  goes  out  and  buys  a box  of  matches, 
the  tax  on  which  is  only  two  cents.  But  he  is  obliged  to  get  a pint  of  alcohol,  and  he 
pays  on  that  a tax  of  some  thirty  cents.  It  bears  so  unevenly  and  highly  on  that  side 
that  he  feels  that  the  government  is  robbing  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  he  pays  thirty  cents  tax? 

Mr.  Robinson.  He  pays  about  thirty  cents  for  the  alcohol,  or  twenty-two  cents  tax. 

There  can  be  no  relief  granted  which  will  accomplish  so  much  with  so  little  cost  to 
the  revenue,  for  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  always  that  it  is  not  only  the  amount  paid 
but  the  practical  prohibition  which  is  burdensome.  Before  the  war  it  was  estimated 
that  one-third  of  the  spirits  p oduced  were  consumed  in  industrial  pursuits;  now  the 
most  careful  estimates  made  by  parties  in  a position  to  know  are  that  only  one-twen- 
tieth of  the  amount  produced  is  consumed  in  arts  and  manufactures.  Relief  granted, 
therefore,  from  this  oppressive  and  prohibitory  tax  upon  a necessity  will  only  reduce 
the  revenue  some  three  millions  of  dollars  (one-twentieth  of  sixty  millions,  the  total 
amount  collected  on  spirits),  but  will  aid  the  industries  of  the  country  in  many  times 
that  amount.  For  authority  for  estimate  see  note  appended. 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  good  policy,  indeed,  more  than  that,  as  to  the 
necessity  of  the  passage  of  this  measure,  provided  it  can  be  done  with  safety  to  the 
revenue,  and  it  will  be  found  on  examination  that  this  bill  provides  absolutely  for 
this  safety. 

In  considering  this  part  of  the  subject  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  general 
feeling  of  fear  of  fraud  upon  the  revenue  has  been  engendered  by  the  difficulties  which 
occurred  in  enforcing  the  laws  during  and  immediately  after  the  war,  and  we  are  apt 
to  overlook  the  fact  that  those  laws  are  now  easily  and  thoroughly  executed.  At 
that  time  the  people  were  in  a state  of  turmoil,  and  the  foundations  of  society  seemed 
broken  up;  now  order  has  regained  its  sway,  and  the  convictions  which  followed  each 
other  with  such  rapidity  in  the  United  States  courts  have  taught  a wholesome  fear  of 
the  United  States  laws. 

It  should  also  be  remembered  in  considering  this  question  of  possible  fraud  that 
no  law  and  no  government  supervision  can  hold  the  people  so  closely  that  they  can- 
not commit  fraud,  but  that  the  laws  are  enforced  by  the  good  moral  sense  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  people,  and  by  the  fear  of  the  penalties  on  the  part  of  the  evil  disposed. 

Now,  in  considering  this  question,  also  consider  the  fact  that  any  manufacturer  can 
take  his  tobacco  out  of  the  back  door  without  paying  the  tax,  and  can  refill  stamped 
packages  and  sell  them  again.  That  any  retail  druggist  in  Washington  or  in  any 
other  city  can  make  all  the  alcohol  that  he  wants;  but  why  do  they  not  do  it?  The 
government  has  no  record  of  these  druggists.  They  do  not  want  to,  because  the  great 
bulk  of  the  American  people  want  to  obey  the  laws.  They  won’t  run  the  risk  of  the 
penitentiary. 

Our  immense  internal-revenue  tax  is  collected  practically  without  fraud,  by  the  use 
of  four  simple  provisions  in  our  laws ; they  are — the  giving  of  bonds,  the  use  of  stamps, 
the  menace  of  a penalty,  and  reasonable  government  supervision.  With  these  safe- 
guards highly  taxed  articles  are  allowed  to  enter  every  avenue  of  trade,  and  to  be 
transported  through  every  part  of  this  vast  country. 

Now,  if  the  government  can,  by  these  simple  means,  enforce  the  collection  of  one 
hundred  and  thirty-five  millions  of  dollars  per  annum  of  internal  revenue,  it  can  cer- 
tainly, with  the  greatest  safety,  remit  to  the  people  this  tax  of  three  millions  on  their 
industries  by  the  use  of  the  same  provisions. 

You  will  observe  that  the  bill  provides  for  two  classes  of  use,  one  that  of  spirits  first 
adulterated  with  methyl  or  wood  alcohol,  and  the  other  for  its  use  pure  in  such  man- 
ufacturing processes  only  as  shall  entail  its  ultimate  entire  destruction,  so  tha  t it  shall 
not  leave  the  factory  in  any  form  from  which  it  might  be  recovered  by  distillation. 

Under  this  first  provision  the  manufacturers  of  Great  Britain  have  been  supplied 
with  free  spirits  for  over  twenty  years,  and  this  adulteration  with  methyl  has  been 
found  a practical  method  of  preventing  any  fraudulent  use. 

Methylated  spirits  under  this  bill  would  be  the  common  and  popular  use  of  alcohol 
by  individuals,  and  in  the  smaller  and  more  numerous  industrial  pursuits,  and  this 
use,  as  proven  by  experience,  would  be  abundantly  protected. 

The  second  use  provided  for  in  those  manufactures  requiring  pure  spirits  would  be 
under  the  regulations  of  the  Commissioner;  and  this  use  can  be  as  carefully  guarded, 
and  by  the  same  means,  as  the  sale  and  use  of  spirits  and  tobacco  now  are. 

The  regulations  necessary  to  this  end  the  bill  leaves  wisely  to  the  discretion  of  the 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON'.] 


ALCOHOL. 


919 


Commissioner.  He  can  best  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  trade,  or  any  necessity  for  the 
prevention  of  fraud,  and  under  its  provisions  he  has  ample  power  to  accomplish  either. 

To  sum  the  whole  matter  up,  this  tax  is  opposed  to  every  principle  of  good  public 
policy,  to  every  dictate  of  sound  business  sense,  to  the  kuown  principles  which  should 
govern  the  levying  of  taxes,  and  to  the  customs  wisely  pursued  by  our  commercial 
rivals. 

The  government  has  no  need  of  the  revenue  derived,  and  the  people  pray  for  relief. 
This  relief  can  be  readily  given  by  means  well  known  and  already  in  practical  use  iu 
Great  Britain  and  under  the  revenue  laws  of  our  own  country. 

The  question  is,  gentlemen,  will  you  grant  it? 

Now,  if  I can  answer  any  questions,  I will  be  glad  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Randall.  Do  you  believe,  Mr.  Robinson,  that  if  we  should  exempt  spirits  that 
shall  be  used  iu  industrial  pursuits  that  it  will  occasion  the  going  back  to  the  former 
rate  of  consumption  of  alcohol  for  these  industrial  purposes,  as  it  existed  before  the 
war,  to  wit,  33  per  ceut.,  from  what  it  is  now,  5 per  cent.  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  I do  not  think,  sir,  it  would,  for  this  reason : it  was  used  as  a burn- 
ing fluid  then.  Now  they  use  benzine  for  that  purpose.  Iu  a Dew  industry  the  mo- 
ment a manufacturer  is  called  upon  to  use  alcohol  he  has  to  quit;  and  it  v\  ouid  be  a 
number  of  years  before  other  uses  would  be  found  to  increase  it. 

Mr.  Randall.  Then  you  do  not  think  it  would  increase  for  some  years,  as  the  use 
of  benzine  is  iu  the  way  now?  It  would  if  it  would  destroy  the  use  as  applied  iu  the 
industries  of  fusel  oil,  because  that  is  a poison. 

Mr.  Robinson.  I understand  the  use  of  fusel  oil  is  kept  very  quiet ; but  I under- 
stand there  is  a good  deal  of  it  has  come  into  play  since  the  disuse  of  alcohol. 

Mr.  Randall.  Then  you  do  not  wish  to  express  any  opinion  ou  that? 

Mr.  Robinson.  I do  not  wish  to  make  any  expression  of  opinion  on  what  I have  no 
positive  knowledge  of. 

Mr.  Randall.  Then  you  clealrly  believe  that  this  change  and  exemption  of  alcohol 
used  iu  the  industrial  pursuits  would  provide  a new  purchaser  of  spirits  in  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  In  a great  many  directions  at  once,  and  in  a great  many  directions 
in  the  course  of  time.  You  see  if  you  deprived  tbe  people  of  the  use  of  a thing  for 
twenty  years,  they  will  only  gradually  increase  the  use  of  it  when  it  is  free  again. 

* Mr.  Randall.  Then  if  we  exempt  alcohol  for  the  purpose,  indicated  in  this  bill,  or 
whisky  rather,  from  taxation,  is  there  any  necessity  for  the  use  of  what  is  called  wood 
alcohol? 

Mr.  Robinson.  There  would  be  a necessity  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  Randall.  Yes,  I know ; but  this  bill  allows  for  the  use  of  pure  alcohol. 

Mr.  Robinson.  No  ; 10  per  ceut.  of  the  mixture  is  methyl. 

Mr.  Randall.  And  you  state  that  the  alcohol  can  never  be  got  back. 

Mr.  Robinson.  No,  sir;  it  cannot. 

Mr.  Randall.  If  we  were  to  exempt  spirits  and  alcohol  for  industrial  purposes  it 
would  not  be  necessary  at  all  to  use  that  10  per  cent,  of  wood  alcohol,  would  it? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Yes,  sir;  it  would  be  necessary  for  all  common  uses. 

Mr.  Randall.  I do  not  quite  make  myself  understood — whether  these  purposes  for 
industry  iu  the  United  States — whether  they  would  necessarily  have  to  use  the  wood 
alcohol  in  them. 

Mr.  Robinson.  Underthis  law  they  would  be  obliged  to  use  the  wood  alcohol. 

Mr.  Randall.  That  is  what  I want  to  get  at.  Then  why  need  we  mention  anything 
about  the  mixture  of  wood  alcohol? 

Mr.  Robinson.  If  you  let  the  people  generally  have  pure  alcohol  they  could  use  it 
for  drink  I they  might  use  it  in  place  of  the  taxed  article. 

Mr.  Errett.  Why  does  the  bill  provide  that  the  alcohol  be  adulterated  with  methyl  ? 
Do  you  think  that  10  per  cent,  is  a protection  for  the  government  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  It  has  been  proved  by  the  English  Government,  who  have  had  it 
in  use  for  twenty  years.  . 

Tbe  Chairman.  Mr.  Robinson,  is  it  true  that  the  English  Government,  and  I think 
also  the  German  Government,  have  allowed  the  use  of  alcohol  otherwise  than  methy- 
lated— otherwise  than  as  this  bill  provides  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  No,  sir;  I think  not;  but  I tbink  the  American  people  ought  to 
take  oue  step  in  advance.  The  English  Government,  in  order  to  collect  a tax  on  to- 
bacco, do  not  allow  the  people  to  grow  their  tobacco  at  all.  But  we  have  been  able 
to  collect  a tax  and  yet  allow  the  people  to  grow  tobacco.  We  provide  iu  this  bill  for 
pure  alcohol  to  be  used  only  in  certain  processes  where  it  is  destroyed,  under  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue. 

Mr.  Kasson.  Give  us  an  illustration  of  where  that  pure  alcohol — unmethylated — 
might  be  used  and  who  will  use  it. 

Mr.  Robinson.  All  the  tobacco  factories  would  use  it,  all  large  chemical  establish- 
ments, like  Powers  & Weightman,  of  Philadelphia,  would  use  it. 

. Mr.  Kasson.  How  about  the  smaller  manufactories  ? 


920 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


Mr.  Robinson.  Any  small  manufacturer  or  druggist  might  use  it. 

Mr.  Kasson.  How  do  you  propose  the  government  shall  secure  itself  in  all  these 
cases?  I do  not  speak  now  of  great  factories ; I speak  of  the  general  business. 

Mr.  Robinson.  I will  speak  of  the  small  druggist  who  wants  300  gallons  of  pure 
alcohol  for  use  in  a direction  where  it  would  be  completely  destroyed.  He  would  make 
application  through  his  collector  to  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  for  per- 
mission to  withdraw  that  300  gallons  of  alcohol,  and  he  would  file,  with  good  security, 
a hond  for  double  the  tax  on  the  alcohol  as  indicated,  and  get  it  without  paying 
any  tax  on  it.  He  would  get  his  alcohol  and  formal  permission  for  the  use  of  it,  and 
take  it  to  his  drug  store.  Now,  then,  he  is  in  the  same  position  that  the  tobacco 
manufacturer  is  who  has  to  use  the  tobacco  only  in  certain  ways.  And  we  will  suppose 
that  the  Commissioner  has  ruled  that  he  must  make,  under  oath,  a monthly  return 
similar  to  that  of  the  tobacco  manufacturer,  showing  the  date  on  which  that  alcohol 
was  withdrawn,  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  used,  &c.,  when  and  how  it  was  con- 
sumed, with  such  other  proof  as  the  Commissioner  might  require;  and  when  that  proof 
was  made,  the  Commissioner  would  surrender  and  cancel  the  bond. 

Mr.  Kasson.  The  government  would  rely  on  the  oath — the  real  security  is  the 
oath?  I want  to  get  at  where  the  real  security  comes  to  us — upon  the  character  of 
the  proof. 

Mr.  Robinson.  And  the  character  of  the  use  also.  The  man  cannot  go  up  there 
and  just  swear  alone. 

Mr.  Kasson.  I know;  but  he  swears  to  these  details? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kasson.  In  other  words,  the  Commissioner  depends  upon  the  oath  as  to  the 
use  of  the  alcohol  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Precisely. 

Mr.  Kasson.  What  I want  to  get  at  is  the  ultimate  security  for  faithful  compliance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Robinson.  Mr.  Kasson,  as  a matter  of  comparison,  though,  any  retail  drug- 
gist in  Washington  can  make  his  own  alcohol.  They  can  all  do  it,  but  they  do  not. 

Mr.  Kasson.  I only  wanted  to  get  the  details. 

Mr.  Robinson.  The  ultimate  security  of  the  government  would  be  his  oath — his 
statement  of  how  and  when  used;  the  reasonableness  of  that  statement,  and  the  fact 
of  the  government  official  going  to  that  man’s  place  of  business  at  any  time  and  see- 
ing his  books  would  give  government  inspection  to  see  about  all  his  operations. 

Mr.  Kasson.  As  to  the  question  asked  by  Mr.  Randall,  I suppose  you  do  not  feel 
inclined  to  give  an  opinion  as  to  the  use  of  fusel  oil. 

Mr.  Robinson.  I cannot  give  you  a positive  answer.  My  opinion  would  be  just 
this:  that  the  use  of  fusel  oil  has  come  in  since  the  high  tax  on  alcohol ; so  I believe 
that  if  the  tax  is  put  back  to  the  old  standard  the  use  of  fusel  oil  would  go  out. 

Mr.  Kasson.  As  I understand  it,  you  only  think  that  this  can  be  takeu  out  of  bond 
without  tax,  wlwn  10  per  cent,  of  wood-alcohol  is  put  with  it?  Could  that  mixture 
be  used  for  perfumeries,  medicines,  &c.  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  No,  sir;  that  class  of  medicines  that  go  out  into  the  country  with 
alcohol  in  them  must  have  the  pure  alcohol.  There  can  be  no  provision  made  in  any 
bill  that  can  be  drawn  to  exempt  it,  because  that  alcohol  can  be  recovered. 

Mr.  Errett.  How  are  you  going  to  prevent  fraud? 

Mr.  Robinson.  There  canuot  be  fraud  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill;  it  is  im- 
possible. 

Mr.  Errett.  Can  he  withdraw  as  a manufacturer  for  export  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Yes,  sir ; but  not  for  sale. 

Mr.  Errett.  No  exemption  for  its  sale  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Robinson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Randall.  Mr.  Robinson,  on  page  8 of  the  table  from  which  you  read  is  given 
the  estimate  for  the  production  of  whisky  at  90,400,000  gallons,  and  it  gives  the  detail 
of  the  purposes  for  which  it  has  been  used. 

Mr.  Robinson.  That  was  furnished  by  the  Census  Bureau,  from  figures  of  1860. 

Mr.  Randall.  I did  not  know  what  year  you  referred  to;  but  I was  going  to  make 
this  remark. 

Mr.  Robinson.  That  was  before  the  war. 

Mr.  Randall.  Now,  the  whisky  imported  last  year,  according  to  the  figures  you 
will  have  from  the  census  report,  was  15,921,482  gallons  of  spirits.  Have  you  any 
means  of  giving  us  the  figures  for  1880,  in  like  manner  as  given  for  1860  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  No,  sir;  and  those  figures  cannot  be  obtained  in  Washington.  I 
got  them  from  men  acquainted  with  the  business.  It  was  as  near  as  I could  get  it. 

Mr.  Kasson.  How  far  would  this  principle  for  methylated  spirits  alone  operate — 
near  about  what  proportion  of  the  mixture  used  would  result  from  methylated  spirits 
alone  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  I suppose  about  one  half.  There  are  no  figures  on  this  subject,  un- 
fortunately, Mr.  Kasson.  Then  we  have,  say,  for  the  use  of  methylated  spirits.  Now, 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON.  | 


ALCOHOL. 


921 


suppose  we  go  a step  further  and  grant  its  use  where  we  have  already  government  su- 
pervision of  it,  in  tobacco  manufacture.  That  would  be  about  -fij,  making  with  the 
other  tV  Now,  if  we  embrace  all  the  other  uses  it  may  he  applicable  to,  being  the 
other  -nj,  my  object  was  to  see  how  far  we  could  accomplish  the  general  results  by 
adopting  the  well-known  methods  of  methylated  spirits,  and  extending  them  to  pure 
spirits  in  establishments  where  we  have  government  supervision. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  due,  Mr.  Robinson,  that  I should  state  that  I have  interro- 
gated the  heads  of  several  large  establishments  who  are  immense  consumers  of  alcohol, 
but  now  use  fusel  oil  and  other  solvents,  as  to  the  passage  of  a bill  like  this,  and  the 
responses  I get  are  uniformly  to  the  effect  that,  having  petitioned  Congress  from  year 
to  year  to  give  them  free  spirits  in  the  arts  and  failed  to  obtain  it,  they  have  now 
adopted  other  machinery  and  processes.  They  have  resorted  to  other  methods,  and 
would  be  slow  to  return  to  the  use  of  spirits,  except  in  the  introductiou  of  new  branches 
for  the  substitution  of  worn  out  machinery,  if  alcohol  were  free ; so  that  I doubt 
whether  there  would  be  anything  like  so  large  a consumption  of  methylated  spirits 
as  the  gentleman  may  think. 

Mr.  Robinson.  I wish  to  read  an  extract  from  a letter  of  Messrs.  Powers  & Weight- 
man,  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  point  that  Judge  Kelley  makes: 

“Our  views  have  not  changed  since  we  had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  you  at  our  office. 
While  we  would  gladly  avail  ourselves  of  free  alcohol,  provided  it  could  be  employed 
without  government  espionage,  and  cleared  of  all  official  restrictions,  interference,  and 
surveillance,  we  are  not  at  all  desirous  of  subjecting  our  affairs  to  the  inspection  of 
any  one  not  connected  with  the  business  in  which  we  formerly  used  more  alcohol  than 
we  do  now.  The  high  price,  due  to  the  tax,  forced  us  to  adopt  other  solvents,  to  some 
extent,  and  obliged  us  to  change  our  process,  &c.,  to  conform  with  the  altered  condi- 
tion of  affairs.  It  would  be  no  object  to  change  again,  unless  we  were  allowed  to  use 
spirits,  as  we  did  before  the  war,  the  same  as  any  other  merchandise  owned  by  us.J’ 

Mr.  Weightman  gave  me  another  reason  when  I was  there.  They  are  an  honorable, 
old,  and  wealthy  firm,  too  well  known  to  require  praise  at  my  hands  to  this  commit- 
tee. They  say  they  have  never  been  in  the  habit  of  giving  bonds.  If  they  give  bonds 
they  have  to  ask  people  to  go  on  their  bonds,  and  then  they  have  to  go  on  other  peo- 
ple’s bonds. 

. Mr.  Randall.  They  would  rather  go  on  the  cash  basis? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  When  they  can  show  a $21,000  spirit-tax  receipt;  they  got 
one  from  the  United  States  marshal. 

Mr.  Randall.  Have  you  ever  made  an  estimate  of  the  amount  that  would  be  ex- 
empted under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  The  nearest  I can  make  it,  sir,  is  about  5 per  cent. 

Mr.  Randall.  You  say  that  it  is  $3,000,000  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Yes,  sir ; and  a little  over. 

Mr.  Haskall.  Is  the  preparation  you  take  the  British  preparation  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Haskell.  I went  over  and  smelled  that  on  the  table.  I am  not  very  skilled  at 
such  things;  but  it  strikes  me  that  that  would  be  used  outside  of  the  arts.  The  odor 
is  not  particularly  obnoxious.  I wanted  to  ask  if  the  proportion  of  -g-  could  not  be 
made  f? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Mr.  Kelley  pronounces  methyl  the  skunk  of  the  spirits.  It  would 
only  make  it  that  much  more  disagreeable. 

Mr.  Haskell.  The  English  have  no  temptation  to  make  improper  use  of  spirits, 
have  they  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  I think  the  tax  there  is  much  higher  than  ours. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  in  your  room  plenty  of  methyl  and  fusel  oil,  and  you  will 
probably  find  that  it  is  not  particularly  agreeable.  . 

Mr.  Robinson.  I want  to  leave  with  your  reporter  a copy  of  the  Oil,  Paint,  and 
Drug  Reporter,  published  in  New  York.  It  represents  the  trade  of  all  the  United 
States,  and  it  lias  a most  urgent  editorial  in  favor  of  this  bill,  in  its  last  Issue  (March 
22). 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  include  that  editorial  in  the  report  of  these  pro- 
ceedings. 

Following  is  the  editorial  referred  to : 

THE  ALCOHOL  TAX. 

The  following  is  the  text  of  a bill  introduced  in  the  House  last  week  by  Congress- 
man Willis,  of  Kentucky: 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Conyress  assembled , That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  grant  permission  to  any 
firm,  individual,  or  corporation  to  withdraw  alcohol,  or  any  spirit  containing  alcohol, 
and  subject  to  internal-revenue  tax,  in  specified  quantities  of  not  less  than  three  hun- 
dred proof  gallons,  without  the  payment  of  the  internal-revenue  tax  on  the  same  or 


922 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOBOUGH  ROBIXSOX. 


on  the  spirits  from  which  it  may  have  been  distilled,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  use  in  in- 
dustrial pursuits. 

Provided,  That  such  spirits  shall  either  first  have  been  mixed  with  one-ninth  of 
their  bulk  of  methyl  or  wood-alcohol  of  equal  proof  strength,  under  such  rules  and 
regulations  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  shall  adopt,  or  that  where  such  spirits  shall  be  withdrawn  lor 
use  in  tobacco  factories,  or  such  other  industrial  pursuits  as  shall  entail  their  com- 
plete destruction  so  that  they  cannot  be  recovered  by  any  process  of  distillation ; 
said  withdrawal  and  use  shall  be  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  to  bond,  stamps, 
and  keeping  of  books  with  government  supervision  as  the  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  shall  adopt. 

And  provided  farther,  That  any  person  who  shall  sell,  use,  or  willfully  permit  the 
use  of  spirits  withdrawn  under  this  act  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  specified 
herein,  shall,  for  each  offense,  be  fined  not  less  than  five  hundred  nor  more  than  five 
thousand  dollars,  and  be  imprisoned  for  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than  two 
years. 

And  provided  f urther,  That  any  violation  of  the  rules  and  regulations  made  by  the 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, in  conformity  with  this  act,  shall  be  punished  by  a fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor 
more  than  one  hundred  dollars  for  each  offense. 

The  relief  for  which  this  bill  provides  has  long  been  contended  for  by  this  journal. 
Taxing  distilled  spirits  used  in  manufactures  is  to  the  last  degree  exorbitant  and  un- 
necessary, and  is  as  burdensome  to  the  people  as  would  be  a tax  upon  the  grain  from 
which  it  is  produced.  Hundreds  of  manufactures,  now  in  a nourishing  condition,  and 
which  are  vitally  essential  to  our  national  prosperity,  could  not  exist  were  it  not  for 
this  useful  material  which  enters  into  their  processes,  or  products,  aud  a tax  upon  it 
therefore  becomes  one  upon  the  very  substance  of  the  community.  An  offspring  of 
war  legislation  at  a time  when  it  was  necessary  to  swell  the  revenue  of  the  country 
by  every  means  in  the  power  of  the  government,  it  has  since  been  continued  under  a 
mistaken  system  of  economy  which  taxes  the  present  generation  for  the  benefit  of  pos- 
terity. It  has  been  pleaded  on  the  part  of  the  government  that  the  tax  was  necessary 
to  the  speedy  reduction  of  the  public  debt,  but  the  fallacy  of  this  claim  is  readily  ap- 
parent. The  loss  of  the  amount  collected  from  alcohol  might  be  counterbalanced  by 
an  increased  protection  to  American  industries  in  the  shape  of  import  duties  upon 
articles  of  luxury  which  would  not  affect  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  It  is  mani- 
festly unfair,  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the  interest  upon  a certain  amount  of  bonds, 
annually  to  draw  trom  the  pockets  of  the  laboring  classes  an  amount  of  tax  upon  the 
essentials  of  their  daily  subsistence  equal  to  both  principal  and  interest  of  these 
bonds,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  not  we,  but  our  survivors,  are  to  reap  the 
benefit  of  this  drain  upon  our  pockets.  The  political  economy  of  this  question  in- 
volves too  many  subtleties  to  be  discussed  at  length  here,  but  it  may  be  sufficient  only 
to  say  that  opinions  as  to  the  advisability  of  reducing  the  national  debt  to  a merely 
nominal  point  differ  as  widely  as  upon  most  other  questions  of  a kindred  character, 
and  in  view  of  this  contrariety  of  opinion  the  abrogation  of  the  tax  upon  alcohol 
used  for  manufacturing  purposes  could  certainly  not  meet  with  a degree  of  opposition 
from  the  people  which  would  make  it  a serious  step  for  Congress  to  undertake,  even 
if  the  amount  so  withdrawn  from  the  revenues  were  not  raised  by  some  other  method. 

It  is  probable  that  the  opposition  to  such  a measure  would  and  does  come  from  a 
wholly  different  source,  namely,  the  office-holding  class,  who  would  see  ki  the  taking 
off  of  this  tax  a large  amount  of  patronage  and  political  power  removed  from  their 
grasp.  The  influence  of  this  class  with  Congress  is  too  well  known  to  be  ignored,  and 
can  only  be  overcome  by  the  strenuous  efforts  of  the  people  themselves.  Our  repre- 
sentatives must  be  made  to  understand  that  it  is  the  general  desire  of  the  community 
that  they  no  longer  be  required  to  pay  a tax  upon  a domestic  product  which  is  fully 
as  essential  to  their  comfortable  existence  as  the  bread  which  they  eat.  We  are  desir- 
ous of  seeing  this  proposed  bill  become  a law,  and  feel  assured  that  the  manufacturing 
industries  we  represent  are  in  full  sympathy  with  us  in  this  matter.  We  therefore  call 
upon  all  who  feel  an  interest  to  exert  their  influence  with  their  respective  Representa- 
tives to  secure  its  passage.  A powerful  movement  in  this  direction  may  reasonably 
hope  to  overcome  the  efforts  of  the  lobby,  which  will  certainly  be  put  in  active  opera- 
tion to  defeat  it.  Let  the  friends  of  the  bill  now  come  to  its  support,  and  such  influ- 
ence as  this  journal  is  able  to  exert  will  be  cheerfully  accorded  the  enterprise. 

Mr.  Butterworth  said: 

Mr.  Chairman,  I came  with  my  friend  Robinson  to  bear  my  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  measure  under  consideration  ; but  I doubt  if  I can  add  anything  to  what  he  has 
already  said,  and  said  so  admirably. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  rate  of  tax  on  distilled  spirits  was  fixed  with  reference  to 
the  fact  that  spirits  are  deemed  to  be  a luxury,  and  it  was  regarded  as  a tax  upon  one 
of  the  luxuries.  But  it  will  not  be  claimed  that  alcohol  used  in  the  arts  and  for  indus- 


G0LDSB0R0UGH  ROBINSON.  J 


ALCOHOL. 


923 


trial  pursuits  can  be  classed  as  a luxury,  nor  would  it  as  sueli  be  a proper  subject  of 
taxation;  hence  it  appears  to  me  that  the  rule  which  would  impose  a tax  upon  luxu- 
ries would  not  include  within  its  terms  or  spirit  such  product  of  the  still,  which  is 
used  solely  for  industrial  purposes  ; and,  while  adhering  to  the  spirit  which  prompted 
the  enactment  of  the  present  law,  we  should,  as  a matter  of  public  policy,  freely  per- 
mit the  withdrawal  of  alcohol  for  use  in  industrial  pursuits. 

The  Chairman  (Mr.  Kelley).  Will  you  permit  me  to  ask  if  the  manufacture  of  alco- 
hol might  not  be  counted  among  the  industries  upon  which  we  ought  not  to  impose  a 
tax? 

Mr.  Bijtterworth.  I agree  that  it  is  an  industry,  but  it  does  not  follow  because 
we  were  compelled  under  the  stress  of  public  necessity  to  tax  what  my  friend  is 
pleased  to  term  an  industry  that  we  shall  not  remove  a part  of  that  tax  because  we  are 
unable  to  remove  it  all. 

In  the  main,  there  has  been  no  disposition  to  complain  of  the  tax  upon  distilled 
spirits,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been  regarded  as  a tax  upon  a luxury  to  the 
extent  to  Avhich  it  was  used  for  drinking  purposes,  but  I feel  assured  that  if  the  entire 
product  of  our  stills  had  been  used,  or  was  used  in  the  arts,  and  for  industrial  pursuits, 
no  such  taxation  would  have  been  tolerated,  for  then  it  would  indeed  have  been  tax- 
ing our  industries. 

The  object  of  the  measure  now  under  consideration  is  to  tax  the  luxury,  but  to 
remove  it  from  our  industries. 

The  Chairman.  Why,  one  bushel  of  corn  will  carry  four  in  the  form  of  alcohol. 

Mr.  Butterworth.  I will  not  discuss  that  with  my  friend,  although  I would  will- 
ingly do  it  at  another  time.  The  point  he  makes  is  that  the  internal-revenue  tax 
should  be  removed  altogether. 

It  must  occur  to  my  honorable  friend  that,  if  it  is  bad  as  a whole,  it  is  bad  in  every 
part,  and  I submit  to  him  that  he  ought  not  to  hesitate  to  correct  the  evil,  even  as  to 
a part. 

It  must  be  clear  to  this  committee  that  alcohol  used  in  the  arts  and  industries  is 
not  used  as  a luxury,  and  whatever  reason  there  may  exist  for  abolishing  the  entire 
revenue  tax  on  distilled  spirits,  that  same  reason  applies  with  greater  force  to  taxing 
that  part  of  the  product  of  our  stills  which  is  used  as  an  element  in  industries.  The 
honorable  Mr.  Chairman  complains  that  even  this  measure  might  work  a hardship  in 
some  direction. 

I have  to  say  in  reply  to  that-,  that  if  it  is  expected  that  I can  suggest  a measure, 
which  shall,  while  accomplishing  good,  work  no  inconvenience  to  any  one,  1 readily 
submit  that  I cannot  do  it.  The  divine  hand  alone  can  trace  a law  that  will  accom- 
plish that.  It  is  impossible  to  suggest  a measure,  which  shall  meet  the  wants  of  all 
men  in  one  direction,  aud  yet  produce  no  attrition* in  any  quarter.  All  taxation  is  a 
hardship  upon  those  who  have  to  pay  it.  Our  purpose  is  to  render  that  hardship  as 
little  onerous  as  possible.  While  this  measure  does  not  look  to  making  drinking  easy, 
it  does  not  make  manufacturing  hard.  As  to  the  practicability  of  making  this  law 
without  opening  the  doop  to  fraud,  I am  thoroughly  satisfied.  Those  of  you  who  are 
and  have  been  familiar  with  the  provisions  of  the  internal-revenue  law,  know  that 
that  law  has  been  so  perfected,  and  is  so  administered  as  to  render  the  commission  of 
fraud  almost  out  of  the  question,  and  it  seems  almost  impossible  to  commit  fraud 
without  being  detected  sooner  or  later. 

Each  withdrawal  of  alcohol  under  regulations  prescribed  would  designate  the  pre- 
cise object  and  purpose  for  which  the  alcohol  so  withdrawn  is  to  be  applied  or  used. 
So  that  the  quantity  and  use  would  be  distinctly  knowm,  and  the  trade  as  well  as  the 
officers  of  the  government  would  know,  with  reasonable  certainty,  whether  the  product 
of  the  alcohol  bore  a proper  proportion  to  the  quantity  of  alcohol  used,  just  as  in  the 
tobacco  trade  the  manufacturer  makes  a return  not  only  of  the  quantity  of  tobacco  pro- 
duced and  used,  but  of  othermaterials.  Now,  it  is  well  known  to  the  trade  and  to  the 
officers  of  the  government  about  what  the  product  of  a tobacco  factory  ought  to  be,  when 
the  quantity  of  material  purchasedis  known.  So  with  officers  of  the  government,  in  de- 
termining whether  frauds  are  attempted  by  the  manufacturers  of  tobacco,  they  do  not 
rely  solely  upon  the  oath  of  the  manufacturer,  but  the  whole  of  the  material  used  in  the 
product  of  the  manufactured  article  is  taken  into  account,  and  they  are  enabled  thus  to 
determine  with  great  accuracy  whether  the  amount  produced  bears  a proper  ratio  to  f he 
material  used.  So  in  this  case.  And  beyond  that  this  bill  provides  that  for  certain 
uses  the  alcohol  should  be  adulterated,  so  that  while  it  would  still  be  tit  for  the  pur- 
poses intended,  it  would,  nevertheless,  be  unfit  for  drinking  purposes. 

The  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  will,  I am  sure,  explain  to  you  that  he  ap- 
prehends no  danger  in  the  direction  of  frauds  upon  the  revenue,  that  he  will  be  abun- 
dantly able  to  prescribe  rules  aud  regulations  which  shall  place  it  practically  beyond 
the  power  of  parties  to  commit  frauds  without  detection.  The  penalty  for  fraud  is  so 
great".,  the  certainty  of  detection  so  probable,  and  the  profits  resulting  from  the  com- 
mission of  frauds  so  insignificant,  that  there  is  hardly  any  probability  of  its  commis- 
sion. 


924 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


If  may  be  said  that  I represent  a district  largely  interested  in  tlie  manufacture  of 
distilled  spirits.  So  I do  ; and  for  that  reason  am  familiar  with  that  industry  ; with 
its  relation  to  the  general  legislation  of  the  country ; with  its  needs  and  requirements, 
and  the  opportunities  which  ought  to  be  afforded  for  its  healthful  growth ; and  I 
only  ask  for  that  industry  the  fair  protection  and  consideration  which  is  accorded  to 
others. 

******* 

Mr.  Errett.  So  far  as  tobacco  is  concerned,  you  apply  it  to  that.  How  is  it  when 
it  comes  to  druggists,  who  object  to  the  examination  of  their  books  by  the  officers  of 
the  government,  ? 

Mr.  Bvtterworth.  In  reference  to  that,  I have  only  to  say  that  so  far  as  any  ex- 
amination of  books  is  necessary  to  ascertain  whether  frauds  have  been  committed, 
permission  could  not  la  wfully  be  refused.  If  such  firms  as  my  friend  refers  to  in  Phil- 
adelphia are  pleased  to  place  themselves  in  an  attitude  of  posing  above  and  outside  of 
the  law  they  may  abstain  from  availing  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  The 
regulations  prescribed  by  the  Treasury  Department  to  secure  the  government  against 
fraud  would  work  no  hardship  upon  any  honest  industry  or  business. 

I desire  to  add,  that  it  is  generally  conceded  that  a reduction  in  the  amount  of  in- 
ternal revenue  collected  is  not  only  entirely  practicable,  but  desirable;  and  it  appears 
that  the  reduction  growing  out  of  the  removal  of  the  burdens  from  the  various  indus- 
tries using  alcohol  would  reduce  the  revenue  not  to  exceed  three  or  four  millions  at 
the  outside. 

It  seems  to  me  that  every  consideration  of  public  policy  demands  that  this  bill 
should  speedily  become  a law. 

Mr.  Willis.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  reply  to  the  question  of  Mr.  Errett  as  to  the  number 
of  pursuits  which  would  be  benefited  by  this  bill,  I would  state  that  my  information 
is  that  twenty  or  thirty  different  and  important  branches  of  industry  would  be  benefi- 
cially atfected  by  it.  Take,  for  instance,  two  industries  that  were  cited  by  you,  Mr. 
Chairman,  when  this  bill  was  before  the  subcommittee — that  of  the  carpet  manu- 
facturer and  the  plumber.  Both  of  these  require  alcohol,  and  this  high  tax  of  $1.80 
per  gallon  enters  into  and  forms  a part  of  the  cost  of  the  work  which  is  paid  by  the 
consumer. 

The  Chairman.  Unhappily  the  carpet  men  could  not  use  methylated  spirits. 

Mr.  Willis.  I think  you  will  find  upon  inquiry  that  they  can ; but  whether  that  be 
true  or  not  does  not  affect  the  proposition  as  to  other  equally  important  trades.  I am 
not  prepared,  however,  here  and  now  to  give  a list  of  these  trades,  but  before  the 
consideration  of  the  bill  is  concluded  by  the  committee  I will,  with  its  permission, 
submit  a st  atement  as  to  the  number  and  character  of  the  arts  and  manufactures  which 
now  use  alcohol  or  would  use  it  except  for  the  present  exorbitant  tax.  And  in  this 
connection  let  me  suggest  that  in  many  medicinal  preparations  where  alcohol  should 
be  used  various  substitutes — and  these  often  deleterious  to  health — have  taken  its 
place.  If,  therefore,  this  bill  will  secure  to  us  purer  drugs,  would  not  that  fact  alone 
be  sufficient  to  insure  its  passage? 

What  higher  duty  is  there  upon  us  as  Representatives  than  to  promote  and  protect 
the  health  of  the  people?  What  subject  to-day  is  exciting  more  discussion  than  the 
adulteration  of  our  drugs  and  of  our  food  ? If  we  can  remove  all  temptation,  so  far 
as  the  use  of  pure  spirits  is  concerned,  to  employ  injurious  or  poisonous  substitutes, 
ought  we  not  do  it,  and  do  it  promptly  ? Will  any  gentleman  upon  this  committee 
admit,  for  instance,  that  fusel  oil  is  a proper  ingredient  in  the  manufacture  of  quinine? 
It  has  been  stated  by  a gentleman  who  addressed  this  committee  a few  weeks  ago  upon 
another  subject  that  since  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  quinine  fusel  oil  was  used  in  its 
preparation,  and  that  he  knew  it  because  he  supplied  it  for  that  purpose.  He  further 
stated  that  he  for  that  reason  had  quit  using  quinine. 

The  Chairman.  That  gentleman  is  mistaken. 

Mr.  Willis.  I do  not  pretend  to  assert  that  such  is  the  fact,  and  am  glad  to  know 
that  he  was  mistaken. 

Mr.  Haskell.  I was  told  by  a druggist  that  there  was  not  a particle  of  fusel  oil  in 
quinine. 

Mr.  Willis.  I accept  the  correction  most  cheerfully  ; but.  however  it  may  be  with 
quinine,  we  know  that  in  the  manufacture  of  varnish  and  numerous  other  articles 
alcohol  has  been  supplanted  by  substitutes  by  no  means  as  satisfactory  to  the  manu- 
facturer or  the  cousumer. 

But  passing  from  that  point,  I submit  toyou,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  principle  of  this 
bill  has  already  been  formally  approved  by  this  committee.  What  is  that  principle? 
It  is  that  spirits  shall  be  taxed  only  when  used  as  a luxury.  How  fiave  you  recognized 
that  principle  ? By  unanimously  reporting  a bill  for  tlie  abolition  of  all  taxes  upon 
proprietary  medicines,  except  where  there  was  20  per  cent,  of  alcohol. 

The  Chairman.  That  provision  is  not  in  the  bill. 

Air.  Willis.  I have  not  seen  the  bill,  and  was,  then,  misinformed.  But  if  that  pro- 
vision is  not  in  it  the  recognition  of  the  principle  is  only  the  stronger.  The  committee 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON  ] 


ALCOHOL. 


925 


Las  tLen  declared  that  the  whole  duty  shall  be  abolished  regardless  of  the  percent  of 
alcohol.  It  has  so  declared  because  these  proprietary  medicines— especially  to  the 
p00r — are  a necessity.  If  this  were  absolutely  true,  then  the  use  of  alcohol  in  the  arts 
and  manufactures,  and  the  use  of  alcohol  as  a constituent  part  of  many  proprietary 
medicines,  would  be  on  the  same  footing,  and  both  would  be  equally  entitled  to  exemp- 
tion from  duty.  But  the  use  of  alcohol  in  the  industrial  pursuits  is  purely  a necessity 
and  never  a luxury,  while  its  use  in  very  manj  of  the  proprietary  medicines  is  not  as 
a medicine  but  as  a beverage.  Is  it  not  a well  known  fact  that  a large  percent  ol 
the  so-called  “ tonic  bitters,77  “ elixirs  vjtse,77  &c.,  &c.,  are  but  thin  disguises  for  the 
pure  “juice  of  the  corn,77  and  are  bought  and  drunk  by  many  who  have  conscientious 
scruples  against  the  “ straight77  article  ? To  this  extent,  therefore,  this  committee  has 
gone  beyond  the  exemptions  of  this  bill.  If  the  war  tax  is  to  be  removed  from  alcoholic 
proprietary  medicines,  why  not  remove  it  from  the  arts  and  manufactures'? 

But,  sir.  not  only  will  the  arts  and  manufactures  be  benefited,  but  the  passage  of 
this  bill  will  also  help  the  great  farming  interests  of  the  country. 

Before  the  war,  when  alcohol  was  free,  the  statistics  show  that  33  per  cent,  of  all 
the  alcohol  used  was  for  industrial  purposes.  Since  the  war,  or  since  the  imposition 
of  this  tax,  it  has  been  driven  from  its  former  and  legitimate  uses,  and  now  it  is 
estimated  that  only  5 per  cent,  is  so  used.  We  have  seen  how  the  manufacturer  and 
consumer  have  suffered  by  the  substitution  of  other  solvents  and  iugredients.  Let 
us  inquire  how  the  agriculturist  may  be  benefited  by  its  reintroduction. 

The  Chairman.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  Willis.  By  increasing  the  demand  for  his  grain.  You  put  back  alcohol  in  its 
old  place  in  the  arts  and  manufacturing  and  you  compel  our  distilleries  to  increase 
their  production.  From  the  last  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  I 
find  that  there  was  used  for  distilling  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1881,  of 
corn  23,109,000  bushels;  of  rye,  4,030,000  bushels;  and  of  barley,  2,579,000  bushels. 
It  is  well  known  that  a large  part  of  the  corn  thus  used  is  of  an  inferior  and  unmar- 
ketable quality.  Much  of  it,  if  not  taken  by  the  distiller,  would  rot  in  the  granary. 

If  you  create  new  uses  for  alcohol,  or  restore  it  to  its  former  uses  by  making  it  free 
of  duty,  as  this  bill  provides,  there  would  be  an  immediate  increase  in  its  production, 
and  a corresponding  benefit  to  our  farming  interests. 

I am  the  more  encouraged  to  hope  for  favorable  action  on  this  bill,  because  since 
I appeared  before  the  subcommittee  its  scope  has  been  enlarged,  so  that  the  objection 
then  urged  that  it  benefited  only  one  branch  of  business — the  manufacturing  of 
tobacco — does  not  exist,  since  the  bill,  as  now  presented,  embraces  all  industrial 
pursuits.  Moreover,  your  committee,  since  then,  has,  by  its  action,  declared  two 
things:  First,  that  the  present  revenue  was  entirely  too  large  and  should  be  reduced. 
You  declared  this  by  presenting  a bill  reducing  the  tax  on  whisky  from  90  to  50  cents 
per  gallon,  and  also  reducing  the  tax  on  tobacco,  beer,  &c.  The  amount  of  these  reduc- 
tions per  annum  was  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  $70,000,000.  The  subsequent 
judgment  of  the  committee  was  that  these  reductions  on  tobacco  and  whisky  should 
not  be  made.  Why  this  change  of  opinion?  Was  it  not  largely  due  to  the  opinion 
that  the  public  sentiment  of  the  country  would  not  justify  the  removal  or  reduction 
of  tax  upon  articles  of  luxury,  such  as  whisky  and  tobacco,  unaccompanied  by  any 
reduction  of  the  duties  on  the  necessaries  of  life?  I am  not  here  to  discuss  the  pro- 
priety of  this  committee’s  final  action  on  this  subject.  I accept  it,  however,  as  con- 
clusive upon  this  Congress.  What  then  follows?  Your  committee  have  decided  that 
sixty  or  seventy  million  of  internal-revenue  taxes  should  be  removed,  and  you  have 
decided  that  you  will  not  remove  them  from  beer,  whisky,  or  tobacco.  Where,  then, 
or  upon  what  subjects,  shall  this  reduction  be  made?  You  have  partly  answered  that 
question  by  presenting  the  bill  to  which  I have  already  alluded,  removing  the  duty  on 
bank  deposits,  proprietary  medicines,  reducing  the  charge  for  licenses  of  retail  deal- 
ers of  whisky,  &c.  But  it  appears  that  the  very  largest  sum  that  will  be  derived  from 
these  various  sources  would  not  exceed  thirty  million  dollars,  which  is  not  one-half 
of  the  amount  which  the  committee  has  decided  should  be  taken  off.  Where,  then, 
will  you  make  up  these  thirty  or  thirty -five  million?  Where  can  it  be  done  with 
more  justice  and  with  greater  advantage  to  the  whole  country  than  by  giving  free 
alcohol  to  the  arts  and  manufactures?  The  whole  amount  of  revenue  which  would 
thus  be  taken  off,  according  to  the  best  estimates  which  have  been  presented  to  me, 
would  not  exceed  three  and  one-half  million  dollars.  The  increased  production  of  al- 
cohol that  might  result  from  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  not  decrease  the  amount 
now  used  as  a beverage.  The  tax  upon  spirits  would  still  yield  its  sixty  or  seventy 
millions  of  dollars  per  annum,  increasing  yearly  with  our  increasing  population  and 
foreign  demand.  What  objection,  then,  can  be  presented  to  the  bill?  Will  it  be  con- 
tended that  it  opens  the  door  to  fraud? 

Mr.  Errett.  The  point  that  I want  to  make  is,  that  you  will  here  confine  this  ad- 
vantage to  the  tobacco  manufacturers;  or,  if  it  extends  to  all  interests,  speak  of  it. 
Unless  you  adopt  a very  expanded  system  of  inspection  it  cannot  be  made  to  work, 
and  we  have  got  to  provide  for  that.  We  have  a check  upon  the  tobacco  manufact- 


926 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


urer,  but  this  lets  in  every  paint  shop,  every  plumber  shop,  and  every  druggist,  every 
manufacturer  of  paints  and  chemicals. 

Mr.  Willis.  The  bill  provides  for  the  withdrawal  of  free  alcohol  by  two  classes  of 
consumers.  The  first  class  embraces  all  those  industrial  pursuits  where  the  use  of 
such  spirits  “entails  their  complete  destruction,  so  that  they  cannot  be  recovered  by 
any  process  of  distillation.”  This  class  includes  the  manufacturer  of  tobacco.  The 
second  class  embraces  those  industrial  pursuits  who  can  use  and  do  use  for  their  pur- 
poses alcohol  which  is  not  perfectly  pure,  and  which  do  not  involve  the  complete  de- 
struction of  the  spirits.  As  to  one  portion,  and  the  largest  one,  of  the  first  class,  the 
manufacturer  of  tobacco  is,  as  this  committee  well  knows,  already  under  the  com- 
plete surveillance  of  the  government.  The  most  cursory  examination  of  the  existing 
rules  and  regulations  will  show  this.  The  percent,  of  industries  other  than  tobacco 
which  require  pure  alcohol  is,  as  shown  by  Mr.  Robinson,  exceedingly  small.  The 
same  regulations  now  in  force  as  to  tobacco  manufacturing,  or  other  equally  efficient 
regulations,  can  be  applied  to  this  first  class  of  industries. 

Mr.  K assoist.  I want  to  ask  whether,  under  your  bill,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
would  confine  the  benefits  of  free  alcohol  withdrawn  to  concerns  that  used  a certain 
amount  per  month? 

Mr.  Willis.  There  is  no  limit  as  to  amount  fixed  by  the  bill,  but  the  bill  is  broadly 
drawn,  so  that  any  regulation  that  he  adopts  becomes  a part  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Kasson.  The  use  of  pure  spirits  in  establishments  are  now  under  governmental 
supervision ; and  when  they  are  to  be  used  in  the  industries  the  question  is  whether 
we  can  reach  them  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Willis.  The  withdrawal  of  such  spirits  without  duty  is  authorized  by  the  bill, 
but  the  method  of  withdrawal,  the  place  where,  the  person  by  whom,  the  conditions 
upon  which  the  withdrawal  shall  be  made  are  left  to  the  Commissioner  of  Internal 
Revenue.  If  any  manufacturer  is  unwilling  to  submit  to  the  rules  and  regulations 
which  may,  under  the  bill,  be  prescribed,  he  will  not  be  permitted  to  withdraw  the 
alcohol  without  tax.  If  the  Commissioner  finds  that  he  cannot  make  such  rules  as 
will  protect  the  government  this  bill  will  be  inoperative.  I do  not  doubt,  however, 
but  that  proper  rules  can  be  made  by  that  officer. 

I have  said  that  this  committee  has  already  indorsed  the  principle  of  this  bill.  Our 
statute  books  bear  witness  to  two  instances  in  which  the  same  principle  has  been  al- 
ready embodied  into  laws.  “Free  alcohol”  is  now  and  very  properly  allowed  to  “any 
manufacturer  of  medicines,  preparations,  compositions,  perfumeries,  cosmetics,  cor- 
dials, and  other  liquors  for  export.”  (Supplement  Revised  Statutes,  p.  533.)  This 
withdrawal  is  “under  such  regulations  and  requirements  as  to  stamps,  bonds,  and 
other  security  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Interual  Revenue.”  The 
execution  of  the  bill  I am  now  considering  is  confided  to  the  same  officer,  and  with 
equally  liberal  discretion.  If  he  has  been  successful  in  administering  this  “free  al- 
cohol” law  in  one  instance  why  question  his  ability  in  the  other?  Is  there  not  the 
same  room  for  fraud  in  both  cases?  In  this  connection,  as  suggesting  the  means  of 
executing  this  bill,  I call  attention  to  Revised  Statutes,  section  3433. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  your  committee  is  well  aware,  an  act  was  passed  February 
21,  1873  (Revised  Statutes,  section  3297),  which  further  recognizes  the  principle  of  this 
bill  by  authorizing  the  withdrawal  of  alcohol  in  specified  quantities,  “without  pay- 
ment of  the  internal  tax  on  the  same,”  for  scientific  purposes.  At  first  this  privilege 
was  accorded  only  to  an  “incorporated  or  chartered  scientific  institution  or  college,” 
but  subsequetly,  on  May  3,  1880,  it  was  extended  to  such  institutions  even  when  un- 
incorporated. How  is  the  government  protected  against  fraud  here?  Simply  by  a 
“bond  for  double  the  amount  of  the  tax  on  the  alcohol  to  be  withdrawn”;  and  the 
only  penalty  for  using  such  alcohol  for  other  purpose  is  the  payment  of  double  tax  on 
the  whole  amount  withdrawn. 

Here,  then,  we  have  twice  passed  laws  giving  “ free  spirits  ” Will  any  one  say  that 
these  laws  have  not  been  an  advantage  to  our  commerce  and  to  our  people? 

But  while  we,  lor  some  reason  yet  to  be  explained,  and  with  a willful  disregard  of 
our  best  interests  that  is  lamentable,  have  given  to  our  people  “free  spirits”  in  only 
these  two  instances,  our  rivals  in  trade,  Germany  and  England,  have  for  many  years 
extended  the  same  relief  to  all.  As  far  back  as  June  26, 1855,  England  has  had  upon  her 
statute  books  “An  act  to  allow  spirits  of  wine  to  be  used  duty  free  in  the  arts  and 
manufactures.”  (Chapter  38, 18  and  19  Victoria.)  The  law  has  approved  itself  there ; 
it  has  fostered  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  been  a “very  present  help”  to  the  great  in- 
dustrial interests  of  the  United  Kingdom.  Why  should  we  not  adopt  its  principles 
and  give  its  benefits  to  our  own  people?  It' the  tax  on  spirits  is  to  remain,  let  it  be 
upon  them  as  a beverage,  as  a luxury,  not  as  a necessity. 

Let  us  not,  with  a Treasury  full  to  overflowing,  extort  further  tribute  from  either 
science,  commerce,  or  industry,  but  rather,  by  wise  and  beneficent  legislation,  let  us 
widen  their  operations  and  extend  their  usefulness. 

I thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  for  the  privilege  of 
offering  these  hasty  suggestions,  and  for  the  courteous  attention  which  you  have  given 
them. 


GOLDSBORO  UGH  ROBINSON.  J 


ALCOHOL. 


927 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  ALCOHOL  WITHOUT  TAX — (H.  R.  5082.) 

Statement  of  Hon.  Green  B.  Baum,  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue. 

Washington,  April  4,  1882. 

The  committee  having  under  consideration  H.  E.  5082,  to  permit  the  withdrawal 
without  tax  of  alcohol  and  proof  spirits  for  use  in  the  industrial  arts — 

Hon.  Green  B.  Eaum,  Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue,  appeared  by  invitation, 
and  made  the  following  statement : 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  ; This  bill  provides  for  the  removal  of  spirits  mixed 
with  wood  alcohol  to  be  used  in  manufactures,  and  also  for  the  withdrawal  of  spirits 
to  be  used  by  manufacturers  who  are  unable  to  use  methylated  spirits.  I think  that 
every  person  recognizes  Ihe  importance  of  cheapening  all  the  materials  that  enter 
into  manufactures  in  this  country,  especially  where  the  raw  material — as  you  would 
class  alcohol  when  introduced  into  manufactures — is  produced  from  other  important 
products  of  our  country  whose  value  would  be  iucre,ased  by  the  increase  of  its  con- 
sumption. The  difficulty  to  be  encountered  in  the  passage  of  this  bill  (H.  E.  5082) 
is  to  make  provision  against  these  spirits  that  are  allowed  to  be  withdrawn  for  use  in 
the  arts  and  manufactures  from  entering  into  consumption  as  potable  articles  in  com- 
petition with  tax-paid  spirits. 

Mr.  Kasson.  Please  state  that  again. 

Commissioner  Eaum.  I say  the  important  question  to  be  considered  here  is  whether 
you  can  arrange  for  alcohol  to  be  introduced  into  the  manufactures  and  arts  with- 
out at  the  same  time  opening  the  door  to  fraud  and  to  its  diversion  from  those  legitimate 
uses  to  the  ordinary  use  as  a beverage,  in  competition  with  tax-paid  goods. 

The  only  legislation,  as  far  as  I have  any  information  upon  the  subject,  that  you 
can  draw  upon  for  instruction  is  the  act  of  1855,  passed  by  the  British  Parliament, 
which  authorized  the  mixing  of  methyl  or  wood  alcohol  with  spirits  to  be  used  in  the 
arts. 

Mr.  Errett.  Hid  that  allow  any  withdrawal  except  of  mixed  spirits? 

Commissioner  Eaum.  No,  sir  ; it  did  not.  Now,  the  experience  in  England  has  been 
that  the  use  of  methylated  spirits  has  increased  from  290,000  gallons  in  1867  to 
1,500,000  gallons  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Eandall.  From  what  authority  do  you  quote  those  figures? 

Commissioner  Eaum.  The  figures  I have  here  are  from  a pamphlet  entitled  “The 
Whisky  Problem”;  but  that  pamphlet  quotes  in  turn  from  the  authenticated  reports 
of  the  British  revenue  department,  and  gives  the  figures  for  a series  of  years,  running 
from  1868  to  1875. 

Mr  Eandall.  Please  incorporate  those  figures  in  your  statement. 

Commissioner  Eaum.  I will  do  so,  and  I will  endeavor  to  get  the  latest  data. 

Mr.  Kasson.  You  have  not  verified  that  statement  by  consulting  the  original 
returns. 

Commissioner  Eaum.  No  ; but  I will  do  so.*  I have  no  doubt  as  to  the  correctness 
of  the  figures,  but  I will  verify  them  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  committee.  Soon 
after  the  passage  of  this  act  of-  Parliament,  the  tax  upon  distilled  spirits  was  raised 
to  ten  shillings  upon  the  imperial  gallon  at  57.  proof,  this  being  equivalent  to  a tax 
of  $1.78  per  gallon  proof  spirits,  United  States  standard.  This  high  tax  stimulated 
the  ingenuity  of  chemists,  and  a method  was  discovered  of  separating  methyl  from 
alcohol,  and  entirely  deodorizing  the  alcohol  so  as  to  restore  it.  I have  no  doubt  of 
the  ability  of  manufacturers  to  entirely  remove  methyl  from  alcohol.  I will  state 
the  reason  why  I am  satisfied  this  can  be  done.  Alcohol  vaporizes  at  from  175°  to 
180°  Fahr.,  while  wood-naphtha,  or  methyl,  which  is  much  more  volatile,  vaporizes 
at  144°  Fahr.  It  is  upon  this  principle  of  the  difference  of  sjiecific  gravity  and  the 
difference  in  the  degree  of  heat  necessary  to  vaporize  the  various  articles  that 
are  found  in  high  wines  that  the  distillers  are  able  by  the  continuous  process  of 
distillation  to  separate  alcohol  from  fusel  oil,  leaving  the  oil  behind,  fusel  oil  being 
of  greater  specific  gravity,  and  vaporizing  at  a very  much  higher  degree  of  temper- 
ature ; so  that  methylating  alcohol  as  a means  of  preventing  its  purification  and  use 
in  the  ordinary  lines  of  trade  where  tax-paid  alcohol  would  be  required,  I think 
would  prove  a failure.  That  is  my  judgment,  from  the  examination  I have  given 
the  subject.  I think  this  question  will  have  to  be  examined  simply  from  the  stand- 
point of  using  the  pure  alcohol  and  allowing  it  to  enter  into  the  consumption  of  the 
country  in  the  way  of  manufacturers  and  arts  free  of  tax.  I have  before  me  the  English 
act  of  1855.  It  is  a very  elaborate  act,  and  makes  provision  for  something  very 
much  like  our  system  of  distillation,  licensing  the  business  of  methylating  spirits  and 
providing  for  the  establishment  of  warehouses  where  this  business  shall  be  done. 
The  methylated  spirits  that  are  now  put  upon  the  market  in  England,  however,  are 
subjected  to  the  same  scrutiny  and  supervision  as  the  ordinary  spirits  of  commerce. 


[*  For  verification,  see  table  at  page  21.] 


928 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


It  is  important  to  consider  the  number  of  persons  who  would  be  authorized  to  with- 
draw alcohol  free  of  tax  under  this  bill.  We  had  last  year  in  operation  in  the  United 
States  1,240  grain  distilleries,  7 molasses  distilleries,  and  3,963  fruit  distilleries,  so  that 
the  total  number  of  distilleries  operated  and  from  which  methylated  spirits  might  bepnt 
upon  the  market  under  this  bill  would  be  5,272.  Those  distilleries,  of  course,  are  scat- 
tered all  over  the  United  States.  The  English  act  provides  not  only  for  the  withdra  wal 
of  methylated  spirits  from  distillery  warehouses,  but  also  authorizes  the  establishment 
of  warehouses  for  the  purpose  of  methylating  spirits.  It  is  very  difficult,  as  was 
said  in  a j)amphlet  that  was  read  to  you  the  other  day,  to  get  at  facts  where  there  are  no 
absolute  data  to  be  had,  and  I am  very  frank  to  say  that  I have  been  groping  my 
way  into  the  facts  c f this  question  as  best  I could.  I endeavored  to  obtain  from  the 
Census  Bureau  the  latest  data  as  to  the  number  of  persons  supposed  to  use  alcohol  in 
manufactures,  but  their  figures  are  not  in  condition  to  be  used. 

The  manufacturers  of  tobacco  are  especially  spoken  of  in  this  bill  as  a class  who 
would  be  authorized  to  use  alcohol  free  of  tax.  There  are  949  of  those.  Dealers  in 
leaf-tobacco  would  also  be  authorized  to  use  alcohol.  There  are  3,618  of  them;  and 
there  are  5 retail  dealers  ; in  all,  4,672. 

From  the  best  information  I can  obtain  I would  say  that  there  are  1,321  manufact- 
urers of  perfumery,  chemicals,  and  patent  medicmes  in  this  country,  and  22,579  drug- 
gists ; so  that  there  would  be  28,572  persons  of  these  classes  who  would  be  authorized 
to  withdraw  alcohol  free  of  tax,  upon  a bond,  and  dispose  of  it  without  supervision. 

Then  there  are  3,640  photographers;  110,660  painters  and  varnishers. 

I do  not  know  how  many  hat  manufacturers  there  are,  but  there  are  16,412  hatters, 
who  now  use  about  one  gallon  of  alcohol  to  every  hundred  silk  hats  manufactured. 

Mr.  Errett.  How  many  plumbers  are  there  ? 

Commissioner  Raum.  I have  not  the  figures  as  to  the  number  of  plumbers. 

The  Chairman.  Or  the  jewelers? 

Commissioner  Raum.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Errett.  The  case  of  the  plumbers  would  be  a good  illustration. 

Commissioner  Raum.  I am  only  giving  a few  of  the  persons  who  would  be  author- 
ized to  use  alcohol  in  this  way  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  This  makes  an  ag- 
gregate of  159,284  persons  who  would  be  authorized  to  use  alcohol  in  one  shape  or 
another  under  this  bill. 

In  the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  a tax  law  there  are  certain  elements  of  human 
nature  that  have  to  be  taken  into  account.  We  all  understand  that  the  general  pub- 
lic and  the  courts  do  not  attach  that  degree  of  moral  turpitude  to  the  act  of  defraud- 
ing the  government  out  of  its  taxes  that  they  attach  to  picking  a man’s  pocket  or 
robbing  a man  on  the  roadside.  That  is  a fact,  and  it  is  an  element  that  has  to  be 
considered  in  legislation.  But  here  is  a very  much  more  important  element,  in  my 
j udgment.  In  respect  to  acts  of  this  kind,  the  mere  fact  of  the  consciousness  of  wrong- 
doing does  not  deter  a man  from  defrauding  the  government  nearly  so  much  as  the 
fear  of  detection.  A man  will  carry  a burden  of  fraud  in  his  bosom  without  very 
much  compunction  of  conscience  if  lie  has  no  special  apprehension  of  beffig  detected. 
Now,  I know  that  this  bill  is  very  liberal  in  conferring  upon  certain  officers  discre- 
tionary power  to  look  after  and  supervise  and  superintend  and  inspect,  and  all  that, 
but  I would  like  to  know  whether  Congress  would  be  willing  to  pass  a law  to  multi- 
ply storekeepers  and  inspectors  in  sufficient  number  to  examine  the  160,000  additional 
places  where  these  articles  would  be  permitted  to  be  used  if  this  bill  should  become 
a law.  Our  tax  is  about  one-half  the  English  tax ; theirs  is  $1.78  per  gallon,  United 
States  standard,  while  ours  is  90  cents ; so  that  so  far  as  the  English  manufacturers 
are  concerned,  who  use  tax-paid  alcohol,  they  would  be  under  very  much  greater  dis- 
abilities than  the  American  manufacturers. 

The  Chairman.  On  proof  spirits  or  alcohol? 

Commissioner  Raum.  Ou  proof  spirits,  the  equivalent  of  our  article,  which  pays  90 
cents.  So  that  articles  produced  in  England  for  export  to  this  country,  into  which 
alcohol  enters  as  a constituent,  would  meet  our  manufactures  at  a disadvantage  of  88 
cents  on  each  gallon  of  alcohol  entering  into  the  manufactured  article,  which,  I think, 
would  be  very  much  to  our  advantage. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if,  after  a careful  examination  of  the  question  of  the  relations 
which  alcohol  sustains  to  our  manufactures,  it  is  found  that  its  use  has  been  greatly 
discouraged  by  the  present  tax,  to  the  prejudice  of  manufacturiug  interests,  it  would 
be  better  to  reduce  the  tax  ou  distilled  spirits  to  a point  which  would  stimulate  the 
use  of  alcohol  in  manufactures,  and  thereby  maintain  the  amount  of  tax  collected 
from  this  source,  rather  than  to  provide  for  the  withdrawal  and  use  of  alcohol  in 
bond  without  government  supervision,  or  to  establish  such  supervision  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  numerous  storekeepers  to  take  charge  of  the  alcohol  and  to  see  that  it  is 
properly  used,  which  would  enable  the  manufacturers  to  use  the  article  without  su- 
pervision, and  without  serious  impediment  or  prejudice  to  their  business.  I am 
inclined  to  think,  from  the  data  that  have  been  presented  to  me,  that  the  amount  of 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON.] 


ALCOHOL. 


929 


spirits  which  now  enters  into  manufactures  is  not  as  great  as  I at  one  time  supposed 
it  to  he. 

Mr.  Randall.  You  are  not  speaking  now  of  tobacco  alone  ; you  are  speaking  in  a 
comprehensive  sense. 

Commissioner  Raum.  In  a comprehensive  sense.  There  has  been  a great  deal  written 
and  said  in  regard  to  the  amount  of  spirits  per  capita  that  is  used  in  the  United  States. 
Mr.  Wells,  you  will  remember,  dealt  with  this  subject  in  his  report,  after  a careful  ex- 
amination of  the  question.  He  came  to  the  conclusion  in  1866  that  the  probable  con- 
sumption was  close  upon  a gallon  and  a half  per  capita.  If  we  are  using  anything 
near  that  quantity  now,  evidently  there  is  none  left  for  the  manufacturers.  We  have 
fifty  millions  of  people,  and  last  year  the  whole  quantity  withdrawn,  tax  paid,  was 
only  sixty-seven  million  gallons,  so  that  some  of  us  did  not  use  our  proper  proportion. 
[Laughter.]  It  is,  no  doubt,  known  to  the  committee  that  prior  to  1860  or  1861  the 
most  important  industry  that  consumed  alcohol  was  the  manufacture  of  buring  fluid. 

Mr.  Butterworth.  You  have  been  calling  the  attention  of  the  committee,  Mr. 
Commissioner,  to  the  legislation  in  England  upon  this  subject,  and  to  the  English  ex- 
perience. Now,  is  it  not  true,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  temptation  to  fraud 
in  the  direction  suggested  by  you  is  a hundred  per  cent,  greater  in  England  than  it 
would  be  here  under  the  operation  of  this  bill,  if  it  were  a law,  that  they  have  not 
found  any  occasion  in  England  to  modify  or  change  their  law? 

Commissioner  Raum.  They  do  not  allow  pure  spirits  to  go  upon  the  market  with- 
out the  payment  of  tax;  only  the  methylated  spirits,  and  there  is  only  about  a mill- 
ion and  a half  gallons  of  that  used  per  annum. 

Mr.  Kasson.  Did  I understand  you  rightly,  Mr.  Commissioner,  as  saying  that  the 
bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Willis  provided  for  the  use  of  untaxed  spirits  by  one  hundred 
and  fifty-odd  thousand — whatever  your  figures  were?  I find  that  the  bill  introduced 
by  him  is  limited  to  the  consumption  of  spirits  in  the  manufacture  of  tobacco. 

Mr.  Goldsborough  Robinson.  That  is  the  first  bill. 

Mr.  Kasson.  Then  there  is  another  bill  which  proposes  to  extend  the  privilege  ? 

Mr.  Robinson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kasson.  I was  not  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  Dunnell.  The  Commissioner  is  talking  about  the  second  bill. 

Commissioner  Raum.  Let  us  see  the  exact  phraseology  of  this  bill:  “ Where  such 
spirits  shall  be  withdrawn  for  use  in  tobacco  factories,  or  such  other  industrial  pur- 
suits as  shall  entail  their  complete  destruction,  so  that  they  cannot  be  recovered  by 
any  process  of  distillation.”  I think  that  language,  u other  industrial  pursuits,” 
would  include  everything. 

Now,  as  to  the  amount  of  spirits  that  entered  into  the  manufacture  of  burning  fluid 
before  the  tax  of  1862  was  imposed;  it  was  unquestionably  very  large.  There  were 
two  reasons  which  contributed  to  destroy  that  industry ; one,  the  discovery  of  coal  oil, 
and  the  other  the  imposition  of  the  tax  upon  distilled  spirits.  In  1867  the  amount  of 
coal  oil  brought  to  taxation  was  25,750,000  gallons.  That  was  for  the  consumption  in 
this  country. 

Mr.  Randall.  When  was  that  tax  repealed  ? 

Commissioner  Raum.  In  July,  1868.  Burning  fluid  was  made  of  four  parts  of  alco- 
hol and  one  part  of  camphene.  If  it  was  used  as  extensively  as  coal  oil  it  would  have 
taken,  say,  about  twenty  million  gallons  of  alcohol  to  have  produced  the  necessary 
amount  of  burning  fluid  required  for  use  in  1867. 

I,  of  course,  see  the  necessity  of  cheapening  all  the  materials  that  enter  into  our 
manufactures,  especially  of  articles  for  foreign  exportation,  and  I take  the  liberty  of 
speaking  to  a question  that  is  germane  to  the  subject  before  you,  namely,  the  manu- 
facture of  tobacco  for  exportation.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  government  to  en- 
courage the  manufacture  of  articles  for  exportation,  and  to  try  to  cheapen  those  prod- 
ucts, and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  he  quite  a relief  and  an  encouragement  to  that 
indu^ry  if  Congress  should  authorize  the  establishment  of  export  tobacco  manufac- 
tories, and  allow  those  manufacturers  to  withdraw,  without  the  payment  of  tax, 
spirits,  sugar,  and  licorice  for  use  in  their  business,  just  as  the  manufacturing  ware- 
houses, which  are  established  for  the  manufacture  of  perfumery,  cordials,  &c.,  are 
allowed  to  do. 

Mr.  Randall.  How  would  you  do  that,  by  a rebate  or  refund  on  the  goods  actually 
exported  ? 

Commissioner  Raum.  I do  not  think  it  necessary  to  give  any  refund.  There  are 
not  very  many  of  those  manufacturing  warehouses,  and  I presume  there  would  not  bo 
very  many  export  tobacco  factories  established.  I would  let  them  withdraw  the 
alcohol  free  of  tax  upon  the  execution  of  proper  bonds. 

Mr.  Randall.  But  you  would  watch  to  see  that  that  alcohol,  so  withdrawn  without 
paying  tax,  was  all  consumed  in  the  manufacture  of  tobacco  for  exportation  ? 

Commissioner  Raum.  Yes;  these  establishments  would  not  manufacture  it  for  any 
other  purpose.  They  would  be  in  charge  of  a storekeeper  just  like  the  manufacturing 


H.  Mis.  6 59 


930 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


warehouses  in  New  York  and  other  places  which  manufacture  perfumery  and  cordials 
for  exportation. 

Mr.  Errett.  Would  it  he  possible  to  guard  the  use  of  whisky,  even  by  tobacconists 
alone,  for  home  consumption,  and  not  for  export? 

Mr.  Kasson.  Please  answer  also  the  question  whether  the  provisions  of  this  bill 
would  not  meet  the  case  which  Mr.  Errett  suggests? 

Mr.  Errett.  I am  asking  whether  it  would  be  possible  to  guard  it  as  well  in  one 
case  as  in  the  other,  and  with  the  same  machinery? 

Commissioner  Kaum.  Yes;  with  the  same  machinery;  and  it  is  only  a question  of 
machinery.  There  is  no  doubt  about  being  able  to  make  arrangements  for  the  great 
leading  industries  if  you  choose  to  do  it,  but  the  question  in  my  mind  is  whether  you 
are  prepared  to  say  that  we  shall  have  a great  swarm  of  additional  officers  stationed 
all  over  the  United  States,  and  paid  out  of  the  Treasury,  for  looking  after  this  business. 

Mr.  Errett.  It  would  require  a storekeeper  to  each  tobacco  factory,  would  it  not? 

Commissioner  Raum.  I should  think  so,  where  they  withdrew  any  considerable 
quantity. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  not  be  a step  in  the  direction  of  civil  service  reform  to  so 
legislate  as  to  require  the  creation  of  the  additional  officers  to  whom  you  refer. 

Commissioner  Raum.  No  ; and  I sta.te  very  frankly  that  from  my  standpoint  I would 
not  be  disposed  to  recommend  legislation  that  would  largely  increase  the  number  of 
internal-reveuue  officers  throughout  the  United  States.  i 

The  Chairman.  My  question  was  intended  to  be  whether  this  bill  would  not  do 
that  to  a very  great  extent. 

Commissioner  Raum.  I think  it  would.  Of  course  where  industries  are  of  such  great 
importance  as  to  justify  that  it  ought  to  be  done.  In  the  case  of  the  proposed  export 
tobacco  manufacturers  I think  it  would  be  very  wise  to  do  so.  We  exported  last  year 
something  like  ten  million  pounds  of  tobacco.  Now,  if  you  could  double  that  by  re- 
ducing the  cost  of  manufacture  (and  I know  that  our  tobacco  manufacturers  complain 
that  the  Canadian  manufacturers  are  crowding  them  very  much  in  consequence  of  the 
cost  of  the  materials  here),  that  would  be  a very  good  thing  to  do. 

Mr.  Kasson.  And  for  that  class  of  manufacturers  the  present  means  of  supervision 
would  be  substantially  sufficient,  would  it  not? 

Commissioner  Raum.  Yes;  it  would  require  some  additional  legislation,  but  you 
could  provide  for  that. 

The  Chairman.  And  additional  force,  would  it  not? 

Commissioner  Raum.  No  great  additional  force.  I do  not  think  there  would  be  a 
dozen  export  manufacturers  altogether. 

Mr.  Butterworth.  I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commissioner  to  this  point. 
Of  course  in  the  case  of  each  withdrawal  for  any  purpose  the  object  and  purpose  of 
that  withdrawal  would  be  stated  in  the  bond  and  in  the  jiaper  hied  for  the  withdrawal  ? 

Commissioner  Raum.  Yes. 

Mr.  Butterworth.  If,  for  instance,  a plumber  should  hie  an  application  to  with- 
draw a certain  amount  of  alcohol,  the  object  for  which  that  was  withdrawn  would  be 
stated,  would  it  not? 

Commissioner  Raum.  Yes. 

Mr.  Butterworth.  Now,  is  it  not  a fact  that  the  amount  of  alcohol  that  could  be 
illegitimately  used  in  each  one  of  these  callings  is  dehnitely  known,  or  could  be  as- 
certained, and  is  it  not  also  true  that  a retail  druggist,  for  instance,  if  he  withdrew 
alcohol  for  any  legitimate  purpose,  and  afterwards  undertook  to  compound  it  for  use 
as  a beverage,  would  run  the  risk  of  detection,  not  only  so  far  as  regards  the  amount 
withdrawn,  if  that  was  improper  or  excessive  with  reference  to  the  nature  and  extent 
of  his  business,  but  also  the  risk  of  detection  by  his  clerks  and  other  persons  about  his 
establishment  who  would  have  knowledge  of  his  changing  the  character  of  that 
spirits?  Therefore,  would  not  every  offender  in  each  case  be  running  the  risk  for  the 
sake  of  a few  cents  of  going  to  the  penitentiary  and  paying  a heavy  fine?  Hav«  you 
not  in  this,  as  in  other  branches  of  business,  the  means  of  determining,  with  reason- 
able accuracy,  whether  the  alcohol  is  really  used  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  with- 
drawn? In  other  words,  you  have  stated  that  there  are  150,000  persons  who  would 
be  authorized,  if  this  bill  were  a law,  to  withdraw  this  alcohol  for  some  purpose. 
Now,  the  amount  that  might  properly  be  used  by  each  one  of  those  persons  in  each  of 
those  classes  is  well  known  to  all  others  in  the  same  trade  or  manufacture,  and  might 
be  well  known  to  the  collector  of  internal  revenue;  and  if  there  was  any  diversion  of 
that  alcohol  to  other  and  illegitimate  jmrposes  not  only  would  there  be  the  chance  of 
detection  in  the  establishment  itself,  but  also  the  additional  risk  of  detection  by  rea- 
son of  iho  quantity  withdrawn  being  out  of  proportion  to  the  purpose  for  which  it 
purported  to  have  been  withdrawn. 

Commissioner  Raum.  Suppose  we  take  the  case  of  druggists.  They  are  a very 
numerous  class  all  over  the  United  States.  I presume  that  the  observation  and  in- 
formation of  members  of  this  committee  would  coincide  with  my  own  to  the  effect 
that  it  is  the  opinion  of  a great  many  well-meaning  people  that  many  druggists  abuse 


GOLDSBORO  UGH  ROBINSON.! 


ALCOHOL. 


931 


their  privilege,  and  often  sell  spirits  to  be  used  as  a beverage  in  vio’ation  of  local 
laws.  Now,  suppose  you  should  pass  this  bill  authorizing  druggists  to  withdraw 
distilled  spirits,  and  a druggist  should  make  the  necessary  application  and  tile  the 
required  bond,  and  withdraw,  say,  five  barrels  of  whisky,  and  have  it  transported  to 
his  establishment,  is  there  any  way,  unless  you  have  a storekeeper,  and  a store-room 
secured  by  a government  lock,  by  which  you  can  tell  how  the  druggist  will  dispose  of 
that  five  barrels  of  spirits?  I think  not,  and  if  a saloon-keeper  in  the  same  block, 
with  a back  yard  communicating  with  that  of  the  druggists,  should  be  in  collusion 
with  the  druggist,  I think  they  could  use  those  spirits  illegitimately  without  diffi- 
culty. You  must  remember  that  the  temptation  would  be  great  for  the  commission  of 
such  fraud;  the  tax  is,  say,  $36  per  barrel. 

Mr.  Hubbell.  I think  you  would  find  a good  many  of  the  druggists  and  saloon- 
keepers running  their  concerns  on  joint  accounts. 

Commissioner  Raum.  That  is  my  impression.  Human  nature  is  very  much  the 
same  now,  I presume,  that  it  was  in  1868.  Before  the  passage  of  the  act  of  .July  20, 
1868,  which  introduced  the  system  of  paying  taxes  upon  spirits  by  stamps,  the  tax 
was  two  dollars  per  gallon,  and  the  government  received  taxes  upon  14,132,322  gal- 
lons. The  very  next  year  after  the  introduction  of  the  system  of  paying  the  tax  by 
stamps  placed  upon  the  heads  of  the  barrels,  the  government  received  taxes  upon 
53,103,507  gallons.  It  does  not  stand  to  reason  that  41,000,000  gallons  of  spirits  more 
were  used  in  1869  than  in  1868.  I thinly  the  difference  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact 
that  the  government  not  having  had  proper  supervision  over  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  spirits  in  1868,  and  having  imposed  a large  tax  upon  the  article,  the  tempta- 
tion to  defraud  was  so  great  that  the  manufacturers  did  not  bring  all  the  spirits  pro- 
duced to  taxation.  An  opportunity  to  save  the  tax  of  90  cents  a gallon  would  be  a 
great  temptation,  and  it  strikes  me  that  if  you  should  pass  this  bill  you  would  multi- 
ply places  and  opportunities  for  the  perpetration  of  fraud.  I have  no  question  that 
a very  large  number  of  well-meaning  men  all  over  the  country  would  withdraw  spir- 
its and  conscientiously  account  for  them,  but  I think  that  very  many  others  would 
make  this  law  an  occasion  for  defrauding  the  government,  and  in  a little  while  would 
make  it  so  odious  that  Congress  would  be  called  upon  to  repeal  it.  I intend,  if  the 
committee  think  well  of  it,  to  address  letters  to  all  the  collectors  of  internal  revenue 
in  the  United  States,  directing  them  to  make  inquiry  of  the  various  manufacturers 
who  would  probably  use  alcohol,  and  to  endeavor  to  ascertain  what  quantity  they 
now  use,  what  quantities  they  would  use  if  the  tax  were  reduced  to  50  cents,  and 
what  quantities  they  would  use  if  the  tax  were  taken  off  altogether.  I believe  I can 
have  that  information  in  the  course  of  twenty  days,  and,  while  I would  not  suggest 
any  postponement  on  that  account,  if  the  committee  think  well  of  the  suggestion,  I 
will  try  to  get  the  information.  I do  not  know  how  the  committee  may  feel,  but  I 
feel  that  I am  groping  in  the  dark  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Dunnell.  Do  the  same  objections  hold  against  the  first  bill  introduced  by  Mr. 
Willis  that  hold  against  the  second  ? 

Commissioner  Raum.  Do  you  mean  in  reference  to  tobacco  manufacturers? 

Mr.  Dunnell.  Yes. 

Commissioner  Raum.  I think  the  more  limited  a bill  of  this  kind  is  the  less  objec- 
tionable it  is.  I spoke  to  that  question  one  evening  here,  simply  upon  principle,  if 
the  privilege  were  confined  solely  to  manufacturers  of  tobacco  and  not  to  dealers  it 
would  bring  it  within  certain  manageable  limits.  If  you  provided  at  once  for  a 
storekeeper  it  would  bring  it  within  such  limits  that  it  could  be  handled  without  any 
difficulty  at  all.  If  this  bill  were  arranged  so  that  all  establishments  that  desired  to 
withdraw  alcohol  to  the  extent  of,  say,  a thousand  gallons,  or  so  as  to  warrant  the 
employment  of  a storekeeper,  where  the  establishments  were  of  sufficient  importance 
to  warrant  it,  I would  say  that  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  arranging  the  machin- 
ery to  carry  this  bill  into  operation  without  danger  of  fraud. 

Mr.  Dunnell.  Do  the  words  “this  bill,”  which  you  have  just  used,  apply  to  the 
bill  in  relation  to  tobacco  manufacturers? 

Commissioner  Raum.  They  apply  to  either. 

The  Chairman.  Might  it  not  be  regarded  as  invidious  to  grant  that  privilege  to  one 
single  industry?  Might  it  not  be  looked  upon  as  somewhat  in  the  nature  of  special 
legislation  ? 

Commissioner  Raum.  That  is  the  point  I made  here  about  a month  ago,  that  others 
would  seem  to  have  an  equal  right  with  the  tobacco  manufacturers  in  this  matter, 
and  that  those  who  were  manufacturing  articles  of  prime  necessity  would  seem  per- 
haps to  stand  upon  even  higher  ground,  tobacco  being  regarded  as  one  of  the  luxuries 
of  life. 

The  Chairman.  And  one  of  the  bete  noirs  of  America — a thing  that  ought  to  be 
taxed  out  of  existence  and  use. 

Commissioner  Raum.  Now  I am  frank  to  say,  upon  a line  of  thought  which  yon, 
Mr.  Chairman,  suggested  before  the  committee  was  called  to  order,  that  if  you  can 
legislate  so  as  to  increase  the  manufacture  of  alcohol,  it  will  be  in  the  interest  of  the 


932 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


COOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


agriculturist,  because  if  you  can  increase  the  use  of  alcohol,  in  the  arts  and  manufact- 
ures, say  20,000,000  gallons,  that  means  a market  for  5,000,000  bushels  of  grain,  aud  I 
will  be  very  glad  if  a line  of  legislation  could  be  entered  upon  that  would  result  in 
that  way.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  you  should  take  hold  of  it  in  a proper  way  at  the 
start,  aud  not  allow  this  alcohol  to  be  scattered  all  over  the  United  States  in  the 
hands  of  a great  many  people  without  any  supervision.  You  should  confine  it  to 
places  where  there  are  storekeepers,  and  in  that  way  the  law  could  be  carried  into 
effect  without  any  difficulty  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  conversation  to  which  the  Commissioner  has  just  referred  was 
one  in  which  I called  his  attention  to  statistics  in  his  own  report  showing  the  fact 
that  we  collected  tax  on  no  more  gallons  of  alcohol  or  on  scarcely  any  more  in  1881 
than  in  1870,  the  high  tax  having  driven  people  to  the  use  of  non-agricultural  substi- 
tutes for  the  natural  and  most  potent  solvent,  that  produced  from  our  grain;  and  sug- 
gested that  this  was  operating  therefore  as  a detriment  to  the  grain  growers  of  the 
country. 

Mr.  Errett.  What  do  you  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  to  the  suggestion  of  the  Com- 
missioner in  regard  to  sending  out  for  statistics? 

The  Chairman.  I should  like  to  have  it  done. 

The  Chairman  put  the  question  whether  the  Commissioner  should  be  requested  to 
procure  the  statistics,  as  suggested  by  him,  and  it  was  unanimously  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Goldsborough  Robinson.  I desire  to  call  attention  to  one  matter  of  authority. 
The  Commissioner’s  first  statement,  upon  which  he  settled  this  whole  methyl  spirit 
question,  was  based  on  the  idea  that  this  methyl  could  be  recovered  by  distillation. 
In  the  United  States  Dispensatory  (p.  1700)  I find  the  following: 

“The  British  Parliament,  wishing  to  encourage  the  use  of  alcohol  in  the  arts,  but 
not  as  a beverage,  passed  an  act,  in  1855,  allowing  it  to  be  used  duty  free,  provided  it 
be  mixed  with  at  least  one-ninth  of  its  bulk  of  pyroxylic  spirit,  which  renders  it  unfit 
for  drinking,  but  does  not  spoil  it  for  use  in  the  arts.  This  mixture  is  called  methylated 
spirits,  and  is  now  employed  extensively  in  Great  Britain  by  hatters,  brass-founders, 
and  cabinet-makers  for  dissolving  shellac  and  other  resinous  substances,  and  by  manu- 
facturing chemists  for  making  ether,  chloroform,  and  sweet  spirits  of  niter.  From  the 
purification  of  pyroxylic  spirit  already  referred  to,  so  as  to  deprive  it  of  offensive  taste, 
it  has  been  supposed  that  the  intended  operation  of  the  British  revenue  laws  might 
be  evaded ; but  in  opposition  to  this  idea  it  is  asserted  that  the  purifying  process  is 
too  expensive,  on  the  large  scale,  to  render  it  available  for  the  purpose.” 

The  process  here  referred  to  is  very  troublesome,  and,  as  previously  given  in  the 
Dispensatory,  involves  the  use  of  lime,  chloride  of  calcium,  &c.,  and  not  by  any  pro- 
cess of  distillation. 

That  law  has  been  in  operation  in  England,  as  Mr.  Butterworth  stated,  for  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  years,  and  the  British  people  have  seen  no  reason  to  repeal  it.  It  has 
been  of  very  great  benefit  to  their  arts  and  manufactures.  It  is  impossible  by  any 
process  of  distillation — contrary  to  what  the  Commissioner  seems  to  believe — to  sepa- 
rate these  spirits.  They  are  both  alcohols,  and  the  distillation  that  passes  over  one 
will  pass  over  the  other.  You  can  no  more  separate  them  by  distillation  than  you  can 
separate  a gallon  of  Chicago  alcohol  from  a gallon  of  Cincinnati  alcohol  after  they 
have  been  once  mixed  together.  Now,  this  whole  methyl  question  has  been  disposed 
of  by  the  Commissioner  upon  the  assumption  that  they  might  be  separated,  but  the 
fact  is  that  they  have  not  been  and  cannot  be  practically  separated. 

Still  further,  I do  not  think  any  supposition  that  the  American  people  are  less  law- 
abiding,  less  easily  controlled,  or  less  willing  to  obey  laws  passed  by  their  own  legis- 
lature than  the  English  people  will  pass  current  here.  So  that  this  methyl  question 
cannot  be  disposed  of  upon  the  ground  of  the  probability  of  fraud.  The  Commissioner 
further  says  that  some  28,000  people  may  avail  themselves  of  this  law.  I say  more 
than  that ; I say  that  some  40,000,000  of  people  may  avail  themselves  of  this  law,  be- 
cause it  provides  that  any  firm,  individual,  or  corporation  can  come  forward  and  ask 
for  this  alcohol  free  of  tax.  But  does  this  committee  suppose  for  a moment  that 
40,000,000  of  American  people  are  coming  forward  to  ask  for  an  opportunity  to  defraud 
the  revenue?  No!  Each  man  must  state  in  his  application,  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  Commissioner  or  the  collector,  the  exact  uses  to  which  he  desires  to  put  the 
alcohol,  and  the  Commissioner  can  impose  such  stringent  regulations  that  no  person 
can  use  it  for  fraudulent  purposes  without  ultimate  detection. 

Some  six  or  eight  tenths  of  the  whole  use  under  this  law  would  be  methylated  spir- 
its, and  no  argument  can  hold  against  that  use,  which  has  been  tried  successfully  in 
England  for  thirty  years.  The  use  of  pure  alcohol  would  be  limited  to  a few  lines  of 
manufacturing  establishments,  with  large  investments  and  large  plant,  and  do  you 
suppose  any  of  the  large  manufacturers  will  take  the  chance  of  going  to  the  peniten- 
tiary by  attempting  to  violate  this  law  ? The  whole  matter  is  placed  right  in  the 
grasp  of  our  own  officers  by  the  provisions  of  the  law.  It  is  no  excuse  to  give  the 
people  for  its  non-passage  that  a law  proposed  for  their  benefit  opens  the  gate  to  fraud. 
All  revenue  laws  open  the  gate  to  fraud.  The  tariff  law  opens  a gate  to  fraud  by 


GOLDSBO ROUGH  ROBINSON.] 


ALCOHOL. 


933 


offering  an  inducement  to  smuggle.  Now,  the  government  has  been  able  to  collect 
from  the  people  immense  sums  of  money  by  the  use  of  four  simple  provisions,  as  pre- 
viously stated,  and  I ask  you,  gentlemen,  as  one  of  the  people,  whether  some  benefit 
may  not  now  be  given  to  the  people,  to  their  arts  and  manufactures,  by  the  use  of  the 
same  means.  The  Commissioner  has  well  stated  how  great  the  advantage  resulting 
from  the  passage  of  this  law  would  be  to  our  manufactures  and  agriculture,  and  I ap- 
peal to  you  to  give  us  the  benefit  of  this  proposed  legislation. 

Commissioner  Raum.  In  reply  to  Mr.  Robinson’s  remarks,  I would  like  to  call  the 
committee’s  attention  to  “Reports  of  U.  S.  Revenue  Commissioner,  1865-’C.”  I read 
from  page  186,  as  follows : 

‘ 1 In  order  to  ascertain  whether  a similar  provision  of  law  would  be  desirable  in  the 
United  States,  the  commission  have  caused  a quantity  of  methylated  spirits  to  be  pre- 
pared, and  have  also  procured  samples  of  the  mixture  from  Great  Britain,  and  have 
submitted  the  same  for  trial  to  the  representatives  of  various  industrial  pursuits  in 
which  alcohol  is  extensively  used.  The  judgment  of  these  persons,  as  rendered  to  the 
commission,  has  been  unfavorable  to  the  use  of  ‘ methylated  spirits,’  and  induces  a be- 
lief that  even  if  the  government  were  to  authorize  its  preparation  and  sale,  duty  free, 
its  application  and  use  in  the  United  States  would  not  be  very  extensive.  The  com- 
mission are  confirmed  in  this  view,  moreover,  by  the  returns  of  the  board  of  commis- 
sioners of  inland  revenue  of  Great  Britain,  which  show  that  the  maximum  amount  of 
methylated  spirits  ever  used  in  that  country  in  any  one  year  has  never  equaled  one 
million  of  gallons. 

“ Thereis,  however,  a more  serious  objection  to  the  introduction  and  use  of  methylated 
spirits  in  the  United  States  than  that  above  presented;  which  is,  that  within  a very 
recent  period  the  advance  in  the  science  of  chemistry  has  been  such  as  to  allow  of  the 
complete  purification  and  deodorization  of  spirits  impregnated  with  wood-naphtha ; 
so  that  the  British  authorities  have  been  obliged  during  the  last  year  to  subject  the 
manufacture  and  subsequent  use  of  methylic  alcohol  to  the  same  restrictions  as  are  im- 
posed upon  the  manufacture  of  distilled  spirits.” 

Iu  verification  of  the  figures  submitted  by  Commissioner  Raum,  the  following  table 
is  submitted  bv  the  Commissioner: 


Statement  of  the  quantities  of  spirits  methylated  in  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland  during  each  of  the  fiscal  years  ended  March  31,  from  1857  to  1881. 


1857 

1858 

1859 

1860 
1861 
1862 

1863 

1864 

1865 

1866 

1867 

1868 

1869 

1870 

1871 

1872 

1873 

1874 

1875 

1876 

1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 
1881 


Number  of  gallons  of  spirits 
methylated. 


209, 
252, 
336, 
460, 
538, 
632, 
748, 
863, 
933, 
998, 
928, 
854, 
885, 
977, 
1,  002, 
1,  086, 
1,071, 
1,  099, 
1, 180, 
1,  262, 
1,  3"3, 
1,  344, 
1,428, 
1,  601, 
1,  762, 


75,  628 
48  759 


209,  693 
252,  520 
336,  409 
460,  067 
538,  969 
632,  227 
748, 163 
863,  747 
933,  647 
998, 372 
928,  672 
854,  842 
885,  958 
977, 469 
1,  002,  298 
1,  086,  671 
1,  071,  949 
1,  099,  699 
1, 180,  055 
1,  262,  734 
1,  373,  366 
1,  424,  040 
1,477,  371 
1,601,877 
1,  762,  659 


Reference  to  reports  from  which  these  figures  are  taken. 


From  table  on  page  11  of  the  report  of  the  commissioners  of 
^inland  revenue,  on  the  duties  under  their  management,  for 
the  years  1856  to  1869,  inclusive.  Volume  II.  London,  1870. 


J 

From  14th  report  (p.  10)  of  the  commissioners  of  inland  revenue. 
> From  15th  report  (p.  10)  of  the  commissioners  of  inland  rev- 
) enue. 

From  17th  report  (p.  8)  of  the  commissioners  of  inland  revenue. 

? From  18th  report  (p.  8)  of  the  commissioners  of  inland  rev- 
5 enue. 

From  1 9th  report  (p.  14)  of  the  commissioners  of  inland  revenue. 
From  20threport  (p.  10)  ofthe  commissioners  of  inland  revenue. 
) From  22d  report  (p.  9)  of  the  commissioners  of  inland  reve- 
) nue. 

) From  24th  report  (p.  7)  of  the  commissioners  of  inland  reve- 
5 nue. 


[GOLDSBOEOUGH  ROBINSON. 


934 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


The  Chairman  submitted  the  following  letter,  to  be  made  a part  of  these  minutes: 


“New  York,  March  17,  1882. 

‘ ‘ House  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

“ Gentlemen  : We  use  from  fifteen  to  twenty  barrels  alcohol  per  month.  We  ought 
to  use  fifty  barrels  with  tax  reduced.  We  are  obliged  to  export  alcohol  to  Saint 
Thomas  and  make  crude  material  and  import  same  back.  By  so  doing  we  are  able  to 
hold  a portion  of  trade;  but  if  we  were  to  pay  present  price  of  alcohol  in  States  we 
could  not  do  business,  even  with  40  per  cent  duty  on  blasting  caps,  which  is  in  force. 
Germany  sends  most  all  that  is  used  here. 

“Yours,  respectfully, 


“Metallic  Cap  Company. 
“H.  S.  CHAPMAN.’7 


Adjourned. 


Hon.  Wm.  D.  Kelley  and  members  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Gentlemen:  The  honorable  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  based  his  argu- 
ment against  the  Willis  bill,  made  before  you  on  April  4,  on  the  ground  of  his  fear  of 
the  fraudulent  use  of  spirits  withdrawn  free  of  tax  under  that  bill  and  his  opposition 
to  the  appointment  of  the  immense  number  of  additional  revenue  officers  which  might 
be  required. 

He  gave  his  reasons  for  this  fear  of  fraud  : In  the  statement  that  a great  number 
of  people  might  withdraw  alcohol  under  this  bill.  In  his  belief  that  methylated  spirits 
might  be  subjected  to  a process  of  distillation  which  would  free  it  from  methyl  and 
Teuder  it  fit  for  use  as  a beverage.  In  his  belief  with  the  old  Prophet  Jeremiah  that 
human  nature  generally  was  deceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked  and 
that  this  bill  would  ofier  a temptation  and  open  a gate  to  fraud  not  already  offered 
and  not  already  opened. 

He  illustrated  his  fears  in  a supposed  case  of  how  a retail  druggist  might  apply  for 
five  barrels  of  Kentucky  whisky  and  sell  it  for  drinks  or  pass  it  through  his  back 
yard  to  a saloon  keeper  for  sale  for  that  purpose. 

Now  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case  and  what  are  reasonable  deductions  from  the 
same? 

This  bill  provides : 

1 . For  the  use  free  of  tax  in  industrial  pursuits  of  spirits  mixed  with  methyl  ac- 
cording to  the  English  standard. 

2.  For  the  use  of  pure  spirits  in  those  manufacturing  processes  only  which  shall 
destroy  them  so  that  they  cannot  be  recovered,  and  this  use  is  to  be  guarded  by  the 
giving  of  bonds,  keeping  of  books,  and  government  supervision. 

This  bill  provides  still  further  that  the  sale,  use,  or  willful  permission  of  use  of 
spirits  withdrawn  under  it  for  any  other  purpose  than  industrial  pursuits  shall  be 
punished  with  the  usual  severe  penalties  of  the  revenue  laws. 

The  Hon.  Ben.  Butterworth,  as  a revenue  lawyer  of  experience,  bore  testimony  be- 
fore you  that  this  law  opened  no  gate  to  fraud  not  already  wide  open. 

The  revenue  laws  already  in  existence  offer  the  temptation  to  fraud,  by  taxing  proof 
spirits  $36  per  barrel,  and  I propose  to  prove  clearly  that  these  laws  offer  much  easier 
methods  for  fraud,  and  that  without  acceptance  by  the  people,  than  any  which  can  be 
offered  under  the  operations  of  the  Willis  bill,  and  when  this  proof  is  made,  I respect- 
fully submit  the  proposition,  that  this  cry  of  probable  fraud,  so  easily  raised,  should 
and  ought  to  be  forever  dismissed  from  the  consideration  of  this  subject. 

Now  for  the  proof.  Let  us  test  the  question  with  the  retail  druggists  and  chemists. 
They  number,  according  to  the  honorable  Commissioner’s  estimate,  about  twenty- 
eight  thousand  in  the  United  States,  and  have  been  selected  by  him  as  a class  which 
would  be  peculiarly  tempted  and  have  especial  advantages  for  fraud  under  this  bill. 

The  production  of  spirits  by  the  fermentation  and  distillation  of  saccharine  matter 
is  one  of  the  simplest  processes  known  to  chemistry,  and  is  familiar  to  every  druggist 
— nearly  every  druggist  has  a still.  On  their  shelves  are  cans  and  jars  filled  with 
spirits  upon  which  there  are  no  stamps  or  brand  to  prove  any  payment  of  tax,  or  iden- 
tify the  place  of  production.  They  can  easily  produce,  with  these  stills,  by  a simple 
process,  proof  spirits,  at  a cost  of  18  to  30  cents  per  gallon  ; they  are  now  paying  $1.15 
for  them.  This  process  can  be  carried  on  in  a back  or  attic  room,  apparently  almost 
without  risk  of  detection,  and  yet  there  is  no  record  of  any  appreciable  fraud  by  this 
class  of  men. 

(For  detail  proof,  see  note  A.) 

The  people  are  either  more  honest  or  stand  in  greater  fear  of  the  penalty  than  the 
Commissioner  believes. 

Under  the  Willis  bill  these  druggists  would  either  have  to  attempt  the  practically  im- 
possible illicit  distillation  of  methylated  spirits  (see  note  B),  or  else,  to  obtain  pure 
spirits,  would  have  to  file  a bond  for  double  the  tax  on  the  spirits  withdraw^  make 
application  stating  a manufacturing  process  which  would  destroy,  and  then  furnish 


ALCOHOL. 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON.] 


935 


proof  showing  such  destruction  and  the  reasonable  ground  thereof;  they  would  also 
he  required  to  keep  proper  hooks  of  detail. 

Do  thieves  notify  officers  of  their  intention  to  steal  ? 

This  law  presupposes  ordinary  common  sense  on  the  part  of  revenue  officers,  and 
could  a retail  druggist  state  in  his  application  any  reasonable  manufacturing  pro- 
cess necessary  to  his  business  which  would  destroy  five  barrels  of  Kentucky  whisky, 
or  could  he  furnish  proof  of  such  destruction? 

I might  multiply  examples,  but  this  class  of  men,  so  numerous,  and  selected  by  the 
Commissioner  himself,  furnishes  abundant  proof  of  the  statement  that  fraud  is  more 
easy  under  the  present  laws  than  it  could  possibly  be  under  any  provision  of  the  Willis 
bill. 

Our  revenue  laws  are  enforced  by  the  honesty  of  the  great  mass  of  our  people,  and 
because  the  evil-disposed  are  held  in  check  by  the  fear  of  the  penalty  and  the  certainty 
of  ultimate  detection  through  the  betrayal  of  friends,  servants,  or  clerks,  or  through 
the  jealousy  of  trade. 

The  second  ground  of  the  Commissioner’s  objection,  the  employment  of  additional 
officers,  is,  I think,  thrown  in  as  a suggestion,  without  his  having  given  the  subject 
much  consideration. 

What  are  the  facts  ? 

The  methylated  spirits  are  to  be  mixed  under  the  supervision  of  government  officers, 
in  bonded  distillery  warehouses. 

These  officers  are  already  there,  and  their  duties  are  to  watch  and  not  to  work.  The 
pure  spirits  are  to  be  withdrawn  by  application  and  bond  through  the  collector,  and 
their  use  will  be  subject  to  examination  by  himself  or  his  deputy.  These  officers 
already  exist. 

Supervision  over  the  sale  of  spirits  throughout  the  United  States  is  already  exer- 
cised by  officers  already  appointed.  In  conclusion,  it  will  be  more  apparent  the  more 
this  subject  is  considered,  that  this  bill  gives  greater  security  to  the  revenue  than  the 
laws  which  are  now  enforced;  that  it  involves  no  bad  public  policy,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  a measure  due  to  the  people,  and  one  which,  if  enacted,  will  meet  with  al- 
most universal  approbation. 

I cannot  close,  Mr.  Chairman,  without  offering  to  yourself  and  to  the  members  of 
the  committee  my  most  earnest  thanks  for  the  kind  consideration  which  you  and  they 
have  shown  me;  a consideration  which  is,  I know,  due  to  the  desire  to  thoroughly 
investigate  the  needs  and  interests  of  the  people,  and  yet  which  has  been  very  grati- 
fying and  helpful  to  me,  who  appeared  before  you  without  experience  and  sustained 
only  by  that  strength  which  comes  from  a sincere  belief  in  the  justice  and  right  of 
the  cause  advocated. 

GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


Note  A. 

The  following  letter  from  a practical  chemist  and  druggist  of  high  standing  shows 
that  druggists  already  have  stills,  and  that  they  can  easily  produce  spirits  at  a cost 
of  18  cents  per  gallon  if  they  -were  willing  to  violate  the  law,  but  cannot  practically, 
by  any  process,  render  methylated  spirits  fit  for  use  as  a beverage : 

Louisville,  Ky.,  April  10,  1882. 

Mr.  Goldsborough  Robinson: 

Dear  Sir:  In  answer  to  your  inquiries,  I would  say  that  almost  all  the  retail  drug- 
gists and  apothecaries  have  small  stills,  which  they  use  for  recovering  alcohol  from 
the  percolate  obtained  in  making  fluid  extracts,  preparing  distilled  water,  &c. 

In  regard  to  the  costs  of  manufacturing  spirits  in  a small  way: 

For  the  past  two  years  I have  been  employed  as  chemist  for  the  Newcomb-Buchannan 
Company,  and  have  been  constantly  making  experiments,  and  have  been  rarely  able 
to  obtain  as  good  results  in  a large  way,  in  the  distillery,  as  I have  in  my  experi- 
mental laboratory,  in  a small  way,  where  I have  never  produced  below  3.85  gallons, 
and  from  selected  grain  5.11  gallons  to  the  bushel  of  56  xiounds  of  grain. 

Any  apothecary  could,  in  his  laboratory,  produce  on  an  average  four  gallons  of 
proof  spirits  from  the  same  amount  of  grain,  counting  the  extra  cost  of  £uel,  labor, 
and  the  average  cost  of  grain.  He  could  probably  produce  spirits  at  a profit  at  18 
cents  per  gallon. 

If  manufactured  from  sugar,  the  cost  would  be  greater,  probably  from  30  to  32 
cents,  but  the  labor  less  and  no  slops  to  be  gotten  rid  of. 

In  regard  to  methylated  spirits,  I should  regard  the  separation  of  10  per  cent,  of 
wood  alcohol  from  grain  alcohol,  so  that  it  could  be  used  as  a beverage,  as  practically 
impossible,  and  entirely  so,  except  at  several  times  the  value  of  the  alcohol  obtained, 
and,  even  then,  there  would  remain  an  exceedingly  unpleasant  odor  in  the  grain 
alcohol  from  the  acetate  of  methyl,  which  is  always  contained  in  larger  proportions 
in  commercial  wood  alcohol,  from  which  it  can  be  freed  only  by  uniting  with  chloride 


936 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


GOLDSBOROUGH  ROBINSON. 


of  calcium,  driving  off  the  acetate  by  heat,  dissolving  in  water,  and  distilling.  This 
acetate  unites  readily  with  grain  spirits,  and  does  not  vaporize  when  so  united,  at  a 
temperature  lower  than  the  boiling  point  of  alcohol. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

J.  P.  BARNUM, 
Analytical  Chemist. 


Mayor’s  Office,  Louisville,  April  11,  1882. 
This  is  to  certify  that  J.  P.  Barnum  is  a chemist  in  this  city,  of  good  standing,  and 
©f  more  than  ordinary  capacity. 

CHARLES  D.  JACOB,  Mayor. 


Note  B; 

The  following  extract  from  the  latest  British  revenue  returns  is  furnished  by  Mr. 
Hill,  statistician  of  the  State  Department,  and  the  note  shows  the  satisfaction  which 
this  legislation  gives  after  a trial  of  nearly  thirty  years : 

QUANTITIES  METHYLATED  (BRITISH  SPIRITS). 


Years. 

England. 

Scotland. 

Ireland. 

United  Kingdom. 

1880 

Gallons. 
1, 113,  529 
1,  225,  439 

Gallons. 

472,868 

517,182 

Gallons. 
15, 48a 
20,  038 

Gallons. 

1,  601,  877 
1,  762,  659 

1881  

Increase 

111,  910 

44,814 

4,  558 

160,  780 

Note. — This  return  is  reported  satisfactory.  Each  year  shows  a steady  increase 
from  extended  and  developed  use  of  methylated  spirit  in  art  and  manufactory  and  for 
domestic  use. 


N.  T.  DE  PAUW.] 


PLATE  GLASS. 


937 


N.  T.  DE  PAUW. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  September  6, 1882. 

N.  T.  De  Pauw,  plate-glass  manufacturer,  of  New  Albany,  Ind.,  ap- 
peared before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following  statement : 

My  father,  W.  C.  De  Pauw,  is  the  proprietor  of  our  plate,  window, 
and  fruit-jar  glass  works,  and  I am  his  manager.  He  expects  to  present 
a written  statement  to  the  Commission,  but  it  has  not  yet  been  prepared. 
While  in  New  York  I received  a telegram  from  the  secretary  of  the  Com- 
mission stating  that  he  would  like  an  interview  with  me.  I have  not 
had  time  to  prepare  any  formal  statement,  as  I only  arrived  in  the  city 
one  hour  ago,  and  have  not  even  had  time  to  go  to  my  office,  but  shall 
be  glad  to  answer  any  questions  in  relation  to  the  business  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  may  see  fit  to  ask. 

The  product  of  our  business  this  year  will  be  over  $1,000,000.  There 
was  something  over  $1,300,000  invested  up  to  1879.  January  1,  1879, 
there  was  an  invoice  taken,  and  we  learned  that  our  losses  up  to  that 
time  had  been  nearly  $600,000.  Since  then,  however,  we  have  lost 
money  only  one  year.  The  business  has  been  gradually  growing,  and  it 
is  now  paying  a small  profit.  The  profits  were  and  are  mostly  made  on 
window  glass  and  fruit  jars,  but  little  on  plate,  and  on  all  have  never 
reached  8 per  cent,  in  any  year.  The  capital  my  father  has  now  invested 
in  the  works  is,  say,  $1,250,000.  It  is  a business  that  requires  a great 
deal  of  capital,  and  it  is  difficult  to  put  it  in  a paying  shape,  though  we 
have  been  gradually  approaching  that  point,  and  we  think  it  no  longer 
a problem. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  Since  you  started  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass  has  the 
price  of  that  article  increased  or  decreased  ? — Answer.  The  price  of 
some  sizes  is  only  one- third  of  what  it  was  when  we  started,  and  that  of 
others  only  one-half.  In  no  case  is  the  price  over  one-half. 

Q.  How  many  hands  do  you  employ? — A.  In  the  neighborhood  of 

1,000. 

Q.  You  manufacture  practically  all  the  plate  glass  manufactured  in 
this  country  ? — A.  No,  sir.  I presume  we  manufacture  about  two-thirds 
of  all  the  plate  glass  in  the  United  States.  With  reference  to  the  tariff 
upon  plate  glass,  I can  say  that  while  we  have  been  manufacturing  it  for 
the  last  ten  or  eleven  years,  the  importations  during  that  time  have  been 
increasing  also,  the  reason  of  which  is  that  the  glass  has  become  so  cheap 
(in  comparison  with  what  it  was  formally)  in  consequence  of  the  manu- 
facture of  it  in  this  country. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Are  you  satisfied  with  the  present  rate  of  duty  ? — A.  We  are  sat- 
isfied with  the  duty  upon  the  large  sizes,  which  is  four-fifths  or  80  per 
cent,  of  our  product,  but  not  upon  the  small,  say,  one-fifth.  I think  my 
father’s  idea  is  to  ask  an  advance  of  the  rate  of  duty  on  small  glass. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  schedule  showing  the  prices  paid  for  labor  ? — A.  I 
have  one  comparing  the  prices  of  labor  here  with  the  prices  for  labor  in 


.938 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[N.  T.  DE  PAUW. 


England.  The  comparison  I made  from  the  consular  reports  published 
in  1879,  but,  as  I said  before,  I have  not  had  time  to  go  to  my  office,  and 
haven’t  it  with  me.  My  father,  in  his  travels  abroad,  has  procured  mem- 
oranda of  the  wages  paid  in  France,  Belgium,  and  Germany,  and  he 
proposes  to  lay  that  whole  schedule  before  you. 

Q.  The  prices  have  been  procured  directly  from  the  manufacturers? — 
A.  Yes  ; at  least  he  has  it  in  definite  and  authentic  shape.  From  what 
the  men  tell  me  who  are  in  our  employ  the  wages  paid  in  England,  as 
per  the  consular  reports  above  referred  to,  are  given  there  from  33  to  50 
per  cent,  more  than  are  really  paid.  We  pay  from  two  to  four  times  as 
much  as  is  paid  in  Europe  for  the  same  class  of  labor.  Our  industry 
is  just  in  this  shape:  Being  a new  industry,  we  have  been  obliged  to 
import  men  who  have  understood  the  business  in  order  to  build  it  up 
in  this  country.  If  a reduction  should  be  made  in  the  tariff,  the  only 
chance  for  us  would  be  in  reducing  our  labor,  every  thing  else  being  on 
the  lowest  possible  basis.  We  are  getting  our  materials  as  cheaply  now 
as  possible. 

Q.  Would  the  labor  stand  any  reduction? — A.  We  think  not.  You 
can  see  the  difference  between  this  and  any  regularly  established  indus- 
try old  enough  to  have  taught  Americans  the  art  or  skill. 

Q.  About  how  old  is  your  industry? — A.  Between  eleven  and  twelve 
years.  Ten  years  ago  there  was  practically  no  plate  glass  manufactured 
in  this  country.  It  had  been  attempted  at  several  points,  but  it  had 
always  resulted  in  failure. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  are  the  raw  materials  of  which  plate  glass  is  made? — A. 
Sand,  soda-ash,  and  lime. 

Q.  Have  you  any  peculiar  advantages  in  your  situation  with  reference 
to  sand? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  have,  we  think,  very  peculiar  advantages; 
we  have  two  sand  banks  within  10  to  19  miles  of  our  works,  and  the 
sand  is  of  peculiar  excellence  for  our  purposes.  We  can  get  it  to  our 
works  cheaply ; and  we  get  our  lime  more  cheaply,  I presume,  than  any 
other  manufactory  in  the  country. 

Q.  Is  it  absolutely  pure? — A.  Yot  absolutely  pure  theoretically',  but 
practically  it  is,  containing  over  99  per  cent,  silica. 

Q.  What  is  your  grinding  material? — A.  In  the  first  place  it  is  sharp 
sand  from  the  river,  and  then  we  finish  with  powdered  emery  stone. 
We  can  get  the  sand  from  the  river  as  cheaply  as  it  can  be  procured 
anywhere  in  the  world,  for  we  have  a steamboat  with  patent  machinery 
that  digs  it,  washes  it,  and  screens  it  all,  and  then  brings  it  to  our  dock. 
Our  emery  stone  we  have  to  import,  as  all  plate-glass  manufacturers 
have  to  do,  from  Turkey  and  Smyrna. 

Q.  How  does  tbe  duty  on  emery  affect  you? — A.  The  amount  of  em- 
ery stone  we  use  is  so  small  that  it  is  merely  nominal. 

Q.  And  how  with  reference  to  soda-ash? — A.  That  is  where  the  duty 
affects  us  very  strongly.  We  use  about  $100,000  worth  of  soda  ash 
annually,  and  the  duty  1 think  is  about  20  per  cent.  We  have  attempted 
the  manufacture  of  it  ourselves,  and  it  has  also  been  tried  by  others 
once  or  twice,  but  never  with  any  financial  success  in  this  country.  The 
reason  is  the  high  cost  of  sulphur  in  this  country.  We  have  to  get  it 
from  the  same  sources  as  the  English  and  French,  and,  of  course,  they 
get  it  much  more  cheaply  than  we  do,  they  being  much  nearer  the  sul- 
phur mines. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  In  brief,  what  do  you  consider  the  advantages  of  your  location  ? — 


N T.  DE  PAUW.] 


PLATE  GLASS. 


939 


A.  I consider  that  there  is  no  better  location  to  be  found  in  the  United 
States. 

Q.  Explain  why. — A.  In  the  first  place.  New  Albany  is  a healthy 
and  desirable  place  to  live;  farm  and  garden  products  are  abundant  and 
cheap.  We  get  our  mixed  sand  as  cheaply  as  it  can  be  procured  any- 
where else,  and  lime  and  grindings  and  much  more  cheaply;  we  can  get 
our  soda-ash  as  cheaply  as  it  can  be  procured  at  any  point  in  the  West. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  are  the  advantages  in  regard  to  transportation  ? — A.  Very 
good.  The  location  is  most  excellent;  in  fact  my  father  took  nearly  three 
or  four  years  to  investigate  different  localities,  and  visited  quite  a number 
of  places  for  that  purpose,  intending,  if  he  could  find  a better  place,  to 
move  the  glass-works  there,  but  he  was  unable  to  find  any  that  he 
thought  so  good. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  You  think  the  present  rates  on  the  smaller  sizes  are  not  adequate  to 
protect  the  manufacturer,  as  I understand;  can  you  suggest  any  sim- 
plification of  the  present  rates  of  duty  *? — A.  I presume  I could  by  a 
little  study. 

Q.  There  are  some  twenty-odd  different  rates  of  duty  on  window  and 
plate  glass. — A.  I think  the  duty  could  be  very  much  simplified,  but 
any  suggestion  of  that  kind  I should  prefer  to  give  in  writing. 

Q.  Are  the  prices  of  foreign  plate  glass  easily  determined  t — A.  If 
your  question  refers  to  the  selling  price  in  this  country,  yes. 

Q.  Is  there  a probability  of  undervaluation  as  compared  with  other 
merchandise  ? — A.  In  plate  glass  there  is  very  little  probability  of  that, 
because  the  duty  is  specific. 

Q.  I am  assuming  that  it  is  an  ad  valorem  duty. — A.  You  take  plate 
glass  as  large  as  that  table  and  cut  it  into  three  or  four  pieces,  and  they 
put  them  together  without  a fraction  of  an  inch  loss,  and  yet  it  would 
not  be  worth  within  25  per  cent,  as  much  as  the  whole  piece  was.  It 
would  be  very  easy  for  an  importer  to  put  a large  plate  glass  in  a box  and 
say  that  it  was  small  plate  glass,  and  value  it  as  so  many  lights  of  small 
glass.  He  could  have  the  same  weight  and  the  same  number  of  square 
feet  of  glass,  and  yet  there  would  be  a diminution  of  twenty -five  to  fifty 
per  cent,  in  the  price  of  glass. 

Q.  Suppose  it  to  be  examined,  then  what  % — A.  You  could  not  ex- 
amine every  package ; it  wmuld  cost  too  much,  and  the  risk  of  breakage 
by  handling  is  too  great. 

Q.  Is  it  not  examined  now  % — A.  No,  sir ; not  on  the  dock. 

Q.  What  I want  to  get  at  is  this  : Is  the  price  so  fixed  that  an  expert 
can  determine  within  a very  small  percentage  the  foreign  market  value 
of  plate  glass  % — A.  Really,  so  far  as  the  foreign  market  value  is  con- 
cerned I can  hardly  answer  the  question.  I am  not  familiar  enough 
with  it.  I presume  father  can  answer  it,  and  probably  will.  I will  make 
a note  of  that,  and  when  he  submits  his  written  statement  he  will  refer 
to  it. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Are  not  the  largest  dealers  in  plate  glass  in  New  York  the  agents 
of  branch  houses  of  English  or  French  manufacturers  ? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; 
the  two  largest  are.  The  most  of  the  plate  glass  sold  in  New  York  is 
manufactured  by  the  London  and  Manchester  Company,  and  is  sold 
through  its  agent,  J.  A.  Waller. 

Q.  Then,  if  a change  is  made  in  duty  from  specific  to  ad  valorem,  the 


940 


[N.  t.  de  pauw. 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 

English  manufacturer  would  be  making  the  bills  to  his  branch  houses 
in  iNew  York  ? — A.  He  would  be  making  bills  to  his  own  agent.  So  it 
is  with  the  French.  I presume  four-fifths  of  the  plate  glass  imported 
into  New  York  comes  to  French  and  English  agents. 

Q.  Your  competitors,  then,  are  nearly  all  the  agents  of  French  and 
English  houses  % — A.  You  may  say  that  this  is  practically  the  case,  it 
is  so  near  it. 

Q.  It  is  stated  that  on  account  of  the  cost  of  transportation  and 
breakage  you  have  a large  incidental  protection. — A.  That  does  not 
amount  to  anything.  I do  not  believe  the  breakage  in  our  business  in 
shipping  from  here  to  San  Francisco  would  amount  to  one-half  of  one 
per  cent,  a year.  We  do  not  have  one  glass  out  of  a thousand  broken 
in  transit  after  it  is  packed. 

Q.  Can  you  state  about  what  proportion  of  your  product  is  raw  ma- 
terial and  what  is  labor*? — A.  No,  sir,  I cannot;  but  if  you  have  a 
copy  of  the  advance  sheets  of  the  census  report,  that  will  show  it;  that 
was  prepared  by  Hon.  Joseph  D.  Weeks  from  data  prepared  by  my 
father  and  myself  very  carefully. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  on  your  business  of  a reduction  of  the 
duty,  say  of  25  per  cent.  ? — A.  It  would  stop  us. 

Q.  You  speak  of  being  well  situated  as  to  facilities  for  getting  raw 
material  for  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass.  About  what  would  be  the 
average  price  for  coal  *?  Fuel,  as  I understand,  is  a large  item  of  cost 
in  the  manufacture  of  glass. — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  our  business  we  have 
always  up  to  this  year  used  Pittsburgh  coal.  We  have  to  pay  about 
the  price  that  is  paid  by  large  consumers  of  Pittsburgh  coal,  with  an 
addition  of  about  one  and  a half  cents  per  bushel.  There  is  a new 
railroad  completed  from  the  coal  mines  of  Indiana  to  New  Albany  that 
will  work  quite  a revolution  in  this  matter,  we  think,  and  enable  us  to 
have  our  coal  as  cheaply  as  any  place  in  or  about  Pittsburgh.  Of  course 
it  is  hardly  as  good  as  the  Pittsburgh  coal,  but  it  will  answer  our  pur- 
poses. 

Q.  Has  this  plate  glass  you  make  been  used  in  this  country  for  large 
mirrors? — A.  Yes;  we  made  a specialty  of  mirrors  one  year,  the  -year 
after  we  lost  so  much  money,  thinking  probably  there  was  a chance  to 
recover  some  of  it  in  that  branch  of  business.  That  year  our  mirror 
glass  was  almost  as  good  as  the  French,  and  no  one  but  an  expert  could 
tell  the  difference  between  ours  and  the  French  article.  In  the  restau- 
rant of  the  Palmer  House  in  Chicago  every  mirror  is  made  of  our  glass 
except  one.  Originally  they  were  all  made  of  ours,  but  one  was  broken 
and  replaced  by  foreign  glass.  The  glass  is  divided  into  two  grades  in 
Europe.  First,  they  make  a finished  article  of  plate  glass  without  prac- 
tically any  defects,  which  is  for  silvering ; the  second  grade,  for  glazing, 
is  for  windows.  Mirror  plate  is  worth  considerably  more  money  than 
the  other  kind,  and  requires  costlier  material  to  produce  it. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  say  a reduction  of  the  duty  would  stop  your  plate-glass 
works.  There  are  very  few  such  manufactories  in  the  country,  as  I 
understand. — A.  There  is  one  at  Jeffersonville,  Ind.,  one  at  Crystal 
City,  near  Saint  Louis,  and  another  one  being  erected  near  Pittsburgh, 
and  our  two  works,  making  five  altogether. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  consequence  to  the  consumers  of  a reduction  of 
duty  ? — A.  I presume  for  a year  or  two,  probably,  plate  glass  would  be 
cheaper,  and  then  it  would  probably  go  back  to  the  old  figures,  for  this 
reason : The  foreign  manufacturers  would  put  it  down  to  drive  us  all 


N.  T.  DE  TAUW.] 


PLATE  GLASS. 


941 


out  of  the  business.  Every  one  who  is  engaged  in  manufacturing  rec- 
ognizes the  fact  that  nothing  depreciates  so  rapidly  as  manufacturing 
machinery  when  not  in  use.  Three  years  would  put  our  factories  in 
such  shape  that  it  would  cost  nearly  half  their  value  to  put  them  in 
order  again.  Of  course  if  they  did  not  put  up  the  price  we  would  have 
no  assurance  in  the  world  but  what  they  would  drop  prices  on  us  again, 
hence  no  one  would  risk  capital  to  put  in  order  and  start  up  the  aban- 
doned works,  and  the  foreigners  would  again  have  the  monopoly  they 
enjoyed  for  so  long. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  foreign  competition ; can  you  give  us  any  idea  of 
the  number  and  extent  of  plate-glass  manufactories  in  Europe? — A.  I 
have  those  figures  all  at  our  office.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  the 
product  in  Europe  (England  and  France  both)  is  about  500,000  feet  per 
week,  which  would  make  26,000,000  feet  of  plate  glass  per  year.  No 
man  can  make  a success  of  it  in  Europe  or  America  unless  he  goes  into 
it  on  a large  scale.  I do  not  think  there  are  more  than  three  or  four 
factories  in  operation  in  all  England.  I do  not  know  how  many  factor- 
ies there  are  in  France.  They  are  all  under  one  head  and  belong  prac- 
tically to  one  company.  In  Belgium  they  are  probably  the  same.  I do 
not  think,  the  world  over,  there  are  over  twenty  factories  of  plate  glass. 

Q.  The  number  is  not  so  great  but  that  they  could  easily  control  the 
market  by  a combination  ? — A.  The  fact  is  that  all  grades  of  French 
plate  glass  are  controlled  by  a syndicate  to-day,  represented  in  New 
York  by  Mr.  Miguel  Aleo. 

Q.  So  that  supposing  three  or  four  plate-glass  manufactories  in  this 
country  could  control  it,  we  should  not  be  very  much  better  off? — A. 
They  could  not  put  it  above  a certain  figure.  Plate  glass  cannot  go  any 
higher  than  it  is  to-day,  and  I think  it  never  will  be  any  higher  if  the 
tariff  is  left  as  it  is  to-day  as  long  as  American  factories  exist. 


942 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROBERT  H.  COWDERY. 


ROBERT  II.  COWDERY. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  7,  1882. 

Robert  H.  Cowdery,  druggist,  representing  the  Druggists7  Associ- 
ation of  Chicago,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  fol- 
lowing statement : 

To  the  manufacturer  the  question  u Shall  quinine  be  retaxed  ? 77  is  one 
easily  answered,  for  the  reason  that  it  will  be  a benefit  to  him  financi- 
ally. His  answer  is,  therefore,  affirmative;  and  for  so  answering  no 
reasonable  person  can  condemn  him.  With  him  it  is  a matter  of  busi- 
ness, and,  harm  who  it  may,  he  will  have  it  reimposed  if  possible. 

By  the  public  and  the  retail  dealer  this  question  is,  however,  an- 
swered in  the  negative.  Their  reasons  are  the  same  as  the  manufact- 
urers— selfish.  We  have,  therefore,  two  distinct  divisions : The  affirma- 
tive, who  are  active,  belligerent,  and  determined.  The  negative,  quiescent 
and  passive.  In  deciding  the  probability  of  success  between  two  such 
divisions,  the  wiser  man  would  naturally  choose  the  active  and  determined 
side,  though  less  in  number  than  his  more  numerous  but  passive  oppo- 
nent. The  manufacturer  may  be  expected  to  use  as  much  energy  as  would 
the  retail  merchant,  if  he  saw  a chance  by  which,  through  an  act  of  Con- 
gress, his  competitors  could  be  stopped  from  competing  with  him  because 
of  an  extra  profit  (income  tax)  being  guaranteed  to  him. 

The  best  argument  presented  by  the  manufacturer  is  that  a tax  is  now' 
imposed  on  the  bark,  without  which  he  cannot  produce  quinine.  I 
believe,  if  I am  right  about  that,  that  the  tax  on  bark  has  been  repealed, 
to  take  effect  next  January. 

To  an  ordinary  person  it  would  seem  to  be  the  better  plan  to  first  try 
to  have  this  tax  removed,  and  after  an  effort  in  that  direction  had  failed 
then  the  argument  would  have  greater  force. 

That  a resolution  for  the  abolition  of  the  tax  on  bark  could  have. been 
passed  at  the  meeting  of  the  Western  Wholesale  Drug  Association  was 
the  case;  and,  further,  that  it  was  opposed  by  a representative  of  the 
manufacturers.  By  this  I am  led  to  believe  that  the  abolition  of  the 
tax  upon  barks  is  not  desired  by  the  manufacturer  in  this  country.  Eor, 
with  no  tax  on  bark  or  quinine,  the  plan  of  freezing  out  the  importer 
would  not  work  as  satisfactorily  to  the  American  producer  as  it  does 
when  quinine  is  taxed. 

I will  say  that,  as  far  as  I am  informed,  the  tax  upon  bark  has  been 
the  chief  reason  asserted  by  the  manufacturer  why  quinine  should  be 
taxed ; that,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  consumer  has  not  been  bene- 
fited by  the  reduction  in  the  tax  on  quinine.  The  possibility  of  having 
the  tax  on  alcohol  used  for  manufacturing  abolished,  and  admitting 
that  it  cannot  be,  I still  fail  to  see  where  the  great  hardship  is ; for 
alcohol  used  in  the  manufacture  of  quinine  is  not  destroyed,  but  can 
be,  and  undoubtedly  is,  recovered  by  distillation  and  used  over  and  over. 
Furthermore,  alcohol  is  not  used  to  any  extent  in  the  manufacture  of 
quinine,  fusel  oil  taking  its  place  almost  entirely. 

We  are  told  that  if  the  tax  on  quinine  is  removed,  so  should  it  be  on 
pig-iron,  cotton,  silks,  or  anything  else.  This  is,  to  some  extent,  true; 
but,  as  this  involves  the  v7hole  subject  of  protection  and  free  trade,  I 
must  be  pardoned  for  not  entertaining  it  here,  as  I have  to  deal  with  one 
subject  now,  and  that  is  quinine. 


ROBERT  1L  COWDERY.] 


QUININE. 


943 


Another  argument  advanced  is,  that  the  consumer  has  not  been  bene- 
fited. Each  retail  dealer  is  the  best  judge  of  that,  lor  when  quinine 
was  under  a protective  tariff,  2 cents  a grain  was  the  ordinary  price, 
and  now,  without  tariff,  the  consumer  obtains  it  at  1J  cents  a grain. 
It  is  to  the  retail  dealer,  who  distributes  to  the  consumer,  that  the 
greatest  injustice  will  be  done.  His  prices  have  been  made  in  accord- 
ance with  the  lowest  price  of  quinine,  and,  though  quinine  has  advanced, 
he  gets  no  more  from  the  consumer  than  before.  I mean  by  that,  that 
in  March,  this  year,  quinine  was  at  the  lowest  price  I have  ever  seen  it 
in  the  trade.  It  was  then  worth  about  $1.80  to  $1.90,  and  our  prices 
were  made  in  accordance  with  those  prices.  It  has  since  advanced 
about  60  cents,  and  the  retailer  gets  no  more  for  it  now  than  before, 
when  the  wholesale  price  was  $1.90. 

Small  as  it  may  seem  to  the  manufacturer,  it  is  a burden  that  is  not 
borne  contentedly,  and  he  feels  that  each  rise  of  fifty  cents  is  so  much 
taken  from  his  legitimate  profits  by  the  manufacturer.  To  be  sure,  the 
remedy  is  in  their  hands,  to  some  extent — to  raise  the  retail  price;  but 
had  the  manufacturer  ever  stood  behind  the  counter,  lie  would  know 
full  well  the  endless  trouble  that  a rise  in  price  of  quinine  produces  upon 
the  unfortunate  retail  dealer;  so  much  so  that  be  prefers  to  pocket  his 
loss  and  keep  the  old  price. 

All  the  other  arguments  that  I have  seen  advanced  on  the  side  of  the 
manufacturer  have  savored  of  demanded  sympathy  for  the  manufact- 
urer. 

When  sympathy  is  demanded  for  the  manufacturer  against  the  best 
interest  of  the  general  public,  such  demands  should  go  unanswered. 

31uch  has  been  written  in  the  attempt  to  prove  to  the  public  that  a 
reimposition  of  the  tax  would  not  raise  the  price  of  quinine.  Seemingly 
in  forgetfulness  of  this  position  they  use  such  arguments  as  the  failure 
of  Messrs.  Ohas.  T.  White  & Co.  as  reasons  why  quinine  should  be 
taxed.  Why  it  should  save  them,  unless  they  can  sell  their  quinine  at 
a higher  price,  I cannot  see.  That  it  is  their  intent  to  make  money  for 
themselves  no  one  has  a doubt;  and,  if  so,  it  must  be  at  the  expense  of 
die  pharmacists  of  this  country,  as  well  as  the  general  public. 

The  retail  trade  have  but  just  recovered  from  the  tumble  in  price 
from  nearly  four  dollars  to  the  present  price  of  $1.90  to  $2.  Their 
prices  have  just  been  graded  to  this  last  price,  when  they  are  con- 
fronted with  the  impending  ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  It  is  even  as- 
serted that  the  removal  of  the  duty  has  not  materially  lessened  the  price 
of  quinine. 

To  be  sure,  quinine  advanced  immediately  after  the  removal  of  the 
duty,  and  the  retail  trade  was  flooded  with  plausibly-worded  circulars, 
proving  conclusively  that  a mistake  had  been  made  in  abolishing  the 
duty,  and  advocating  an  immediate  return  to  the  old  regime . 

But  the  foreign  manufacturer  has  had  time  to  manufacture  and  send 
across  the  water  his  production,  and  note  the  change:  Quinine  is 
worth  to-day  only  half  what  it  could  be  bought  for  then. 

Now  we  hear  on  every  hand  that  this  decline  is  due  to  an  entirely 
different  cause,  a new  source  of  supply  has  been  discovered,  and  there 
is  no  telling  where  prices  will  go  to;  but  as  this  new  scheme  develops, 
and  the  wires  are  laid  for  a reimposition  of  duty,  reports  are  circulated 
that  this  new  source  is  failing  and  will  not  last  long — in  fact,  it  is  “a 
pocket”  which,  when  exhausted,  will  be  of  no  further  use. 

Now,  my  reasons  for  believing  that  my  position  is  correct  is  that 
these  stories  do  not  hang  together.  Again,  I do  not  believe  in  a won- 


944 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROBERT  H.  COWDERY. 


clerful  new  source  one  minute,  and  in  a “pocket”  the  next — in  fact,  I 
have  no  faitli  in  the  “ pocket”  theory  at  all. 

I would  prefer  to  take  the  chances  of  an  open  market ; and  it  be- 
hooves us  to  look  to  it  that  quinine  is  not  again  the  means  of  putting 
millions  of  money  into  the  pockets  of  one  firm  at  the  expense  of  the  pub- 
lic, and  to  our  detriment. 

It  is  a notorious  fact  that  during  the  period  that  quinine  was  pro- 
tected by  a 20  per  cent,  duty,  the  individual  members  of  the  firm  of 
Powers  & Weigh  tin  an  made  millions  of  dollars  out  of  the  manufacture 
of  quinine,  and  it  must  be  clear  to  the  people  that  these  millions  were 
made  up  by  contributions  over  and  above  the  commercial  value  of  the 
quinine. 

The  inference  is  clearly  legitimate  that  Messrs.  Powers  & Weight- 
man,  and  their  one  or  two  American  competitors,  would  desire  to  main- 
tain the  duty,  and  that  the  other  sixty  million  of  citizens  would  wish 
it  abolished. 

In  the  protection  days  the  manufacturers  contracted  with  the  whole- 
sale druggists  to  supply  them  at  a certain  maximum  figure,  guarantee- 
ing to  give  them  any  advantage  which  might  occur  in  the  market.  In 
plain  language,  the  makers  shared  some  portion  of  their  profits  with 
the  dealers.  This  they  intimate  they  will  do  again  if  the  latter  will  help 
them  to  a reimposition  of  a protective  duty;  hence,  the  action  of  the 
Wholesale  Druggists’  Association,  resolving  that  the  tax  should  be  re- 
imposed. 

Furthermore,  as  proved  by  experience,  American  quinine  obtains  an 
advance  of  from  five  to  ten  per  cent,  over  foreigu,  a fair  protection  of 
itself.  The  statement  that  American  manufacturers  would  be  bank- 
rupted by  free  quinine  is  met  by  Mr.  J.  S.  Moore,  who  states  that u there 
has  not  been  a year  that  Messrs.  Powers  & Weightman  produced  so 
much  quinine  as  in  the  year  1881,  and,  as  a whole,  there  has  been  more 
quinine  produced  in  the  United  States  than  ever  before,”  and  challenges 
them  to  say  he  is  not  correct,  and  as  the  statement  has  not  been  contra- 
dicted to  this  day,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  it  is  correct. 

A natural  inquiry  is,  why  do  the  retail  trade  oppose  the  reimpositio 
of  a tax  on  quinine?  I am  of  the  opinion  that  they  do  so,  first,  because 
quinine  is  at  best  so  high  that  a reduction  in  price  is  of  considerable 
benefit  to  them  in  satisfying  customers ; second,  that  having  reduced 
the  price  to  meet  the  present  conditions  of  trade,  they  are  opposed  to 
an  arbitrary  rise  in  price,  which  will  necessitate  a rearrangement  of 
retail  prices;  third,  they  believe  the  principle  wrong,  that  the  many 
should  be  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  the  few;  fourth,  they  do  not  believe 
the  manufacturers  would  be  injured  more  than  the  loss  of  the  extra 
profit  which  the  tariff  would  enable  them  to  make ; fifth,  they  believe 
all  the  manufacturers  would  survive,  and  produce  as  much  quinine  with- 
out as  with  a duty,  the  only  difference  being  the  extent  to  which  their 
greed  was  satisfied,  a legitimate  profit  being  assured  in  either  case. 

As  to  the  question  of  whether  the  consumer  has  been  benefited  or 
not,  I have  copied  several  letters  which  I have  received,  and  which  I 
will  read : 

Mr.  William  Dale,  of  Chicago,  says: 

I can  see  no  reason  wliy  the  tax  on  quinine  should  he  reimposed.  The  consumer  does 
not  want  it,  the  retail  pharmacist  does  not  desire  it,  and  the  only  persons  known  to 
favor  its  reimposition  are  the  manufacturers,  and  they  only  for  their  own  gain,  not 
ours.  After  considering  the  great  fortunes  made  by  the  manufacturers  on  quinine 
with  the  tax  on,  I am  not  in  favor  of  again  taxing  quinine  in  order  that  they  may 
make  a still  greater  profit.  I fail  to  see  where  the  injustice  is  in  having  quinine  duty 
free.  My  customers  get  their  quinine  25  per  cent,  cheaper  now  than  when  quinine 
was  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturer  and  at  my  customers’  expense. 


ROBERT  H.  CO WDERY.]  QUININE.  945 

As  Mr.  Buck  is  here  in  person,  I will  not  read  the  letter  which  I have 
here  from  him.  He  can  speak  for  himself. 

Hr.  H\  che,  of  the  firm  of  H.  R.  Hyche  & Co.,  says : 

I am  in  favor  of  keeping  quinine  duty  free.  The  price  has  been  materially  reduced 
to  the  consumer,  and  no  one  who  understands  what  he  is  talking  of  would  make  state- 
ments to  the  contrary  were  he  properly  informed.  This  reduced  price  to  the  consumer 
is  directly  due  to  the  reduced  price  to  us,  as  compared  to  the  price  when  tbe  duty  was 
on.  I see  no  injustice  in  not  retaxing  quinine.  I do  see  an  injustice  to  the  whole  nation 
when  quinine  is  taxed. 

N.  Gray  Bartlett,  professor  of  chemistry,  doing  business  on  the  corner 
of  Indiana  avenue  and  Twenty-second  street,  says : 

I stamp  all  such  statements  as  false,  as  far  as  I am  concerned.  I sell  quinine  25 
per  cent,  less  than  when  the  duty  was  on  in  1879.  The  attempted  reimposition  of  the 
tax  I would  regard  as  a fraud  on  the  community. 

J.  H.  Wilson,  retail  dealer,  doing  business  at  Michigan  avenue  and 
Twenty-second  street,  says: 

I have  sold  quinine  25  per  cent,  less  than  my  price  in  1879,  when  the  tax  was  on,  and 
have  done  so  since  it  touched  $1.90.  1 have  not  raised  it  since  this  advance  of  50  and 

00  cents  an  ounce.  I regard  it  an  injustice  to  raise  the  price  when  we  have  just  made 
our  prices  uniform  to  the  consumer. 

Mr.  Forsyth,  of  Forsyth  & Co.,  says  : 

We  are  selling  quinine  cheaper  to-day  than  we  ever  sold  it  before.  The  reason  is 
that  the  duty  being  off  we  can  buy  cheaper  than  we  could  when  it  was  on.  It  would 
be  a great  injustice  to  us  to  reimpose  the  tax,  and  I have  no  sympathy  to  waste  on 
the  wealthy  manufacturers  of  quinine. 

Messrs.  Manville  & Foote,  retail  dealers,  corner  of  Wabash  avenue 
and  Twenty-second  street^  say  : 

We  sell  quinine  cheaper  by  25  per  cent,  than  we  did  when  the  tax  was  on.  The 
reason  is  that  we  can  buy  quinine  cheaper  with  the  tax  off  than  in  1879,  when  the  tax 
was  on.  We  have  not  raised  our  price  since  the  time  when  quinine  was  $1.90,  and 
would  regard  it  an  injustice  to  reimpose  the  tax.  The  people  do  get  the  benefit  of 
the  decline,  and  this  decline  is  due  to  an  open  market. 

In  order  to  test  this  question  still  further,  the  wholesale  trade  were 
called  upon.  Mr.  Peter  Van  Schaack,  of  the  firm  of  Van  Schaack,  ►Ste- 
venson & Co.,  said  : 

Although  the  manufacturers  say  so,  I can  see  no  reason,  except  sympathy,  why  a 
reimposition  of  the  tax  on  quinine  should  be  had.  It  was  with.tliis  feeling  of  sympa- 
thy for  the  manufacturer  that  I voted  for  the  resolution  at  the  meeting  of  the  Western 
Wholesale  Drug  Association.  Personally,  I feel  that  the  tax  should  not,  be  reimposed, 
and,  candidly,  I can  tell  you  that  I do  not  believe  the  tax  will  be  reimposed.  The 
whole  people  are  against  it,  and  the  manufacturers  are  the  only  ones  who  desire  it  to 
be  reimposed.  As  to  the  consumer  not  being  benefited,  every  retail  dealer  knows 
better  than  that. 

Mr.  Thomas  Lord  and  Mr.  G.  W.  Stantenburg,  of  the  firm  of  Lord, 
Stantenburg  & Co.,  were  seen,  and  in  reply  said  they  did  not  believe 
the  public  were  benefited  ; that  retail  dealers  charged  the  same  amount 
for  prescriptions  containing  quinine,  regardless  of  the  prices  they  paid 
for  the  quinine,  and  the  public  were  not  benefited.  They  did  not  believe 
that  if  the  price  was  to  vary  from  $1  to  $10  that  this  would  be  true; 
but  where  the  amount  entering  in  the  prescription  was  so  small  as  to 
make  a difference  in  cost  of  five  cents  or  less,  they  believed  the  price 
to  the  consumer  would  not  be  changed;  but  in  all  cases  where  the 
amount  made  a difference  in  cost  of  ten  cents  or  more,  they  had  no  doubt 
that  the  consumer  obtained  the  benefit,  and  in  sale  of  ounce  quantities 
the  consumer  would  get  the  benefit  of  the  decline. 

H.  Mis.  0 GO 


946 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[EOBEET  H.  COWDEBY. 


Mr.  Plummer,  of  the  firm  of  Morrison,  Plummer  & Co.,  said : 

I do  not  believe  the  price  of  quinine  has  been  reduced  to  the  consumer,  but  I do  not 
know  anything  about  it.  I never  buy  it,  and  have  not  talked  to  the  trade. 

Mr.  O.  F.  Fuller,  of  the  firm  of  Fuller  & Fuller,  said : 

I know  that  the  price  of  quinine  has  been  reduced  to  the  consumer,  because  I have 
taken  pains  to  inquire  of  druggists  who  came  into  this  store,  and  the  reduction  ranges 
from  25  to  40  per  cent,  less  than  before.  I thought  this  was  true  before  I asked  them, 
for  the  reason  that  druggists  are  commercial  men  and  are  too  shrewd  to  maintain  their 
price  through  a heavy  decline  such  as  quinine  has  experienced  since  1879,  when  the 
tax  was  on.  You  wish  to  know  my  ideas  of  tariff  as  applied  to  quinine.  They  are 
the  same  as  were  held  by  Daniel  Robbins,  of  the  firm  of  McKesson  & Robbins,  before 
he  went  into  the  manufacture  of  quinine.  He  now  argues  the  other  way. 

Peoria,  Tex. 

We  write  to  say  that  we  oppose  the  tax  on  quinine.  Our  customers  get  their  qui- 
nine 25  per  cent,  cheaper  than  they  did  four  years  ago.  Manufacturers  who  state  that 
the  price  has  not  been  reduced  to  the  consumer,  have  not  informed  themselves  as  to 
the  facts  in  the  case,  or  else  they  make  the  statement  knowing  it  to  be  false. 

Respectfully, 

CARMICHAEL  & PORTER. 


Half -Moon  Bay,  Cal. 

I do  emphatically  say  that  I am  not  in  favor  of  a reimposition  of  the  tax  on  quinine , or 
any  other  necessity  of  the  poor  classes.  Tax  luxuries  for  the  purpose  of  lowering 
taxes  on  articles  for  common  use,  is  my  motto.  The  price  has  certainly  been  reduced 
to  the  consumer. 

If  those  who  assert  that  the  consumer  has  received  no  benefit  from  the  reduction  in 
the  price  of  quinine  were  retailers,  they  would  see  the  folly  of  their  position  in  the 
matter.  Mixtures  containing  much  quinine  are  necessarily  so  high,  at  best,  that  wo 
are  glad  to  avail  ourselves  of  any  reduction  in  price,  so  that  we  can  avoid  complaints 
of  high  charges  ; so  the  reduction  helps  us,  in  a measure. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

CHAS.  C.  WALKER. 


Lipan,  Tex. 

Quinine  has  been  materially  reduced  in  price  since  the  duty  has  been  taken  off,  and 
I am  opposed  to  any  tax  or  duty  on  quinine. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

GEO.  A.  MORRISS,  Druggist. 


Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dear  Sir:  I write  to  say  that  I do  not  favor  an  import  duty  on  quinine.  It  has 
been  sold  at  a lower  price  by  about  one-third  since  free  of  duty. 

P.  J.  SPENZER. 


Neola,  Iowa. 

Dear  Sir  : The  price  of  quinine  has  certainly  been  reduced  to  the  consumer.  I 
think,  however,  that  to  give  American  manufacturers  a fair  and  equal  chance  that 
the  duty  on  the  bark  should  be  abolished. 

Truly,  yours, 

C.  S.  ROBBINS. 

N.  B. — If  the  tax  on  bark  is  not  abolished,  I think  there  should  be  a tax  on  quinine. 

C.  S.  R. 


Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  The  statement  that  quinine  has  not  been  reduced  to  the  consumer  is 
without  foundation  in  fact. 

e.  k.  mcpherson,  pu.  g. 


ROBERT  H.  COWDERY.] 


QUININE. 


947 


Mitchell,  Ind. 

Dear  Sir:  All  druggists  in  this  section  of  the  State  agree  that  the  price  of  qui- 
nine has  been  greatly  reduced  to' them  and  their  patrons.  The  consumers  have  been 
greatly  benefited,  and  would  deplore  any  act  of  Congress  looking  to  the  retaxation  of 
the  precious  drug.  Let  well  enough  alone,  is  our  advice  to  Congress,  and  the  manu- 
facturers of  quinine  will  take  care  of  themselves,  without  imposing  the  25  per  cent, 
now  saved  to  the  toiling  masses  by  the  late  reduction.  Duty-free  quinine  is  what  the 
people  want. 

J.  T.  BIGGS. 


Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Dear  Sir  : If  there  be  such  a thing  as  a u Solid  South”  it  is,  I think,  on  the  quinine 
question.  I know  of  no  druggist  who  favors  reimposing  the  tax  on  quinine.  It  is 
claiming  too  much  and  placing  too  little  an  estimate  on  the  honesty  of  druggists  to 
maintain  that  quinine  is  not  cheaper  to  the  consumer  since  the  removal  of  the  tax. 
Whenever  there  is  a reduction  in  the  wholesale  price  there  is  likewise  a reduction  in 
the  retail  price,  at  least  in  this  city,  and  the  consumer  generally  knows  the  price  of 
such  a staple  article  as  quinine,  at  least  in  ounce,  eighth,  or  sixteenth  vials. 

Yours,  truly, 

T.  J.  DRAPER,  Druggist. 


Minnekaune,  Wis. 

Dear  Sir  : I think  it  would  be  a blessing  for  the  poorer  class  of  people  if  the  duty 
was  taken  off  of  both  quinine  and  cinchona  bark,  thus  lowering  the  price. 

Yours,  truly, 


JNO.  J.  HUBLEY. 


Colburn,  Tippecanoe  Co.,  Ind. 

Dear  Sir  : I regard  the  tax  on  quinine  as  unjust  to  the  American  citizens,  and  if 
the  nation  must  have  an  income  tax  it  should  get  it  from  somewhere  else  than  suffering 
humanity. 

Yours,  &c., 

C.  W.  CRIDER,  M.  D. 


Salinas,  Cal. 

Dear  Sir  : I am  opposed  to  the  reimposition  of  the  tax  on  quinine. 

E.  K.  ADAMS. 


Elmo,  Tex. 

Dear  Sir  : I wish  to  say  that  I am  emphatically  opposed  to  the  reimposition  of  the 
tax  on  quinine.  I can  say,  candidly,  the  cheaper  I buy  quinine  the  cheaper  my 
customers  get  it,  whether  they  want  it  by  the  ounce,  drachm,  or  in  prescriptions. 
Yours,  &c., 

M.  H.  STRAIN. 


Here,  gentlemen,  is  a list  of  the  druggists  who  are  disinclined  to  see 
the  tax  on  quinine  reimposed,  and  the  list  represents  all  upon  whom  we 
were  able  to  call : 


Chicago,  September  26, 1882. 

To  the  honorable  members  of  the  Tariff  Commission,  meeting  in  Chicago  September  7,  8, 
and  9,  1882: 

The  following  druggists  of  the  city  of  Chicago  hereby  most  earnestly  protest  against 
the  reimposition  of  a tax  on  quinine,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1st.  The  retailer  is  now  able  to  purchase  in  an  open  market  at  much  less  price  than 
if  the  tariff  was  in  force. 

2d.  The  price  of  quinine  has  been  reduced  to  the  consumer  33£  per  cent,  since  the 
repeal  of  the  tariff. 


948 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROBERT  H.  COWDERY. 


3d.  The  class  benefited  by  this  reduction  m price  are  persons  needing  protection 
from  the  government  more  than  tbe  wealthy  manufacturer. 

4th.  The  fact  that  manufacturers  have  since  the  repeal  of  this  tariff  increased  their 
capacity  for  production,  shows  that  quinine  can  be  made  at  a profit  when  duty  free, 
5th.  It  is  one  of  the  most  important  medicines  used  for  the  alleviation  of  humai 
suffering  and  the  cure  of  disease,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  free  from  duty. 

Signed  by — 


B.  Van  Buren,  1248  W.  Madison  street. 

H.  S.  Maynard,  626  W.  Lake  street. 

A.  S.  Stoddard,  756  W.  Lake  street. 

R.  T.  Sill,  628  W.  Lake  street. 

H.  A.  Hinckley,  756  Lake  street. 

C.  B.  Wilson,  785  W.  Madison  street. 

Jno.  B.  Jones,  731  W.  Madison  street. 

R.  M.  Barber,  636  W.  Madison  street. 

F.  A.  Morrell,  690  W.  Madison  street. 
George  H.  Hall,  894  W.  Lake  street. 

R.  R.  Hunton,  777  W.  Van  Buren  street. 

H.  D.  Garvin,  M.  D.,748  W.  Van  Buren 

street. 

G.  W.  Tucker,  296  Ogden  avenue. 

J.  H.  Beareroft  & Co.,  884  W.  Madison  st. 
George  H.  White,  826  Madison  street. 

Jas.  C.  Moody,  722  W.  Lake  street. 

C.  H.  Wilcox,  833  and  835  W.  Lake  street. 
Herman  F.  Kraft,  641  W.  Madison  street. 
L.  Schreiber  & Co.,  482  W.  Lake  street. 
Chas.  Hegemanu,298  W.  Lake  street. 
Ilartwig  & Ritter,  180  W.  Madison  street. 
Chas.  F.  Hart  wig,  426  Milwaukee  avenue. 
R.  H.  Hatzfeld,  56  W.  Randolph  street. 

E.  A.  Holroyd,  1014  W.  Lake  street. 

Laux  & Woltmann,  869  and  504  North 
Clark  street- 

List  & Uhlerdorf,  2506  State  street. 

II.  Hantan,  156  W.  Randolph  street. 
Reuter  & Co.,  168  S.  Halsted  street. 

Robt.  E.  Storey,  183  W.  Madison  street* 

H.  Schroeder,  453  Milwaukee  avenue. 

A.  C.  Brandecke,  468  W.  Chicago  avenue. 
A.  A.  Woods,  478  W.  Indiana  street. 

Geo.  L.  Corke,  372  W.  Indiana  street. 
Wilhelm  Bodemanu,  239  State  street. 


Geo.  P.  Martin,  271  N.  Clark  street,  cor 
Chestnut. 

Adolf  G.  Vogeler,  445  N.  Clark  street. 
Andrew  Scherer,  381  Division  street. 

F.  Liese,  451  Larrabee  street. 

Buck  & Ravner,  cor.  State  & Madison 
street,  and  117  South  Clark  street. 
Robert  H.  Cawdrey,  527  State  street. 
Clark  Brothers,  511  State  street. 

Chas.  C.  Fredigke,  472  S.  State  street. 
Smith  & Hogey,  441  S.  State  street. 

A.  C.  Welirli. 

Hugo  W.  C.  Martin,  358  State  street. 
Edwin  J.  Painter,  1401  State  street. 

John  Parsons,  1409  Wabash  avenue. 

J.  W.  Triman,  522  Wabash  avenue. 

G.  C.  Moore,  519  Wabash  avenue. 

C.  C.  Cullins,  324  State  street. 

Wm.  Dougherty. 

Charles  Kotzenberg,  Union  Stock  Yards. 
Eberts’  Pharmacy,  584  State  street. 

C.  M.  Weinberger,  219  Wells  street. 

Jos.  F.  Brabrook,  160  W.  Harrison  street. 
William  Jauncey,  310  and  312  W.  Indiana 
si  T*00 1 

Rich’d  C.  Knox,  561  W.  Twelfth  street. 
James  M.  Kiskley  & Co.,  134  S.  Halsted 
street. 

H.  H.  McPherson,  530  W.  Indiana  street. 
John  C.  Henderson,  951  Lake  street,  and 

1049  Madison  street. 

L.  K.  Waldron,  189  Randolph  street. 

A.  C.  Vanderburgh  & Co.,  83  Randolph 
street. 

J.  S.  Jacobus,  N.  E.  Cor.  Indiana  avenue 
and  Thirty-first  street. 


By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  I understand  you  that  when  the  duty  was  taken  off  the 
retail  price  was  reduced  25  per  cent.  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  common  retail  price  of  quinine  now  ? — A.  It  is  about 
1A  cents  per  grain,  in  small  quantities. 

Q.  What  per  cent,  of  profit  is  that  on  the  present  price  of  quinine  ? — 
A.  Something  like  100  per  cent.,  for  small  quantities.  There  is  in  that 
a certain  amount  of  loss,  of  course ; but  when  it  is  sold  in  ounce  or  half- 
once  quantities  the  advance  is  only  about  twenty-five  cents  on  the  half 
ounce. 

Q.  If  a duty  of  10  per  cent,  were  added,  as  asked  by  the  manufact- 
urers, what  would  the  profit  be  then,  selling  at  the  same  price  as  now  l — 
A.  That  would  depend  upon  whether  the  10  jier  cent,  only  was  added. 

Q.  I am  supposing  that  that  amount  only  was  added  ? — A.  In  that 
case  it  would  sell,  as  near  as  I can  guess  at  it,  at  about  180  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  How  many  quinine  manufacuturers  are  there  in  this  country? — A. 
Three. 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  to  us  that  Powers  & Weightman  control  the 
prices  of  quinine ; what  is  your  opinion  about  that  ? — A.  That  is  one 


ROBERT  H.  COWDEEY.] 


QUININE. 


949 


great  objection  we  have  to  asking  the  tariff  on  it,  for  the  reason  that 
when  quinine  is  taxed  it  virtually  gives  to  Powers  & Weightman  the 
control  of  it,  so  that  when  they  find  an  importer  receiving  quinine  in 
this  country  quinine  comes  down  so  that  the  importer  cannot  sell  it  at 
a profit.  Immediately  that  there  is  none  imported,  Powers  & Weight- 
man  raise  the  prices. 

Q.  Do  Bosengarten  and  others  follow  Powers  & Weightman  in  raising 
the  prices'?— A.  Their  prices  have  been  identical  for  the  last  twelve 
years,  so  far  as  I have  known. 

Q.  In  other  words,  when  Powers  & Weightman  take  snuff,  Bosen- 
garten & Co.  sneeze  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  There  is  not  more  than  about  a million  dollars  invested  in  that, 
is  there  ? — A.  It  would  be  pretty  hard  for  me,  as  retail  dealer,  to  say 
what  it  is.  Taking  the  statements  of  the  manufacturers,  there  is  a good 
deal  more  than  that;  but,  as  I know  of  no  manufacturer  of  it  who  is  a 
retailer,  I should  think  it  was  entirely  unnecessary  for  that  amount  of 
capital  to  be  invested  in  two  or  three  houses.  We  have  no  way  of  tell- 
ing, however,  except  by  their  own  statements. 

Q.  We  are  informed  that  there  are  only  about  three  hundred  people 
engaged  in  its  manufacture. — A.  I think  they  estimate  it  themselves  at 
not  more  than  three  hundred  persons,  workmen  and  all.  In  that  same 
connection,  I would  state  that  one  party  who  has  been  most  active  in  it 
is  not  a manufacturer  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term;  lie  is  only  a bottler. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  there  is  a syndicate  abroad  who  control  the  sale 
of  the  article'? — A.  We  have  very  much  to  be  thankful  for  that  this 
summer,  at  least,  we  were  without  a protective  tariff  on  quinine,  owing 
to  the  syndicate  in  London  and  New  York  holding  almost  entire  con- 
trol of  it. 

Q.  Then  there  is  a syndicate  abroad  manufacturing  quinine  1 — A.  No, 
sir;  they  were  the  syndicate  holding  the  bark.  The  syndicate  in  New 
York  were  holding  quinine.  I will  not  say,  because  I do  not  know  the 
fact,  whether  the  two  syndicates  were  acting  in  unison  or  not ; but,  so 
far  as  I know,  they  were  not.  If  I understand  the  drift  of  your  ques- 
tion, it  was  as  to  whether  there  was  a syndicate  in  the  Old  World  that 
were  ready  and  willing,  if  opportunity  offered,  to  crush  the  manufacturer 
here.  I am  willing  to  state  that  I do  not  believe  there  is.  I have  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Morrison  here,  who  is  in  favor  of  the  reimposition  of  the  tax. 
He  states  that  from  selfish  motives — he  makes  no  bones  of  it — he  can  make 
more  money.  He  said  they  had  tried  tbeir  best,  and  were  ready  to  take 
the  inevitable,  and  that  was,  meeting  Powers  & Weightman  on  a square 
basis. 

Q.  It  is  stated  that  a concern  in  Italy,  at  Milan,  and  Howard  & Co.,  of 
London,  and  a French  company,  are  now  in  the  hands  of  one  or  two 
parties,  who  have  pressed  the  prices  here  to  drive  out  the  xlmerican 
manufacturers.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that*? — A.  I know  that 
the  Howard  Company,  I believe  it  is  called,  have  consolidated  with  two 
others,  which  makes  a company  that  produces  as  much,  almost,  as  Pow- 
ers & Weightman  and  our  other  manufacturers  do  here.  That  is  my 
impression. 

Q.  As  to  quality,  which  is  the  best,  or  is  there  any  difference  between 
the  foreign  article  and  the  American? — A.  Dp  to  last  August  I had  the 
idea  that  the  German  quinine,  particularly,  was  inferior  to  ours  manu- 
factured in  this  country.  Last  August,  however,  from  being  thrown 


950 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ROBERT  H.  COWDERY. 


into  communication  with  a person  in  Milwaukee  who  had  spent  con- 
siderable time  on  the  subject  of  the  adulteration  of,  or  inferior,  quinine, 
and  who  is  a member  of  the  druggists’  association  of  Wisconsin,  I was 
convinced  that  the  German  is  as  good  ours,  and  even  better,  to  this  ex- 
tent: that  while  ours  contained  a larger  amount  of  moisture,  the  foreign 
contains  less,  making  it  proportionately  so  much  the  better.  It  was 
welcome  news  to  me. 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  impression  among  physicians  that  the  American  qui- 
nine is  the  best? — A.  Yes 5 and  that  was  the  opinion  among  the  phar- 
maceutists also. 

Q.  The  demands  of  our  market  may  have  caused  them  to  improve  the 
quality  of  the  article? — A.  I do  not  think  so.  It  is  generally  true  that 
the  larger  the  demand  the  lower  the  quality. 

Q.  Are  not  our  people  more  critical,  and  do  they  not  want  better 
goods  ? — A.  Quinine  is  peculiarly  hard  to  determine  as  to  its  quality, 
and  it  is  not  every  retail  druggist  that  can  do  it;  and  there  are  not 
nearly  so  many  physicians  who  are  able  to  analyze  it  and  determine  it 
for  themselves  as  there  are  among  pharmaceutists.  There  may  possi- 
bly have  been  an  improvement  in  the  foreign  quinine,  coming  through 
the  feeling  of  the  druggists  here,  that  it  was  inferior,  and  they  may 
have  taken  particular  care  to  send  over  a good  article  in  order  to  over- 
come that  prejudice  on  our  part. 


GEOliGB  BUCK.] 


QUININE. 


951 


GEORGE  BUCK. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  7, 1882. 

Mr.  George  Buck,  of  the  firm  of  Buck  & Rayner,  druggists,  of 
Chicago,  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

I have  not  come  prepared  to  make  any  statement  to  the  Commission; 
I was  requested  to  be  here  to  answer  questions  only;  but  I would  like 
to  correct  one  remark  that  Mr.  Cowdery  made.  One  of  the  Commis- 
sioners asked  him  how  much  he  charged  on  bark,  and  he  answered 
cents  a grain.  He  knows  just  as  well  as  I do  that  that  is  for  quantities 
of  less  than  ten  grains. 

I said  I had  not  expected  to  make  any  statement  here,  because  it  was 
not  asked  of  me,  but  that  I was  only  asked  to  be  here  to  answer  ques- 
tions. But  I wish  to  state  briefly  that  on  this  question  of  free  trade 
and  protection,  I lived  in  England  myself  the  first  25  years  of  my  life, 
and  I think  if  you  are  going  to  have  protection,  for  gracious’  sake 
leave  quinine  alone;  don’t  compare  it  with  pig  iron,  because  millions  of 
people  are  benefited  by  quinine  while  very  few  are  specially  benefited 
by  pig  iron.  I am  afraid  those  who  make  the  statement  that  the  consum- 
er does  not  get  the  benefit  of  a reduction  state  what  is  not  true.  The 
consumer  does  get  a benefit.  We  pay  $2.25  an  ounce  for  quinine,  and 
we  sell  to  any  man  who  comes  to  us,  at  50  cents  a drachm;  that  would 
be  a little  over  $3.50  an  ounce.  If  he  wants  to  buy  an  ounce,  we 
always  charge  him  a profit  of  50  cents  an  ounce,  and  we  charge  him 
75  cents  an  ounce  more  when  we  have  to  weigh  out  a drachm  for  him. 
We  think  we  should  be  paid  for  our  labor,  but  not  at  the  rate  of  190 
per  cent.,  according  to  that  lie  that  has  been  circulated  in  Congress.  I 
was  sorry  to  hear  Mr.  Cowdery  state  that  that  was  our  price.  It  is  not 
so  at  all.  Gentlemen,  I think  I have  said,  enough. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  What  was  the  price  per  drachm,  say  in  1879  ? — Answer. 
We  have  charged  a dollar  a drachm;  then  it  cost,  I think,  about  $4.50. 
We  have  reduced  it  to  85  cents  and  75  cents,  and  now  it  is  50  cents. 

Q.  Say  in  1879,  just  before  the  duty  was  taken  oft',  what  was  ihe  cur- 
rent price  ? — A.  If  you  can  tell  me  what  we  paid  for  it  I can  answer ; 
but  without  that  I cannot  tell. 

(A  Bystander.  Three  dollars  and  fifty  cents.) 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  that  the  reduction  from  $3.50  to  $1.90  was 
occasioned  by  the  removal  of  the  20  per  cent,  duty  t — A.  1 do  not  know 
that;  but  I have  no  doubt  it  had  something  to  do  with  it. 

Q.  Then  I do  not  understand  you  to  attribute  that  to  the  removal  ? — 
A.  I have  no  doubt  it  had  a great  deal  to  do  with  it;  whether  it  has 
all  I do  not  know.  It  may  have  been  partly  owing  to  the  manipulation 
of  speculators,  and  by  one  house  in  this  country,  in  order  to  affect  the 
price.  I think  that  affects  the  price  a great  deal  more  than  the  duty 
affects  it.  If  you  destroy  competition  you  will  have  a very  important 
factor  in  the  price. 

Q.  How  does  it  destroy  competition  ? — A.  Because  it  would  not  pay 
to  make  it. 


952 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  BUCK. 


Q.  You  can  pay  the  20  per  cent,  and  still  it  would  leave  a very  con- 
siderable margin? — A.  In  answer  to  that  I must  point  you  to  the  ex- 
perience of  dealers  ever  since  the  duty  has  been  off.  We  all  know  that 
the  foreign  article  has  been  brought  into  this  country  in  enormous  quan- 
tities ; prior  to  that,  when  the  duty  was  on,  we  did  not  have  it. 

Q.  If  Powers  & Weightman,  and  Eosengarten  & Co.,  who  were  then 
substantially  the  only  makers  of  quinine  in  tbe  country,  had  put  it  at 
$3.50  an  ounce,  and  it  was  being  produced  in  Great  Britain  so  that  it 
could  be  sold  at  $1.80,  they  could  still  have  had  a pretty  good  margin; 
does  it  not  seem  so  to  you  ? — A.  No,  sir;  I only  point  to  experience. 

Q.  It  is  said,  on  one  hand,  that  the  reduction  in  the  price  of  quinine 
has  been  on  account  of  the  discovery  of  extensive  deposits  or  supplies 
of  bark,  and  that  there  has  been  just  as  marked  a reduction  in  Europe 
as  here.  As  a matter  of  course,  the  reduction  in  Europe  would  not  be 
occasioned  by  the  taking  off'  of  our  tariff,  I suppose.  Or,  if  it  affected  the 
prices  there  at  all,  it  would  raise  them,  because  they  could  export  their 
quinine  to  this  country  and  sell  it  here.  Now,  if  that  is  the  fact — and  per- 
haps you  can  tell  me  whether  it  is  or  not — if  it  is  the  fact  that  the  prices 
in  Europe  in  the  leadiug  markets  have  been  reduced  to  the  same  extent 
as  here,  it  would  seem  as  if  there  was  some  other  reason  for  it  than  the 
abolition  or  reduction  of  the  duty  here  ? — A.  As  I said  before,  quinine 
is  a peculiar  article  in  some  respects;  it  is  like  wheat;  you  can  never 
tell  whether  a certain  price  is  a legitimate  price,  because  it  is  speculated 
in  by  dealers  and  manufacturers.  But,  as  a general  principle,  imposing 
a duty  which  can  only  benefit  less  than  a thousand  people  cannot  be 
very  good. 

Q.  If  it  does  not  benefit  anybody  but  the  producer,  clearly  you  are 
right;  but  the  question  is  whether  it  does  or  does  not. — A.  I do  not  see 
how  it  does  it  by  saying  that  the  consumer  don’t  get  the  benefit  of  it. 

Q.  I am  not  speaking  of  that  now.  It  is  a fact  that  on  both  sides  of 
the  water  the  manufacture  of  quinine  is  now  substantially  monopo- 
lized ? — A.  I do  not  know  that. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  is  a fact,  as  claimed  by  gentlemen  who 
represent  the  opposite  side,  that  the  firm  in  Milan,  Howard  & Go.,  of 
London,  and  Pelletier,  in  France,  make  substantially  all  the  quinine  in 
Europe? — A.  No,  sir.  I know  of  other  makers,  but  I have  no  doubt 
that  they  make  the  largest  part. 

Q.  Pelletier’s  establishment  is  a large  one,  and  it  is  claimed  that  they 
absorb  the  other  establishments. — A.  I do  not  know  whether  that  is  so 
or  not. 

Q.  Suppose  it  to  be  a fact  that  those  houses  make  substantially  all 
the  quinine  that  is  made  there,  and  that  they  have  combined  (which  is 
also  claimed),  so  that  in  substance  it  is  in  their  hands;  then  it  would 
seem  to  be  desirable  that  there  should  be  competition  on  this  side  of  the 
water,  if  possible"? — A.  I do  not  understand  that  that  is  the  state  of 
things  at  all. 

Q.  I do  not  say  that  it  is.  I am  only  telling  you  what  is  claimed  to 
be  the  fact  by  the  other  side  of  the  house;  I know  nothing  about  it. — 
A.  I should  have  grave  doubts  whether  it  is  true. 

Q.  I thought  perhaps  you  might  be  advised  as  to  whether  these  state- 
ments are  correct  or  not  that  have  been  made  to  us,  and  for  that  reason 
I ask. — A.  I do  not  see  why  Congress  should  protect  the  American  man- 
ufacturers and  the  public  not  get  the  benefit  of  competition.  I defy 
anybody  to  prove  that  it  directly  benefits  more  than  1,000  people  in  the 
United  States. 

Q.  You  seem  to  overlook  the  fact  that  I am  not  trying  to  prove  any- 


GEORGE  BUCK.] 


QUININE. 


953 


thing,  or  assuming  anything  as  of  my  own  knowledge  on  the  subject. 
I absolutely  know  nothing  about  it  except  as  you  and  other  gentlemen 
come  here  as  witnesses  from  time  to  time  and  make  these  different  state- 
ments to  us.  I want  to  know  if  these  things  had  occurred  to  you,  and 
if  they  had  been  taken  into  consideration  in  the  opinion  you  have  ex- 
pressed. I wanted  to  know  whether  you  knew  them  to  be  true,  and 
what  effect,  if  they  were  true,  that  wrould  have  upon  your  judgment. 
It  is  quite  probable  you  are  right  in  your  view  that  quinine  ought  to  be 
kept  where  it  is — on  the  free  list. — A.  I try  to  state  the  facts. 

Q.  I understand  you  are  not  advised. — A.  Yes,  sir  ; I am  advised.  I 
am  advised  that  the  position  you  take  is  not  the  true  position. 

Q.  I beg  your  pardon.  What  position  did  I take  *? — A.  You  assumed 
that  there  were  three  manufacturers 

Q.  I beg  pardon ; I assumed  nothing.  I said  such  statements  had 
been  made  to  us.  I expressly  declared  to  you  that  I did  not  know.  I 
do  not  want  you  to  charge  me  with  making  an  assumption,  when  1 tell 
you  that  I do  not  know  whether  they  are  true  or  not ; and  I wanted  to 
know  if  you  knew. — A.  I told  you  we  had  used  other  quinine. 

Q.  I understand ; but  at  the  same  time,  you  said  you  did  not  know 
whether  these  gentlemen  who  had  made  these  statements  were  or  were 
not  correct  in  saying  that  those  three  houses  named,  if  they  combined, 
would  have  a substantial  monopoly  ? — A.  I think  your  question  led  to  a 
great  deal  more. 

Q.  I said  that  if  by  their  combination  they  could  crowd  out  the  little 
concerns  in  Europe,  and  also  crowd  out  the  American  producers,  what 
would  the  effect  be  of  such  a combination  in  reference  to  quinine*? — A. 
If  your  premises  are  not  correct,  am  I not  to  correct  you  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Certainly. 

The  Witness.  I think  your  premises  are  wholly  incorrect,  because 
there  are  manufacturers  in  Europe  besides  those  you  name,  and  I am 
not  informed  of  the  syndicate  you  speak  of,  and  therefore  do  not  know 
about  that;  but  I do  know  that  your  premises  are  not  correct. 

Q.  The  question  was  not  whether  there  were  other  manufacturers,  but 
whether  there  were  such  combinations  as  we  have  been  told  existed*? — 
A.  I am  not  informed  about  that. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  was  the  effect  on  quinine  six  months  or  immediately  after 
taking  off  the  duty  *? — A.  Speaking  from  memory,  it  went  down,  and 
then  advanced.  As  I stated  a moment  ago,  quinine  is  a good  deal  like 
wheat ; you  can’t  tell  about  the  prices. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  The  retail  price,  or  wholesale,  or  both  ? — A.  The  retail  price  has 
always  been  governed  by  what  we  pay  for  it. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  give  no  reason,  then,  for  the  advance  in  price  after  taking  off 
the  duty? — A.  No,  sir.  1 have  my  own  ideas  of  it,  but  I might  be  in- 
correct about  that.  I think  that  the  manufacturers’  operations  have 
tended  to  advance  the  price;  it  would  be  very  easy  for  them  to  do  it; 
it  is  easy  for  them  to  control  the  market,  and  there  is  no  doubt  but  that 
is  done  both  here  and  in  Europe.  It  will  always  be  speculated  in ; it 
is  an  easy  thiug  to  speculate  in. 

Mr.  Bobert  Cowdery  was  permitted  to  reply  to  Mr.  Buck  as  fol- 
lows: 

I think,  if  I remember,  the  tax  was  not  actually  removed  until,  say, 


954 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f GEORGE  BUCK. 


the  1st  of  July,  1879.  The  price  of  quinine  did  advance  immediately 
alter  the  action  of  Congress,  stating  that  it  should  be  taken  off  only  at 
that  time.  But  I have  always  thought  that  that  advance  was  simply 
in  consequence  of  the  action  of  Powers  & Weightman,  for  then  came 
circulars  from  them  urging  the  retailers  to  make  every  endeavor  to  have 
the  import  duty  reiinposed.  At  the  time  that  the  duty  was  actually 
taken  off  it  was  worth  $3.50,  and  the  next  day  after  the  1st  of  July  it 
was  still  worth  $3.50,  and  so  it  remained  during  the  whole  month  of 
July  ; but  in  August  the  price  ran  down  to  $3.10,  aud  it  has  been  com- 
ing down  continually  from  that  day  to  this.  In  December,  1881,  it  was 
down  to  $1.90,  so  that  ever  since  Powers  & Weightman  gave  up  the 
idea  of  the  retailers  helping  them  to  secure  a reimposition  of  the  tax,  it 
has  actually  been  on  the  downward  tendency. 


J.  A.  WHITTIEK  ET  AL.] 


LUMBER. 


955 


J.  A.  WHITTIER,  ET  AL. 

Chicago,  September  7, 1882. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Whittier,  of  East  Saginaw,  Micli.,  president  of  the  Sagi- 
naw Board  of  Trade,  appeared  (with  other  gentlemen  representing  the 
lumber  interests  of  Michigan)  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  fol- 
lowing statement : 

Mr.  President  : I preface  what  I have  to  say  by  stating  that  we  are 
a delegation  from  Saginaw,  chosen  by  the  Saginaw  Board  of  Trade.  We 
have  consulted  the  lumbermen  there,  and  we  think  we  represent  the  con- 
ditions of  the  lumbermen’s  business  in  Michigan  correctly,  so  that  there 
will  be  no  difference  of  opinion  among  the  lumbermen  in  any  part  of  our 
State ; and,  further,  we  think  that  the  representations  we  make  give  a 
fair  statement  of  the  lumber  business  of  the  entire  Northwest. 

A brief  statement  of  the  condition  and  magnitude  of  the  lumber  in- 
dustry of  Michigan  is  necessary  to  a clear  understanding  of  our  reasons 
for  asking  that  the  present  moderate  duty  on  lumber  be  retained. 

The  total  product  of  Michigan  in  1881  was  estimated  by  our  lumber 
journals  as  follows,  and  this  estimate  agrees  very  nearly  with  the  cen- 


sus report : 

Feet. 

Upper  Peninsula 450, 000, 000 

The  Saginaw  Valley 1,  Oil,  000,  000 

The  Lake  Huron  shore 320, 000,  000 

Lake  Michigan  shore : 

White  Lake 120,  000,  000 

Manistee 225,  000, 000 

Ludington 120,  000, 000 

Muskegon 632, 500, 000 

Grand  Haven  and  Spring  Lake 191, 000,  000 

Miscellaneous 75, 000, 000 

Interior  mills : 

Chicago  and  West  Michigan  railroads 65, 000,  000 

Grand  Rapids  and  Indiana  Railroad 196,  000,  000 

Detroit,  Lansing,  and  Northern 84,  000,  000 

Michigan  Central  Railroad  (Mackinaw  and  Bay  City  division) 85,  000,  000 

Flint  and  Pere  Marquette  Railroad 145,  000,  000 

Miscellaneous 200, 000, 000 


Total  feet 3,  919, 500,  000 


To  be  rather  below  than  above  the  fact,  we  will  call  this  total 
3,850,000,000  feet,  and  this  is  sawed  lumber  alone,  exclusive  of  shingles, 
lath,  staves,  hewed  timber,  and  hard  wood,  worth  several  millions.  It 
is  safe  to  say  that  our  total  forest  product  this  year  is  worth  over 
$60,000,000. 

CAPITAL  INVESTED. 

To  manufacture  this  product,  capital  must  be  invested  as  follows : 

Mill  property $30,  000,  000 

Tools,  teams,  sleds,  booms  and  apparatus,  &c.,  floating  investment  esti- 
mated at  $2.50  per  M feet  of  lumber  produced 10, 000, 000 

Total 40, 000, 000 

The  large  investments  in  pine  lands,  counting  many  millions,  are  not 
included  in  this  estimate. 


956 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL. 


MEN  EMPLOYED — WAGES. 

Twenty-one  thousand  men  in  saw-mills,  average  wages  $2  per  day,  or, 
daily,  $42,000.  * 

Thirty-five  thousand  men  in  forest  camps,  logging,  &c.,  at  $1.75  per 
day,  a daily  pay  of  $61,250. 

This  estimate  is  rather  below  the  fact,  as  the  pay-rolls  of  several  large 
mills  in  Saginaw  for  the  past  few  months  average  $2.05  to  $2.10  per  day. 
The  mill  men  are  employed  200  days  in  the  year ; the  men  in  lumber 
camps  150  days,  on  an  average.  This  will  give  total  yearly  wages  as 
follows : 


In  saw-mills,  21,000  men,  200  (lays $8,400,000 

In  lumber  camps,  35,000  men,  150  days 9, 185, 000 

Total 17,585,500 


The  standing  pine  tree  jn  the  forest  is  the  raw  material,  and  for  that 
a round  sum  is  paid,  and  the  conversion  of  that  raw  material  into  lum- 
ber is  by  the  sturdy  axe  stroke  and  the  solid  day’s  work  of  this  army  of 
men,  at  the  cost  above  given  for  wages.  Estimate  the  thousands  of 
men  employed  on  cars  and  vessels  in  transporting  this  lumber,  and  you 
add  over  $4,000,000  to  the  yearly  wages  paid.  Careful  estimates  lead 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  lumber  industry  of  our  State  pays  the  farmers 
for  food  for  man  and  beast  over  $6,000,000  yearly,  and  the  mechanic  and 
manufacturers  some  $4,000,000,  thus  illustrating  the  mutual  benefit  and 
interdependence  of  these  industries. 

COST  OF  MAKING  LUMBER. 

Our  estimate  of  the  cost  of  manufacture  is  based  on  Saginaw  Yalley 
business,  and  may  fairly  apply  to  our  State.  Our  level  country,  many 
streams,  along  lake  coasts,  railroads,  and  large  mills,  with  best  ma- 
chinery, make  expenses  as  small  as  anywhere.  Calling  two  miles  and  a 
half  an  average  distance  from  water  or  rail  for  hauling  logs,  we  give : 


Cutting  and  getting  logs  to  water,  per  M $3  75 

Driving  to  booms 75 

Boom  age  and  delivery  to  mills 100 

Sawing 2 50 

Inspecting,  scaling,  and  commissions 50 

Stumpage 4 50 

Shrinkage,  loss,  insurance,  and  incidentals 50 


Total  cost 13  50 

The  average  price  received  would  be : 

25  per  cent,  culls,  at  $8.. $2  00 

72  per  cent,  common,  at  $16 11  52 

3 per  cent,  uppers,  at  $35 1 05 


Total 14  57 


This  leaves  a margin  of  $1.07  per  M.  for  the  making,  or  a trifle  over 
half  the  duty,  and  this  is  the  estimate  in  a year  of  good  business,  far 
better  than  the  average. 

The  lumber  product  of  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  is  about  equal  to 
that  of  Michigan,  and  these  three  States  furnish  about  one-third  of  the 
total  of  the  United  States. 


J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL.] 


LUMBER. 


957 


SOUTHERN  PINE. 

The  United  States  census  report  of  1880  gives  230,000,000,000  feet  of 
standing  pine  in  the  South  and  Southwest;  as  the  utilizing  of  these  val- 
uable forests  is  just  beginning,  whatever  in  business  or  legislation  affects 
the  lumber  market  will  reach  and  affect  these. 

If  we  take  in  the  whole  lumber  industry  of  the  United  States  we  shall 
find  9,000  men  working  in  mills,  and  135,000  in  forests,  with  yearly  wages 
of  $80,000,000;  capital  invested  in  mills  and  apparatus,  $180,000,000; 
a total  yearly  product  of  $230,000,000  in  value ; and  the  farmers  in  re- 
ceipt of  $30,000,000  yearly  for  food  of  men  and  animals. 

CANADIAN  TIMBER. 

Along  our  borders,  with  only  the  river  and  lakes  between,  are  the 
pine  forests  and  mills  of  Canada.  Great  tracts  of  pine  land  in  that  coun- 
try are  held  by  the  government  as  “land  limits”  or  “ berths,”  and  the 
right  to  cut  timber  on  them  is  sold  at  auction.  The  buyer  pays  no 
taxes,  but  a yearly  ground  rent  of  $2  to  $10  per  square  mile  “crown 
dues  ” on  what  timber  he  cuts  and  such  bonus  in  cash  as  he  may  bid  at 
the  sale. 

Inl874  “The  LumberTrade”  journal  inBoston  gives  the  costof  stump- 
age  or  standing  trees, including  the  “bonus”  and  “crown  dues.”  at  about 
75  cents  per  thousand  feet.  It  is  more  to-day.  These  “land  limits” 
are  from  10  to  50  miles  square.  In  the  Georgian  Bay  region  in  Decem- 
ber, 1881,  at  an  auction  sale,  1,281  square  miles  were  sold,  the  bonus  and 
royalty  on  which  would  make  the  stumpage  cost  $1.75  per  thousand 
feet  on  timber  actually  cut.  Lands  in  private  hands  sell  somewhat 
higher,  but  this  system  keeps  prices  much  below  ours,  and  vast  tracts 
are  held  by  these  lumbermen.  James  Little,  of  Montreal,  for  instance, 
is  said  to  own  some  400  square  miles  of  these  “limits.”  In  case  of  for- 
est fires,  the  lumberman  only  loses  his  moderate  bonus  paid  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  cutting  the  timber,  but  the  loss  by  fire  falls  on  the  government ; 
not  on  him. 

A Canadian  statement  in  1872  puts  the  area  of  pine  lands  north 
of  the  Saint  Lawrence  at  287,000  square  miles.  Not  only  does  that 
government  sell  these  land  limits  low,  and  run  its  own  risk  of  fires,  but 
it  builds  slides,  booms,  and  bridges.  A report  of  the  minister  of  pub- 
lic works  gives  a list  of  seventy-one  stations  on  the  Ottawa  Biver  and 
its  branches,  where  government  has  built  5,000  feet  of  canals,  7,000  feet 
of  slides,  62,000  feet  of  booms,  thousands  of  feet  of  bridges,  houses  for 
keepers,  &c.,  spending  large  sums  for  the  benefit  of  lumbermen. 

Canadian  labor  is  about  30  per  cent,  lower  in  lumbering  than  here.  In 
the  Toronto  Globe,  Hon.  J.  C.  Miller  says,  in  1880,  that  “3,000  men  are 
employed  in  Muskoka  and  Parry  Sound  at  average  wages  under  $15 
per  month  and  board,  while  in  the  Michigan  camps  the  average  exceeds 
$20.”  At  this  rate  the  Michigan  lumbermen  receive  $4,500,000  yearly 
more  than  Canadians  would  get  for  the  same  labor  at  home;  and  there- 
fore thousands  of  them  come  to  our  camps  and  mills  for  better  pay,  and 
many  remain  here  as  good  citizens.  Canadian  labor  at  home  is  not  over 
$6  per  M feet  of  lumber,  while  $8.50  would  be  a low  estimate  with  us. 

Stumpage  is  from  $3  to  $5,  and  over,  per  M with  us ; in  Canada  from 
$1  to  $2.  J.  C.  Miller  writes  to  the  Toronto  Globe,  “ Stumpage  on  the 
standing  timber  that  sells  readily  in  Michigan  for  $5  is  hardly  salable 
here  for  $2.” 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  difference  either  in  labor  or  stumpage  is 


958 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fj.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL. 


greater  than  tlie  duty  of  $2  per  thousand  feet.  This  stumpage,  or  price 
of  pine  lands,  is  not  speculative  or  stock  jobbing,  but  is  constantly  paid 
when  the  timber  is  to  be  cut  immediately. 

A Michigan  pine-land  owner  gives  his  taxes  as  15  cents  per  acre,  or 
$96  per  square  mile;  more  than  ten  times  the  ground  rent  paid  for  a 
Canada  land  limit. 

The  Canadian  Government  excludes  settlers  from  the  limits  they  sell, 
that  they  may  have  less  risks  from  forest  fires.  Ours  encourages  settlers 
in  our  forests,  and  so  increases  that  risk,  which  the  land  owner  alone 
bears. 

When  our  government  can  furnish  pine  lands  on  such  easy  terms,  as- 
sume the  losses  by  fire,  and  build  us  booms  and  bridges,  as  that  of  Can- 
ada does,  free  trade  in  lumber  might  be  nearer  just ; but  to  grant  ben- 
efits to  foreigners  who  bear  no  burden  here  and  few  at  home,  and  who 
are  thus  favored  by  their  own  government,  would  be  flagrant  injustice. 

If  we  are  to  have  free  trale  let  our  government  give  us  such  aid  and 
benefit  as  that  of  Canada  does  to  her  lumbermen,  and  thus  make  us 
equal. 

The  difference  in  wages  is  quite  equal  to  the  duty,  but  we  have  no 
power  or  wish  to  bring  our  wages  down  to  the  Canadian  level. 

FOREST  FIRES. 

The  risk  increases  as  the  country  is  settled.  Probably  $8,000,000  per 
year  would  not  more  than  cover  the  value  of  pine  timber  burned  over 
in  Michigan,  and  the  scorched  forest  must  be  cut  down  or  it  is  worth- 
less. This  makes  it  difficult  to  keep  back  the  cutting  of  our  lumber;  and 
it  is  desirable  to  hold  back  the  too  great  influx  from  Canada,  that  their 
great  forests  may  be  our  timber  preserve  for  use  when  ours  are  gone. 

Experience  under  reciprocity  and  its  free  trade  with  Canada  showed 
that  prices  of  lumber  were  not  greatly  affected,  as  our  large  supply 
had  strongest  influence  on  values,  but  our  Canadian  neighbors  could 
flood  our  market  greatly  to  our  injury. 

SALT  AND  LUMBER. 

The  making  of  salt,  in  which  Michigan  is  now  the  leading  State,  is 
interlinked  with  lumber,  so  that  the  existence  and  prosperity  of  one 
vitally  affects  the  other. 

These  statements  we  believe,  and  know,  indeed,  from  some  consulta- 
tion, will  meet  the  views  of  lumbermen  in  Muskegon  and  other  large 
producing  districts. 

The  duty  on  lumber  is  but  10  to  15  per  cent.,  one  of  the  most  mod- 
erate in  our  tariff*.  It  pays  a revenue  of  about  $1,000,000  yearly,  helps 
to  keep  up  wages,  does  not  affect  the  price  to  anything  like  its  amount, 
gives  a large  home  market  to  the  farmers,  is  some  partial  compensation 
to  balance  the  favor  the  Canadian  Government  gives  to  their  lumber 
industry,  and  therefore  we  ask  respectfully  that  you  recommend  the 
present  customs  duties  on  lumber  of  all  kinds. 

1 append  some  letters  from  mill-owners  in  Saginaw,  showing  the 
wages  of  lumbermen,  prices  of  lumber,  &c.: 

Office,  Saginaw,  Mich.,  September  6,  1882. 

Mr.  Ezra  Rust: 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  request,  we  find  that  our  accounts  show  that  the  aver- 
age wages  paid  our  men  at  Zilwaukie  Mill  fior  labor  in  handling  and  sawing  logs  and 
lumber  is  $2.06  per  day  per  man. 

Respectfully, 


RUST,  EATON  & CO., 


J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL.J 


LUMBER.  959 

. East  Saginaw,  Mich.,  September  5,  1882. 


Hon.  J.  A.  Whittin, 

President  Board  of  Trade,  East  Saginaw,  Mich. : 

Dear  Sir  ; In  my  judgment,  the  standing  price  of  Michigan  is  worth  on  the  stump 
from  $3  to  $5  per  M feet,  board  measure,  according  to  location  and  quality. 

Yours,  truly, 

WM.  L.  WEBBER. 


East  Saginaw,  September  6,  1882. 

To  the  Committee  to  meet  Tariff  Commission : 

Gentlemen  : The  average  wages  paid  the  men  per  day  in  our  employ,  manufactur- 
ing lumber,  is  $2.10  each. 

Yours,  respectfully,  &c., 

SANBORN  & BLISS. 


East  Saginaw,  Mich.,  September  6, 1882. 

To  Board  of  Trade, 

East  Saginaw,  Mich. : 

Gentlemen  : In  the  manufacture  of  lumber  at  our  mill  we  are  paying  the  following 
wages,  which  show  an  average  of  $2.07  per  day,  viz : 


2 men,  at  $4 $8  00 

6 men,  at  3 18  00 

18  men,  at  2 36  00 

22  men,  at  1.75  38  50 

4 men,  at  1.87 £ 7 50 

2 men,  at  2.25  4 50 

2 men,  at  2.37£ 4 75 

2 men,  at  2.12-J 4 25 

1 man,  at  2.50  2 50 

1 man,  at  1.62£ 1 62 

1 ihan,  at  1 1 00 


61 


126  52 


Average 2 07 

Yours,  truly, 

CHAS.  MERRILL  & CO. 


If  you  desire  to  know  anything  more  in  relation  to  Canada  lands,  Mr. 
Hill,  who  is  one  of  our  delegation,  has  attended  sales  and  is  thoroughly 
familiar  with  their  style  and  manner  of  doing  business. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Do  you  represent  the  salt  interests  of  the  Saginaw  Valley,  as  well 
as  the  lumber  interests? — A.  Yes;  last  year  we  made 2,700,000  barrels, 
and  this  year  the  expectation  is  that  it  will  exceed  3,000,000  barrels. 

Q.  Do  you  know  at  what  price  salt  is  furnished? — A.  It  is  sold  there 
at  70  cents  a barrel,  net ; 280  pounds  to  the  barrel. 

Q.  That  includes  the  package  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; and  some  sells  in  bulk 
at  25  cents  less. 

Q.  How  does  that  compare  with  prices  of  salt  in  other  salt-producing 
districts  ? — A.  That  is  about  the  price  salt  is  selling  at  in  Syracuse,  as  I 
understand. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Could  you  submit  to  any  reduction  of  duty  on  lumber  ? — A.  It  would 
give  a large  influx  of  Canada  lumber.  Perhaps  this  year  it  might  not  affect 
us  very  much,  because  the  demand  is  in  excess  of  the  supply,  and  has 
been  this  year,  but  there  are  times  when  the  supply  is  in  excess  of  the 
demand,  and  then  if  Canada  lumber  was  allowed  to  come  in  to  flood 
our  market  it  would  have  a tendency  to  reduce  our  prices  very  much. 


960 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  A.  WHITT  TER  ET  AL. 


By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  price  of  sawed  lumber  at  your 
mills  is  $13  a thousand  on  an  average? — A.  No,  sir;  we  reported  that 
at  $8,  $16,  and  $35  for  three  different  qualities.  The  average  is  $14.57; 
$13.50  for  the  average  standing  tree  and  its  manufacture  into  lumber. 

Q.  What  does  it  cost  to  deliver  it  at  the  mill? — A.  That  is  a difficult 
question  to  answer,  as  well  as  a difficult  thing  to  get  at,  in  relation  to 
these  percentages.  There  is  a large  amount  of  timber  that  does  not 
come  up  to  that  average.  Formerly  we  selected  what  we  took  off  the 
land,  but  now  we  take  it  all.  Norway  scantling  joists  we  make  a con- 
siderable quantity  of,  and  that  is  selling  at  $10  to  $10.50  per  thousand 
feet. 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  your  lumber  in  the  log,  delivered  at 
the  mill,  costs  you  an  average  of  $13  per  thousand? — A.  No,  that  is  the 
lumber. 

Q.  What  do  the  logs  cost  delivered  at  the  mill  ? — A.  Sawing  is  about 
$2.50;  that  would  reduce  it  to  about  $11;  and  there  are  some  other 
items  there  that  would  perhaps  reduce  it  to  an  average  of  about  $9.50 
to  $10.  The  logs  stand  near  or  remote,  and  they  are  of  better  or  imorer 
quality,  and  the  price  of  them  depends  upon  those  things.  We  tried  to 
establish  an  average. 

Q.  The  principal  item  in  the  cost  is  manual  labor  and  hauling,  is  it 
not? — A.  This  statement  as  to  the  cost  of  lumber  at  the  mill  compre- 
hends $4.50  stumpage,  and  it  comprehends  $2.50  sawing,  and  then  there 
is  the  insurance,  inspection  of  the  lumber,  &c.,  that  come  in  as  an  ex- 
panse, which  make  it  come  up  to  $13.50.  Discount  $2.50,  and  it  makes 
$11.  There  is  another  dollar  that  could  be  discounted  for  inspection, 
shrinkage,  &c.,  which  would  bring  it  down  to  $10.  I should  think  $10 
would  be  just  about  what  the  average  would  be  worth.  I know  there 
is  a lot  of  three  million  feet,  and  I have  thought,  on  inspection,  that 
that  is  just  about  what  it  would  be  worth,  and  a party  has  offered  $10 
for  it. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Are  not  those  pine  lands  generally  owned  by  the  lumber  manu- 
facturers ? — A.  Yes,  many  of  them  are,  but  there  is  a large  amount  of 
pine  lands  owned  by  outsiders  who  are  not  manufacturers. 

Q.  Does  the  timber  upon  those  lands  run  uniformly  ? — A.  No ; some 
of  it  is  small  sap  timber,  some  clean  Norway,  and  some  pine. 

Q.  I notice  in  your  estimate  that  one-third  of  the  cost  of  your  timber 
is  accounted  for  as  stumpage ; is  not  that  too  high  a proportion  ? — A. 
No,  I think  not. 

Q.  Are  the  mills  not  owned  by  the  men  who  make  the  lumber,  as  a 
rule  ? — A.  There  are  many  mill-owners  that  own  tracts  of  pine,  none  of 
them  very  large  tracts.  Some  of  the  largest  land-owners  are  not  mill- 
owners  at  all.  In  Muskegon  the  rule  is  for  the  mill  men  to  buy  their 
logs,  and  very  few  of  them  own  tracts  of  pine.  The  Saginaw  mill  men 
more  generally  have  more  or  less  pine. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  word  “stumpage v ? — A.  The  value  of 
the  tree  as  it  stands  in  the  woods. 

Q.  And  in  computing  that  value,  you  estimate  the  average  value  of 
the  trees  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  your  trees  worth  $4.50  on  the  stump  ? — A.  Yes,  taking  that 
as  the  average  quality  that  we  have  adopted. 


J,  A.  WHITTIEU  ET  AL.] 


LUMBER. 


961 

Q.  Putting  the  stumpage  at  $4.50  and  the  value  of  your  logs  at  the 
mill  at  $10,  that  makes  $5.50  for  the  labor  of  bringing  it  to  the  mill — 
the  transportation,  cutting,  &c.  ? — A.  Yes,  the  rest  of  it  would  be  labor 
and  pro  tit. 

Q.  How  many  trees  will  a man  cut  in  a day  ? — A.  That  depends  upon 
his  strength  and  whether  the  timber  is  large  or  small.  The  crews  work 
interchangeably  on  chopping  and  sawing.  Probably  a half  crew  of  live 
men  would  chop  100  to  125  logs  a day.  Most  of  the  lumbermen  have 
their  teams,  and  do  more  or  less  of  their  lumbering  themselves.  We 
cut  about  twenty  million  feet  a year.  We  hire  our  men  and  put  in  our 
own  timber. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Ho  you  put  the  land  in  cultivation  after  the  timber  is  cut  off  ? — A. 
That  depends  a little.  If  it  is  pine,  mixed  with  other  growth,  the  land 
is  apt  to  be  a little  better,  and  will  bear  cultivation.  Large  tracts  of 
that  kind  of  land  in  the  center  of  the  State  are  now  settled  up,  but  up  on 
the  eastern  side  of  the  State  the  land  is  low,  sandy,  and  of  black  growth. 
We  have  considerable  land  that  we  would  be  glad  to  have  somebody 
give  us  $1  an  acre  for.  We  do  not  like  settlers  very  near  us  for  awhile, 
on  account  of  the  dangers  of  fire  When  they  are  clearing  their  lands 
they  have  to  start  their  fires,  which  are  apt  to  spread. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  How  many  trees  do  you  cut  per  acre  ? — A.  From  10,000  to  12,000, 
although  there  is  considerable  difference  in  different  localities.  We 
have  some  small  timber  that  cuts  remarkably  well.  There  is  not  much 
to  reject,  and  it  runs  from  14,000  to  15,000.  We  consider  that  a good 
yield. 

Q.  You  say  five  men  cut  125  trees  a day  ; could  those  men  remove  all 
those  trees  off*  of  an  acre  of  land  in  a day  ? — A.  This  timber  I am  speak- 
ing of  would  run  about  eight  logs  to  the  thousand  feet. 

Q.  The  trees  are  small,  as  a rule  ? — A.  Those  that  I am  speaking  of 
are. 

Q.  What  is  the  largest  yield  you  have  ever  known  per  thousand  feet  ? — 
A.  The  largest  trees  are  most  all  cut  off  in  our  country.  I would  not 
say  positively,  but  my  impression  is  that  I knew  one  tree  that  cut  between 
4,000  and  5,000  feet. 

Q.  Is  that  the  largest  tree  you  ever  heard  of? — A.  That  is  the  largest 
tree  I ever  saw,  but  1 have  no  positive  recollection  about  it.  The  com- 
pany I speak  of  handle  about  5,000  feet  of  logs,  and  the  average  stock 
that  runs  through  there  is  about  eight  logs  to  the  thousand  feet.  Ten 
thousand  to  the  acre  is  pretty  good  land.  In  buying  a tract  of  land 
you  will  get  considerable  land  that  has  nothing  on  it. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  place  10,000  as  the  lowest  limit  ? — A.  Oh,  no, 
I did  not  intend  that,  because  in  buying  sometimes  you  will  get  40  or 
80  acres  that  will  have  enough  timber  on  one  end  to  make  it  profitable, 
while  there  is  nothing  on  the  other  end  but  a swamp. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  place  10,000  as  the  lower  limit  and  15,000  as 
the  upper? — A.  Oh,  no,  I did  not  mean  that. 

Q.  What  is  the  land  worth  on  an  average? — A.  Timber  land  does 
not,  as  a rule,  go  by  the  acre.  A man  offers  a lot  of  pine  lands,  and 
the  person  to  whom  it  is  offered  inspects  it  and  estimates  the  value  of 
the  logs  upon  it  according  to  the  quality  of  the  timber,  distance  from 
the  river,  expense  of  driving  it  into  the  boom,  &c.  It  is  a pretty  hard 
Mis.  6 61 


962 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL. 


thing  to  generalize  these  things,  to  give  a person  not  pretty  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  business  a clear  idea  of  it. 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  that  those  sales  are  based  upon  an  estimate 
of  $4.50  a thousand  for  the  lumber? — A.  We  should  consider  that  an 
average  price  of  land — average  in  locality,  quality,  distance  of  hauling, 
and  expense  of  driving.  I bought  a little  lot  not  a great  while  ago 
where  it  was  mixed,  where  two  trees  would  be  standing  together  in  one 
place  and  one  in  another,  so  that  I never  could  induce  anybody  to  buy 
the  piece.  It  was  objectionable  because  of  the  small  quantity  of  tim- 
ber. We  paid  $3.50  for  it.  We  have  to  estimate  now  for  everything 
that  we  get. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  recommend  the  Commission  that  the  duties 
on  lumber  remain  just  as  they  are.  Have  you  any  suggestion  to  make 
to  the  Commission  in  regard  to  the  simplification  of  the  schedule  ? — A. 
I don’t  know  that  I have.  Perhaps  Mr.  Hill  or  Mr.  Es  tab  rook  might 
have  a little  information  to  give  you  on  that  point,  but  I am  not  familiar 
enough  with  that  subject  to  enable  me  to  talk  about  it. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  to  the  Commission  by  some  parties  that  it 
would  be  wise  policy  to  take  off  the  duty  on  Canadian  lumber,  so  as  to 
consume  that  and  preserve  our  own,  for  the  reason  that  we  are  fast 
consuming  our  own  stock. — A.  The  answer  to  that  would  be  that  the 
preservation  of  ours  is  an  impossibility.  The  settlers  go  in  among  our 
timber  and  the  fire  follows  the  settlers.  Our  Michigan  woods  are  filled 
with  settlers  wherever  they  can  get  in,  and  they  are  crowding  in  at  all 
points.  Wherever  a man  has  finished  his  little  tract  of  pine,  he  will 
sell  out  for  what  he  can  get,  and  settlers  will  come  in. 

Q.  Does  that  difficulty  exist  in  Canada  ? — A.  It  seems  not,  from  the 
statement  that  I read  here  that  was  furnished  by  Mr.  Hill ; he  was  over 
there.  It  seems  that  the  policy  of  the  government  there  is  to  keep  set- 
tlers out.  If  pine  lies  12  months  after  it  is  burned  over,  the  grubs  get 
into  it  and  bore  it  so  that  it  is  practically  valueless.  Logs  are  sometimes 
left  on  the  skids  in  the  winter  for  want  of  snow,  and  very  often  those  logs 
are  very  materially  injured  by  grubs.  I have  seen  many  thousand  feet 
thrown  out  for  that  reason. 

Q.  You  advance  the  proposition,  then,  that  if  we  do  not  use  the  lum- 
ber it  will  be  consumed  in  time  by  fires  ? — A.  The  owners  would  prob- 
ably cut  it  and  put  it  on  the  market  without  much  regard  to  its  quality. 
Large  tracts  are  burned  over  every  year.  Mr.  Bust  informed  me  a short 
time  ago  that  out  of  seven  camps  he  had  in  the  woods  last  year,  five  of 
them  were  in  burnt  timber. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  is  the  character  of  your  timber  ? lrou  speak  of  it  as  pine ; 
is  there  any  other  growth  ? — A.  We  make  a specialty  in  our  report  of 
pine  timber.  That  includes  Norway. 

Q.  You  have  no  spruce  nor  hemlock  ? — A.  Hemlock  is  there,  but  it  is 
of  no  account.  We  leave  the  hemlock  and  it  dies  very  soon  after  a fire. 
It  takes  less  fire  than  most  any  other  kind  of  timber  to  kill  it.  The 
hemlock  is  soon  gone  after  a fire.  Nearly  all  the  pumpkin  pines  have 
disappeared.  This  large  lot  I speak  of  was  of  that  class;  it  is  a very 
small  pine. 

Q.  Do  you  take  any  pains  to  preserve  the  young  pine  for  future 
use? — A.  No,  sir. 


J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL.j 


LUMBER. 


963 


By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  When  pine  is  taken  off  the  land,  pine  does  not  grow  again  ? — A. 
As  a rule  it  does  not  come  after  the  fire. 

Mr.  Ezra  Bust,  of  Saginaw  City  (another  member  of  the  delegation 
from  the  Saginaw  Board  of  Trade),  said  : 

I might,  perhaps,  say  a little  more  in  regard  to  destruction  by  fire  than 
Mr.  Whittier  stated.  In  the  lower  peninsula  of  Michigan  almost  every 
township,  if  not  every  township,  has  settlers,  and  the  proximity  of  high- 
ways and  railroads  cause  destruction  of  the  timber  by  fire.  I do  not 
think  in  the  lower  peninsula  there  is  any  tract  of  timber  now  standing 
but  what  is  threatened  with  fire  from  settlers,  railroads,  and  highways, 
and  in  most  all  parts  of  the  State  they  are  suffering  daily  from  fire. 
Farmers  are  taking  the  precaution  to  clear  their  land  adjacent  to  pine 
timber.  But,  without  any  great  forest  fires,  there  is  a constant  waste  by 
these  fires  from  the  settlers,  and,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Whittier  in  regard 
to  some  camps  that  I had — and  I presume  that  is  the  rule  all  over  the 
State — I was  compelled  to  put  in  five  camps  last  year  to  save  the  timber 
from  total  destruction.  There  is  a grub  that  enters  the  old  timber  and 
bores  it  through  and  through  so  that  it  is  not  marketable,  and  we  have 
to  follow  up  the  fire  by  lumbering  in  order  to  save  it.  That  is  one  of  the 
greatest  difficulties  we  have  now. 

Q.  Did  you  put  those  five  camps  on  your  own  land? — A.  Yes,  sir;  on 
my  own  land  and  that  of  my  associates. 

Q.  In  that  case,  could  you  not  check  this  disposition  on  the  part  of 
others  to  fire  the  land  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Your  tract  is  not  large  enough  ? — A.  No,  and  nowhere  in  our  State 
is  that  the  case.  In  Canada  they  own  these  large  tracts  and  exclude 
the  settlers.  They  do  not  sell  small  tracts  to  parties.  They  reserve  a 
township  or  more.  In  Michigan  there  are  16  distinct  pieces  of  laud,  of 
40  acres  each,  in  each  section  that  any  individual  may  buy  from  the 
government.  So  one  buys  a tract  of  40  acres  here  and  another  «of 
80  acres  there,  and  no  one  owns  large  tracts  exclusively  of  every  one 
else.  I do  not  know  of  any  township  in  Michigan  where  large  tracts 
are  held  by  any  one  person.  It  is  held  by  different  lumbermen,  by 
farmers,  by  homesteaders  and  pre-emptors ; they  are  all  mixed  in  through 
the  entire  State  inthat  way.  There  is  no  township  in  the  State  that  is 
not  so  situated.  It  is  impossible  to  exclude  the  settlers  and  impossible 
to  exclude  any  parties  who  set  fire  to  the  woods.  We  are  helpless  in 
that  respect. 

Q.  How  many  men  do  you  send  into  each  camp  f — A.  They  vary  from 
twenty  to  seventy  or  eighty  men,  just  according  to  the  amount  of  timber 
burned  in  that  locality. 

Q.  Then  the  aggregate  number  of  men  in  your  five  camps  amounted 
to  how  many"? — A.  Perhaps  one  hundred  men  altogether  in  the  five 
camps.  They  were  small  camps.  I had  one  camp  where  there  was  no 
fire. 

Q.  How  long  does  this  timber  last  before  it  becomes  infested  by  the 
grubs  after  the  fire? — A.  If  it  burns  along  in  November,  it  may  not  spoil 
that  winter,  but  will  stand  there  uutil  the  next  May  before  they  begin 
to  bore;  but  we  have  to  lumber  it  within  a year  after  it  burns. 

Q.  Then  you  have  about  a year  in  which  to  get  the  lumber  out  ? — A. 
Sometimes.  1 am  not  so  familiar  with  the  habits  of  these  worms,  but  I 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL. 


964 

think  it  is  about  May  or  June  that  the  grabs  work ; 1 don’t  know  but  it  is 
September ; I won’t  be  positive.  Immediately  after  the  timber  is  killed 
they  begin,  if  it  is  in  the  season  when  they  work.  In  winter  the  grubs 
don’t  work.  After  they  are  once  in  the  timber  they  do  not  cease  until 
they  have  spoiled  it. 

Q.  As  a rule,  do  not  these  fires  occur  after  a dry  spell  in  the  summer 
time  ? — A.  In  Canada  and  other  parts  of  the  country  they  have  large 
fires,  and  occasionally  with  us  we  have  what  we  call  a tremendous  burn- 
ing over  a great  territory,  but  as  a rule  we  have  the  fires  in  the  summer, 
when  we  have  a dry  spell 5 sometimes  it  is  in  the  spring  when  we  have 
a drought. 

Q.  But  those  droughts  usually  come  in  the  summer  time? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Therefore,  as  a rule,  you  have  from  the  early  summer  until  the 
following  winter? — A.  We  have  to  take  it  oft*  the  same  year.  Our  fires 
are  generally  different  from  the  fires  in  Canada.  They  have  large  fires 
burning  over  large  tracts  occasionally,  but  with  us  the  farmers  clear 
alongside  of  our  timber,  perhaps  two  or  three  sides  of  a single  tract, 
and  they  build  fires  to  burn  their  brush-heaps,  and  the  fire  will  then 
crawl  into  our  timber  and  destroy  part  of  a lot  on  one  side  and  some- 
times on  another,  and  if  we  do  not  go  to  work  to  lumber  it,  it  will 
dwindle  away  until  we  have  but  little  left.  The  fires  come  upon  us 
stealthily  many  times,  and  a great  deal  of  timber  is  destroyed  when 
there  is  no  noise  made  about  it.  I didn’t  have  any  fires  last  year  that 
I considered  amounted  to  anything,  but  when  I came  to  examine  last 
fall,  I found  that  in  five  places  it  was  burned  so  that  I was  obliged  to 
put  camps  in  to  save  it.  I think  that  is  the  case  generally  through  our 
country.  There  are  fires  going  on  slowly  and  steadily  all  the  time,  and 
the  destruction  is  very  great — much  more  so  than  people  are  aware  of. 

Q.  Will  those  grabs  destroy  the  timber  in  one  season,  or  does  it  re- 
quire two  or  more  ? — A.  Sometimes  a fire  will  run  through  a tract  of 
timber  and  kill  a part  of  it  outright  and  injure  the  balance  so  that  it 
will  die  the  following  season  ; but  if  it  has  killed  a part  of  the  timber, 
the  grubs  will  begin  right  away  to  work,  and  of  course  you  are  obliged 
to  cut  the  whole. 

Mr.  Arthur  Hill,  of  East  Saginaw  (another  member  of  the  Sagi- 
naw lumber  delegation),  next  addressed  the  Commission,  as  follows : 

There  is  one  part  of  this  subject  that  it  has  been  thought  best  I 
should  say  something  upon.  The  present  duty  of  $2  a thousand  on 
lumber  has  the  effect,  in  the  end,  of  increasing  the  cutting  capacity  of 
our  pine  lands  from  30  to  40  per  cent.,  I can  safely  say,  so  that  the 
owner  of  the  land  is  benefited  by  that  increase,  and  so  is  the  country 
at  large.  To  show  this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  show  the  effect  of  the 
tariff  on  the  pine  that  is  produced  from  winter  to  winter.  The  tariff 
does  not  affect  the  price  in  this  country  of  the  better  grades  of  lumber, 
owing  entirely  to  the  fact  that  in  Canada  the  limits  are  first  run  over 
by  men  who  make  boards  and  who  get  logs  suitable  for  deal.  This 
product  is  made  entirely  for  export  to  England,  where  there  is  always 
a demand  for  it,  sometimes  such  a demand  that  in  Saginaw  we  have 
made  deals  to  send  to  England.  As  a consequence,  the  pines  which 
they  have  left  are  of  the  coarser  kinds,  and  it  is  with  these  grades  that 
we  have  to  compete  in  the  Eastern  markets.  When  we  can  put  our 
coarser  grades  into  the  Eastern  market  we  cut  our  land  clean,  and  when 


.T.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL.] 


LUMBER. 


965 


we  cannot  we  do  not;  that  is  all  there  is  about  it.  In  case  we  cannot 
cut  our  coarser  grades  profitably,  the  lumberman  goes  into  the  woods 
and  simply  cuts  the  cleaner  part  of  the  trees,  and  the  small  timber  is 
left  as  food  for  the  fires  and  decay.  This  last  year  that  grade  of  lum- 
ber was  put  on  our  market  and  it  did  not  bring  $9  a thousand.  There 
was  over  350,000,000  feet,  and  it  brought  us  there  in  Saginaw  over 
$3,000,000.  At  least  35  per  cent,  of  it  was  that  grade  of  lumber,  and 
it  produced  not  more  than  $9  a thousand.  The  actual  expense,  not 
counting  stumpage,  is  about  $8  a thousand.  That  leaves  us  a small 
margin  of  $1  clear  profit.  I say  the  duty  on  lumber  simply  hits  those 
grades,  and  we  stand  at  a great  disadvantage  in  Saginaw.  The  great- 
est supply  of  these  coarser  grades  which  goes  to  Albany  and  the  East- 
ern markets,  is  derived  from  the  Ottawa  district  and  the  Trent  district. 
They  put  their  Ottawa  lumber  into  Albany  for  about  $1.50  per  thou- 
sand less  than  we  do.  The  difference  in  prices  between  Saginaw  and 
Buffalo  always  just  about  corresponds  with  the  freight  from  the  Ottawa 
region  to  Albany ; that  is  to  say,  it  costs  about  as  much  to  put  lumber 
from  Ottawa  to  Albany  as  from  Buffalo  to  Albany.  So  that  we  stand 
at  great  disadvantage  in  case  they  put  the  prices  down  and  still  have 
the  market.  In  1875  we  could  not  afford  to  produce  that  lumber  at  all. 
It  takes  a favorable  combination  of  circumstances  to  make  it  profitable 
for  us.  We  have  to  have  a fair  price  for  lumber  and  low  canal  and 
water  freights.  It  happens  at  the  present  time  that  we  have  all  three. 
There  is  a fair  price  on  the  coarser  grades,  and  there  is  low  freight  be- 
tween Saginaw  and  Buffalo,  and  the  consequence  is  we  aie  able  to  put 
that  lumber  into  Albany  at  a less  rate  than  we  ever  were  before,  and 
it  simply  leaves  that  margin  which  represents  stumpage  and  to  pay  for 
labor  at  $1  a thousand. 

The  estimates  of  the  amount  of  pine  in  this  country  have  seemed  to 
vary  with  the  years.  It  would  appear  now,  to  look  over  the  amount  of 
pine  to  cut,  that  there  is  just  as  much  as  there  was  seven  or  eight  years 
ago.  Pine-land  estimaters  are  often  taken  to  task  on  the  ground  that 
they  did  not  give  a correct  estimate  in  times  past.  In  Saginaw  there 
are  some  tracts  of  land  which,  in  1875,  they  estimated  to  cut  a certain 
amount  from,  which  to-day  it  is  estimated  will  cut  50  per  cent,  more, 
because  it  is  felt  that  that  much  more  can  be  cut  provided  the  same 
favorable  conditions  remain  ; and  we  hope  they  will.  The  reason  is  be- 
cause the  coarse  pine  comes  in.  Since  coarse  lumber  began  to  come  in 
at  a fair  price  a large  amount  of  it  is  sent  to  the  Eastern  market  to  make 
boot  and  shoe  boxes,  and  that  is  supplied  to  a great  extent  from  Sagi- 
naw, where  it  used  to  be  entirely  left  out.  That  uses  up  the  property. 
It  is  not  like  putting  it  into  a house,  where  it  stands  for  fifty  years; 
but  it  is  gone,  burned  up  and  destroyed. 

It  comes  right  to  this  point,  that  as  long  as  we  can  put  that  lumber 
to  that  use  we  are  so  much  better  off  and  the  country  is  so  much  better 
off  by  that  amount,  and  we  preserve  our  forests.  If  we  do  not,  it  re- 
mains there  in  the  woods,  and  since  we  have  been  able  to  get  the  market 
price  we  have  gone  back  to  those  old  cuts.  Much  of  the  timber  in  those 
old  cuts  has  been  destroyed,  owing  to  the  fires  and  decay,  and  to  the 
fact  that  if  you  leave  a certain  amount  of  pine  it  is  only  standing  there 
ready  to  be  destroyed  by  the  wind,  because  the  sustaining  forces  of  the 
roots  are  not  sufficient  to  stem  the  rush  of  air,  and  it  falls  down  and 
decays.  I can  safely  say  that  we  lose  at  least  80  per  cent,  of  the  timber 
that  we  left  seven  or  eight  years  ago.  So  that  there  is  that  much  that 
is  an  actual  dead  loss  to  everything. 


966 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL. 


By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  Speaking  of  the  estimates  of  the  value  of  timber,  do  you 
believe  that  the  estimates  of  Professor  Sargent,  in  regard  to  pine  lands 
especially,  are  reliable  ? — Answer.  I only  know  in  reference  to  our  own 
country.  I think  it  is  a very  fair  estimate  of  what  there  is. 

Q.  You  have  seen  that? — A.  Yes.  He  estimates  now  that  it  would 
leave  about  5,000,000,000  feet  in  Saginaw.  As  it  becomes  more  scarce 
and  valuable  we  cut  more.  We  see  that  everywhere.  His  estimate 
was  about  7,000,000,000  two  years  ago,  and  about  2,000,000,000  has  been 
cut  off  since. 

Q.  You  say  you  have  cut  2,000,000,000  since  Sargent’s  estimate  ? — A. 
The  estimates  we  made  in  June,  1880,  of  the  winter  of  1880-’81  and  the 
winter  of  1881-’82,  were  that  we  have  cut  about  2,000,000,000. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  At  that  rate  you  would  expect  to  exhaust  the  timber  in  five 
years? — A.  We  would  if  we  cut  at  the  present  rate,  but  if  we  do  not  cut 
any  more  from  the  land  than  the  estimate.  As  the  timber  becomes  very 
scarce  we  cut  everything  that  has  two  ends  to  it.  We  are  doing  that, 
as  we  look  at  it  now.  But  in  Massachusetts  they  will  put  in  a piece 
four  inches  in  diameter.  We  are  not  cutting  as  close  as  that. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  You  are  familiar  with  Schedule  K in  the  Bevised  Statutes  in  refer- 
ence to  wood  ? — A.  I cannot  say  that  T am.  It  was  suggested  that  I 
should  make  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  revision  of  that  schedule,  but 
I cannot.  I think  a specific  duty  would  be  right. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  the  lower  grade  of  timber  would  be 
cut  out  entirely ; how  can  it  affect  the  higher  grades  ? — A.  I do  not 
think  it  would  affect  the  higher  grades  of  lumber ; they  do  not  compete. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  used  the  word  “ deal”  in  connection  with  the  Canada  lumber  ; 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  “deal”? — A.  There  are  certain  kinds 
of  plank  that  are  cut  three  inches  thick  and  not  always  of  uniform 
width ; it  is  very  clear  of  knots,  and  it  is  made  for  export.  It  is  a class 
of  lumber  three  inches  thick,  generally  sawed  to  be  sent  to  England  to 
be  there  sawed  to  any  thickness  they  desire. 

Q.  It  is  sawed  to  that  thickness  so  that  it  can  be  handled  more  easily 
on  board  vessels  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  They  take  off  the  slab  and  leave  a 
wany  corner  where  the  bark  is  left  on  or  just  scraped  off. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  How  does  the  rate  of  freight  compare  between  the  lumber-pro- 
ducing districts  of  Canada  and  the  Saginaw  country,  say  to  Cleveland? 
You  made  a comparison  of  freight  to  Albany. — A.  Our  rates  of  freight 
are  very  nearly  the  same.  Our  main  competition  in  our  part  of  the  State 
is  at  Albany,  in  those  coarser  grades,  because  it  goes  to  the  other  cities 
from  there  for  the  purpose  of  making  boxes,  as  I say. 

Q.  Does  Canada  skip  to  any  extent  to  Chicago  and  Milwaukee  ? — A. 
No,  sir ; there  was  practically  none  received  here  last  year. 

Q.  Is  the  lumber  in  Canada  more  easily  accessible  to  water  ?— A.  Yes ; 
it  has  not  been  removed  to  any  extent  from  the  water-courses.  Men 
usually  cut  their  timber  near  streams. 

Q.  What  is  the  average  difference  between  labor  in  Canada  and 


J.  A.  WHITTIER  ET  AL.J 


LUMBER. 


967 


here? — A.  It  is  about  30  per  cent,  there  below  our  Michigan  labor.  I 
have  taken  a comparison  all  along  the  line,  and  I should  say  it  is  just 
about  that. 

Q.  I suppose  in  that  condition  of  affairs,  then,  that  labor  does  not 
leave  Michigan  and  go  to  Canada  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  the  reverse  is  the  case  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; a great  many  of  those 
men  come  in  to  labor  for  us,  and  remain  and  make  good  settlers.  They 
are  hardy,  industrious  men,  and  settle  down  as  farmers. 

Mr.  John  S.  Estabrook,  vice-president  of  the  Saginaw  Board  of 
Trade  (and  another  member  of  the  delegation  from  Saginaw),  said: 

Mr.  President  : There  has  been  something  said  here  in  regard  to 
settlers  and  the  manner  in  which  our  State  was  being  settled  up,  as  a 
reason  why  we  could  not  possibly  prevent  the  spread  of  fires.  On  that 
point,  perhaps,  I might  say  one  or  two  words.  It  is  absolutely  impos- 
sible for  us  to  protect  our  forests  from  fires,  as  they  do  in  Canada.  I do 
not  speak  from  personal  knowledge,  but  from  observation  and  informa- 
tion. In  Canada,  in  many  cases  where  limits  are  bought,  if  there  is  an 
accident  of  that  kind,  the  government  makes  provision  for  the  pur- 
chaser. 

The  increase  of  population  of  the  State  of  Michigan  from  1870  to 
1880  was  something  over  300,000.  But  4£  per  cent,  of  that  was  in  the 
five  southern  tiers  of  counties  which  never  had  any  pine.  The  balance 
of  the  increase  is  largely  from  what  was  fifteen  years  ago  our  best  pine 
country;  showing  conclusively  that  the  settlement  follows  the  pine  and 
follows  it  closely.  In  some  of  the  counties  where  some  of  our  best 
pineries  stand  to-day,  the  increase  is  over  50  per  cent,  since  1870.  This 
shows  that  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  prevent  it,  and  I do  not  know  that 
it  is  our  policy  to  do  so.  I don’t  know  but  we  want  the  foreigners  to 
come  here.  They  come  largely  from  Canada  and  they  make  good  citi- 
zens, and  I do  not  know  that  it  is  policy  for  this  couutry  to  attempt  to 
keep  them  back  merely  to  preserve  the  forests.  I know  that  the  in- 
crease in  population  in  certain  counties,  which  in  1870  were  the  largest 
lumber  counties  in  the  State,  has  been  118  per  cent,  over  ten  years  ago. 
I am  positive  of  what  I say,  because  in  making  up  our  apportionment  I 
had  occasion  to  investigate  it  very  closely;  the  northern  portion  of  the 
lower  peninsula,  more  particularly,  and  that  is  where  the  great  increase 
in  population  has  been. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  You  say  that  the  immigrants  in  Michigan  come  largely 
from  Canada? — Answer.  A good  many;  not  all,  by  any  means.  Our 
labor  in  our  pine  forests  is  from  Canada  to  a considerable  extent.  A 
great  many  of  them  become  farmers,  but  not  anything  like  a large  pro- 
portion of  our  immigration  comes  from  Canada.  A great  many  come 
from  the  New  England  States  and  a great  many  from  across  the  water. 


968 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[PARKER  EARLE. 


PARKER  EARLE. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  8,  1882. 

Mr.  Parker  Earle,  of  Cobden,  111.,  representing  a committee  of 
the  Mississippi  Valley  Horticultural  Society,  made  the  following  state- 
ment : 

Mr.  President  : I shall  ask  your  time  but  a few  moments,  as  the  in- 
terests which  we  come  here  to  present  are  much  less  iu  volume  and  in 
figures  which  they  exhibit  than  those  which  you  have  been  listening  to; 
but  you  will  perhaps  indulge  us,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  you,  gentle- 
men, and  all  of  us,  consume  a much  greater  volume  of  fruits  during  the 
year  than  you  do  of  iron  and  paper,  and  especially  of  wood  pulp.  Our 
society,  which  I am  deputed  to  represent  here  to-day,  attempts  to  pre- 
sent the  interests  of  some  15  or  16  States  of  the  Mississippi  Valley;  all 
very  productive  iu  fruits,  vegetables,  and  other  horticultural  products. 

The  point  we  call  your  attention  to  is  that  relating  to  the  duty  on 
fruits  in  the  tariff  between  this  country  and  the  British  Provinces.  The 
subject  came  up  betore  our  society,  which  has  been  in  session  here  in 
Chicago,  in  the  form  of  a resolution  yesterday,  moved  by  J.  C.  Plumb, 
of  Wisconsin,  and  seconded  by  Mr.  Charles  W.  Garfield,  of  Michigan, 
and  voted  unanimously,  the  resolution  being  to  this  effect: 

That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Mississippi  Valley  Horticultural  Society  that  there  should 
he  absolute  free  trade  in  horticultural  products  of  domestic  growth  between  the  United 
States  and  the  British  Possessions. 

And  that  the  president  and  secretary  of  this  society  be  requested  to  present  this 
matter  to  the  United  States  Tariff  Commission,  now  in  session  in  Chicago,  and  to  urge 
the  use  of  their  influence  to  forward  this  end. 

Kow,  we  say  nothing  about  the  tariff*  on  foreign  fruits  that  are  im- 
ported. We  are  interested  in  the  American  tariff  imposed  upon  fruits 
of  Canadian  production,  which  are  imported  to  a considerable  extent 
into  this  country,  and  in  the  Canadian  tariff  which  is  imposed  upon 
fruits  exported  from  this  country  to  Canada.  Of  course,  that  question 
is  one  which  is  connected  with  this  in  an  indirect  manner. 

I understand,  gentlemen,  that  the  situation  is  this:  That  we  were 
working  under  a reciprocity  treaty  for  twelve  years,  from  1854  to  1866, 
that  treaty  being  terminable  by  either  of  the  governments  upon  notice, 
and  that  it  was  terminated  by  this  government  giving  notice  in  1866. 
Under  that  treaty  the  trade  in  all  these  goods  between  the  Canadian 
provinces  and  the  States  was  very  large,  and  under  that  treaty  it  began 
to  be  built  up,  and  it  has  continued  to  grow  even  since  the  imposition  of 
duties.  The  wish  of  the  Canadian  provinces  is  to  have  free  trade  con- 
tinued, I am  told  by  many  gentlemen  living  on  that  side  connected  with 
the  fruit  trade,  but  the  Canadian  Government  has  imposed  a heavier 
treaty  than  that  which  our  government  imposes  upon  the  same  class  of 
fruits,  somewhat,  perhaps,  in  a spirit  of  retaliation  against  our  Govern- 
ment. The  duties  on  fruits  average  about  20  per  cent,  against  the  fruits 
of  America.  X am  told  that  if  our  government  should  release  these 
duties  against  Canadian  products,  it  would  very  soon  follow  that  the 
Canadian  Government  would  release  duties  on  their  side,  which  would 
again  establish  free  trade  in  these  articles,  and  thereby  result  to  the 
great  convenience  of  all  persons  engaged  in  the  production  of  fruit  on 
both  sides. 


PARKER  EARLE.  J 


FRUITS. 


969 


The  amount  of  this  traffic  is  not  very  heavy,  it  is  true ; not  nearly  as 
much  as  it  would  be  but  for  the  embarrassments  connected  with  the  col- 
lection of  duties.  I have  had  no  time  to  get  figures,  and  I do  not  know 
but  it  would  be  impossible  to  get  exact  statistics  of  the  amount  which 
we  export  or  import.  I am  told  by  gentlemen  on  South  Water  street, 
Chicago,  this  morning,  who  are  importers  of  apples,  plums,  and  other 
fruits  from  Canada  in  such  seasons  as  favor  their  importation,  that  the 
amount  extends  to  some  300  or  400  car-loads  in  the  matter  of  apples 
some  falls.  There  is  one  house  on  that  street  that  imported  a few  years 
ago  some  10,000  or  12,000  barrels — a pretty  large  item  for  a single  house. 

This  trade  depends  upon  the  season.  When  the  fruits  are  compara- 
tively light  on  this  side,  we  wish  to  import  from  Canada,  if  they  have 
had  a good  fruit  crop  there,  and  it  is  for  the  welfare  of  our  people  that 
such  importation  should  be  as  free  as  possible.  And  we  are  constantly 
exporting,  from  the  commencement  of  the  season  in  the  Gulf  States,  the 
early  fruits  and  vegetables  all  up  through  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi 
until  they  begin  to  ripen  at  home,  berries,  pears,  peaches,  apples,  &c. 
That  traffic  is  becoming  considerable,  and,  as  I say,  this  exportation 
will  be  relieved  from  embarrassment  very  soon  after  this  government 
takes  action  to  make  the  importation  from  Canada  free  of  duty. 

Hence,  we  quote  these  two  things  as  affectiug  both  the  Canadian 
people  and  ours,  and  the  freedom  and  profit  of  trade  between  the  two. 
It  is  not  a question  of  protection  to  anybody  in  this  case.  It  is  quite 
different  from  most  of  the  interests  that  are  presented  before  you. 
There  is  nobody  asking  for  this  protection  and  nobody  is  receiving  it. 
For  instance,  the  gentlemen  in  Canada  who  may  be  growing  tomatoes  or 
strawberries  are  not  protected  in  their  interests,  because  there  is  a duty 
of  40  cents  a bushel  on  tomatoes  and  2 cents  a quart  on  strawberries, 
and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  peaches  or  pears,  or  other  American 
fruits,  and  because  at  the  time  the  fruits  are  taken  from  America  into 
Canada  they  have  no  fruits  to  bring  into  their  own  market.  As  soon  as 
their  products  appear  in  the  season  our  fruits  seek  no  market  there ; 
hence  their  interests  are  not  promoted  by  this  tariff.  We  do  not  bring 
apples  from  Canada  to  any  extent,  for  we  have  an  abundance  of  apples 
on  this  side  of  the  line,  and  the  freight  charges  are  quite  heavy  and  the 
expenses  attending  it,  so  that  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  be  done. 
The  fruit-raisers  do  not  feel  that  they  are  protected,  but  rather  that  the 
whole  question  is  involved  in  embarrassments  and  inconveniences  on 
account  of  the  existence  of  duties  on  the  other  side. 

Hence,  we  ask  your  influence  to  procure  the  abolition  of  a system  of 
protection  which,  I think,  in  this  case,  does  not  protect,  and  of  the  tariff 
which  exists  for  revenue  only,  and  a very  small  revenue,  to  be  sure,  for 
either  government.  Our  own  government  certainly  does  not  need  it, 
and  I presume  the  Canadian  Government  could  get  along  very  comfort- 
ably without  it.  I can  see  no  reason  why  this  traffic  should  be  embar- 
rassed and  hindered  in  its  development  for  the  sake  of  a small  revenue 
derived  on  either  side,  where  no  interest  is  fostered  by  the  alleged  pro- 
tection given. 

There  are  many  inconveniences  attending  the  trade  in  fruits,  growing- 
out  of  the  imposition  of  these  duties,  whether  the  fruit  goes  toward 
Canada  or  comes  here.  One  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Hagar,  had  a case 
to  state  which  illustrated  this  statement  very  forcibly,  but  he  was  com- 
pelled to  leave  the  city  a short  time  ago.  You  will  see  how  many  in- 
conveniences and  very  serious  losses  are  liable  to  result  from  the  delays 
which  often  occur  in  the  passage  of  fruits  from  the  one  country  to  the 
other,  on  account  of  the  imposition  of  duties.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Hagar 


970 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[PARKER  EARLE. 


I here  were  two  car-loads  of  apples  sent  to  his  house  in  Chicago  at  a 
time  when  they  were  quite  valuable  two  years  ago,  and  they  were  de- 
layed twenty  or  thirty  days  in  Detroit  because  some  one  in  the  custom- 
house there  supposed  that  the  valuation  (it  was  an  ad  valorem  duty) 
was  too  small,  and  no  means  were  taken  to  correct  this  valuation  until 
nearly  a month  had  elapsed. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  And  the  apples  were  all  rotten? — Answer.  In  this  case 
they  were  not  all  rotten,  though  they  might  have  been  under  other  cir- 
cumstances. But  a penalty  of  $100  was  exacted  by  some  official  of  the 
custom-house  there  before  the  apples  could  be  forwarded. 

Q.  Your  general  idea  is  that  fruits  of  all  kinds  in  a natural  state 
should  be  on  the  free  list? — A.  That  is  our  wish.  Fruits,  vegetables, 
plants,  nursery  trees — our  resolution  embraces  all  horticultural  prod- 
ucts. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  As  applied  to  Canada  only? — A.  Yes;  I am  not  undertaking  to 
talk  about  tropical  fruits. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Tropical  fruits  are  produced  in  the  South, 
and  they  ought  to  come  in  just  the  same. 

The  Witness.  Personally,  I agree  with  you,  but  our  committee  were 
instructed  only  to  represent  the  particular  interest  which  concerns  do- 
mestic-fruit growers. 


OTTO  YOUNG.] 


WATCHES. 


971 


# 

OTTO  YOUNG. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  8,  1882. 

Mr.  Otto  Young,  wholesale  jeweler,  representing  the  Chicago  Jew- 
elers Association,  submitted  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission : 

The  committee  before  you,  consisting  of  Otto  Young,  N.  Matson,  Benj. 
Allen,  and  H.  F.  Hahn,  appointed  at  the  regular  monthly  meeting,  Sep- 
tember 5,  1882,  to  represent  the  Chicago  Jewelers’  Association,  whose 
membership  embraces  the  leading  jobbers,  importers,  and  manufacturers 
of  watches,  jewelry,  watch  materials,  &c.,  of  the  Northwest,  beg  leave 
to  submit  the  following  views  and  statements  for  your  consideration. 

It  is  their  belief  that  the  dut^now  levied  upon  watches,  watch  move- 
ments, and  cases  is  too  low,  and  they  respectfully  ask  that  you  will  rec- 
ommend an  increase  of  duty  upon  those  manufactures  to  40  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  for  the  following  reasons : 

The  foreign  production  of  these  goods  sent  to  this  country  is  mostly  of 
the  poorest  quality,  and  being  manufactured  by  the  cheapest  of  labor,  at 
rates  of  wages  far  below  those  paid  for  similar  labor  in  this  country,  and 
entirely  insufficient  to  enable  American  workmen  to  support  their  fam- 
ilies and  to  educate  their  children  and  rear  them  in  a proper  manner  to 
enable  them  to  become  intelligent  and  self-respecting  citizens.  We  are 
desirous  of  protecting  his  interests,  and  wish  to  encourage  the  invest- 
ment of  capital  in  these  branches  of  industry,  in  order  that  establish- 
ments now  existing  may  be  strengthened  and  the  several  industries 
extended  in  our  country. 

The  su£>erior  quality  of  the  American  watches  fully  justifies  us  in  mak- 
ing this  appeal  in  behalf  of  this  class  of  skilled  labor  and  capitalists 
who  have  invested  their  means  in  these  branches  of  industry. 

The  history  of  American  watch  manufacturers  shows  that  of  all  the 
companies  established  but  few  are  in  existence  to-day,  and  that  there 
are  but  one  or  two  which  have  paid  anything  as  earnings  to  the  original 
stockholders.  Many  of  these  companies  have  been  sold  out,  or  changed 
hands  repeatedly,  so  that  it  is  only  by  the  constant  use  of  highly-im- 
proved mechanism- and  a very  large  production  which  has  enabled  any 
establishment  to  exist. 

Fully  nine-tenths  of  the  cost  of  a watch  is  expended  in  labor,  and  at 
the  present  time  we  estimate  the  number  of  artisans  employed  in  this 
industry  in  the  neighborhood  of  12,000. 

We  ask  that  the  duty  of  10  cents  upon  watch  jewels  unset  be  removed, 
and  that  they  be  put  upon  the  free  list.  Inquiries  at  the  ports  of  entry  will 
show  that  the  watch  factories  are  paying  almost,  if  not  all,  the  amount  of 
duties  collected  upon  watch  jewels.  On  account  of  the  small  size  of  each, 
the  unprincipled  importer  is  able  to  smuggle  them  in  and  successfully 
evade  the  payment  of  duties.  The  amount  of  watch  jewels  imported 
into  the  United  States  varies  from  $100,000  to  $150,000  per  annum. 

We  ask  that  the  duty  upon  watch-dial  enamel  be  removed ; that  it 
be  put  upon  the  free  list,  as  there  is  no  industry  in  the  United  States 
whose  interest  it  will  affect.  lTie  secret  of  enamel-making  is  unknown 
in  this  country,  and  although  attempts  have  been  made  to  manufacture 
it  by  persons  having  worked  it  successfully  in  other  countries,  yet  all 


972 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[OTTO  YOUNG. 


attempts  so  far  have  failed.  By  a decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  the  tariff  imposed  is  40  per  cent.,  whereas  we  believe  it  should 
properly  be  classed  under  the  list  of  gl^s,  old  or  broken,  in  pieces,  which 
cannot  be  cut  for  use  and  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured  free : this  truly 
represents  the  condition  of  enamel  received  in  this  country,  i.  e.,  broken 
and  only  fit  to  be  remanufactured.  The  amount  imported  during  the 
year  does  not  exceed  $15,000.  We  might  here  direct  your  attention  to 
the  inequality  existing  between  enamel  in  the  crude,  entered  at  40  per 
cent.,  while  dials  made  of  it  on  sheets  of  copper,  whose  tariff  is  45  per 
cent.,  come  through  completed  at  but  25  per  cent.,  thereby  burdening 
the  factories  with  this  additional  amount. 

As  importers  and  dealers  in  watches  and  all  materials  connected  with 
the  watch  industry,  we  are  interested  above  all  things  in  maintaining  a 
steady  condition  of  healthy  and  permanent  prosperity,  and  in  prevent- 
ing financial  panics,  which  carry  ruin  to  business  men  and  manufacturers 
alike,  and  bring  dire  distress  to  the  laboring  classes.  To  realize  this 
beneficent  end  we  believe  the  statesmen  of  the  country  will  find  no  agency 
more  potential  than  by  adopting  wise  measures  to  strengthen  every 
branch  of  manufacturing  industry  now  established,  and  to  create  and 
build  up  every  new  industry  that  can  be  naturalized  and  built  up  in 
our  country. 

OTTO  YOUNG,  Chairman. 

N.  MATSON. 

BENJ.  ALLEK 

H.  E.  HAHN. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Your  firm  are  purchasers  of  watches? — Answer.  We  are 
jobbers  and  importers  of  watches.  We  import  Swiss  watches,  and  are 
jobbers  of  American  watches.  We  prefer  to  push  American  goods,  not 
because  there  is  any  difference  in  the  profits  we  can  make  upon  them, 
but  American  watches  are  much  more  satisfactory  to  handle.  In  get 
ting  our  goods  from  Europe  they  may  not  give  satisfaction  at  all,  and 
we  do  not  know  half  the  time  what  we  are  getting.  American  manu- 
facturers are  making  some  styles  of  watches  to-day  in  order  to  compete 
with  Swiss  goods,  in  which  they  are  actually  losing  money ; and  we 
think  that  interest  should  be  more  protected  than  it  is,  especially  as 
nine-tenths  of  the  intrinsic  value  of  a watch  movement  is  labor.  In 
Switzerland  they  have  children  from  ten  to  twelve  years  of  age  at  work 
on  watch  materials,  instead  of  keeping  them  at  school.  That  is  not  the 
case  in  this  country,  where  so  many  parts  of  the  watch  are  made  by 
machinery.  Whole  families  in  Germany  work  in  the  watch  business  at 
home  from  ten  to  fourteen  hours  a day.  We  do  not  wish  our  laborers 
here  to  be  obliged  to  do  anything  of  that  kind,  and  therefore  we  ask 
this  increase  in  the  tariff. 


JOHN  G.  WILSON.] 


IMMEDIATE  TRANSPORTATION. 


973 


4 


JOHN  G.  WILSON. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  8, 1882. 

Mr.  John  G.  Wilson,  of  the  firm  of  G.  W.  Sheldon  & Co.,  custom- 
house brokers,  Chicago,  appeared  before  the  committee  and  made  the  fol- 
lowing statement : 

At  the  request  of  many  of  the  importers  of  this  city,  whom  I have  the 
honor  to  represent,  I beg  to  submit  the  following  suggestions,  looking  to 
the  enlargement  and  simplification  of  the  statutes  governing  what  is 
known  as  “immediate  transportation” — a subject  which  lies  at  the  bot- 
tom and  is  the  very  life-blood  of  all  importation  at  ports  of  entry  other 
than  those  on  the  sea-coast. 

1.  It  is  suggested  that  section  2 of  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  10, 
1880,  be  so  amended  as  to  not  require  an  entry  of  merchandise  to  be 
made  at  the  port  of  first  arrival  on  goods  destined  for  interior  ports. 

2.  It  is  suggested  that  section  9 of  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  10, 
1880,  be  so  amended  as  to  allow  the  privileges  of  immediate  transporta- 
tion at  any  time  within  thirty  days  after  merchandise  shall  have  been 
landed,  instead  of  within  ten,  as  is  now  the  law. 

3. ‘  It  is  suggested  that  section  1 of  the  act  of  June  10,  1880,  be 
amended  so  as  to  confer  the  privilege  of  immediate  transportation  on 
articles  “in  bulk,”  now  excluded  by  the  terms  of  the  said  section.  A 
bill  (H.  E.  5976)  was  introduced  in  the  last  session  of  Congress  looking 
to  this  reform,  but  failed  to  receive  attention. 

I would  like  to  add  that  the  reason  for  bringing  this  question  before 
this  Commission  is  that  in  the  reports  that  were  telegraphed  in  regard 
to  its  meeting  at  Long  Branch  there  was  a very  severe  attack  made  on 
immediate  transportation  by  a New  York  merchant.  I know  nothing 
of  that  gentleman,  of  course;  he  may  be  of  the  highest  reputation  and 
very  sincere,  but  I do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  nine  times  out  of  ten  such 
a cry  is  one  of  dishonesty.  The  attempt  to  concentrate  all  that  busi- 
ness at  New  York  is  what  they  are  alter,  and  thereby  to  afford  oppor- 
tunities for  fraud.  We  have  had  a long  and  bitter  fight  out  here  for 
immediate  transportation,  and  we  do  not  like  to  see  any  attacks  on  it. 
We  are  sure  the  various  ports  of  entry  like  Milwaukee,  Chicago,  and 
Cincinnati  afford  standards  of  comparison  by  which  the  government 
can  see  that  its  duties  are  being  collected  properly.  We  have  our 
sample  office  here  in  the  appraiser’s  store,  and  if  goods  are  brought  in 
at  a lower  value  here  than  in  New  York,  the  samples  can  be  compared 
and  the  value  arrived  at. 

The  wituess  then  submitted  and  read  the  following  communication: 

Chicago,  September  8,  1882. 

Hon.  John  L.  Hayes, 

Chairman  Tariff  Commission : 

Sir:  At  the  request  of  many  of  the  importers  of  this  city,  whom  I have  the  honor 
to  represent,  I beg  to  submit  the  following  suggestions  looking  to  the  simplification 
of  the  statutes  governing  the  recovery  of  duties  alleged  to  have  been  erroneously 
exacted. 


TARIFF  COMMISSION 


[JOHN  G.  WILSON. 


974 


It  is  suggested  tliat  section  2931  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  June  22,  1874,  he  so 
amended  that  a protest  addressed  to  the  collector  at  any  time  within  thirty  days  after 
the  liquidation  of  duties  shall  he  sufficient  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  importer  and 
to  give  him  standing  in  the  courts,  if  the  collector  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
shall  decide  that  in  their  opinion  the  protest  is  groundless ; and  that  after  such  decis- 
ion a single  test  suit  brought  in  the  courts  shall  be  sufficient  to  decide  the  merits  of 
any  question  involved. 

I have  the  honor  to  remain,  sir,  very  respectfully, 


JOHN  G.  WILSON. 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


PAPER. 


975 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  8,  1882. 

The  first  business  of  the  day  was  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  the 
paper  interest,  and  there  were  present  as  representatives  of  that  in- 
dustry Mr.  Wellington  Smith,  of  the  Lee  Paper  Manufactory,  of  Lee, 
Mass.,  J.  A.  French,  of  Three  Rivers,  Mich.,  Hon.  W.  H.  Stowell,  of 
Appleton,  Wis.,  and  Mr.  0.  O.  Chapin,  of  Springfield,  Mass. 

Mr.  Wellington  Smith,  being  introduced,  spoke  as  follows: 
Gentlemen:  We  have  in  this  country  an  association  called  the 
American  Paper  Makers’  Association,  which  had  its  annual  meeting  at 
Saratoga  in  the  latter  part  of  July.  At  that  meeting  it  was  thought 
best  to  appoint  a committee  to  represent  that  industry  before  this  com- 
mission in  order  that  you  might  have  information  regarding  our  in- 
dustry, what  had  been  accomplished,  and  its  present  condition.  We 
do  not  appear  before  you  asking  for  any  favors  or  any  changes  in  the 
tariff.  We  simply  wish  to  show  what  has  been  accomplished  under  the 
present  tariff,  the  country’s,  growth,  development  of  business,  and  the 
reduction  of  the  price  of  paper.  The  first  thing  I would  like  is  to  have 
our  secretary,  Mr.  Chapin,  of  Springfield,  read  a written  report  which 
he  has. 

Mr.  C.  O.  Chapin,  of  Springfield,  Mass.,  was  here  introduced  to  the 
commission  and  read  the  following  paper : 

In  the  schedule  of  the  present  tariff,  paper  is  divided  into  four  gen- 
eral classes,  each  of  which  is  charged  with  a different  rate  of  duty,  viz  : 
Sheathing  paper,  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; printing  paper,  unsized,  used 
for  books  and  newspapers  exclusively,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  all 
paper  sized  or  glued,  suitable,  only  for  printing  i>aper,  25  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem ; all  paper  n.  o.  p.,  including  writing  paper,  35  percent,  ad  valorem. 

The  average  rate  of  duty  on  all  dutiable  imports  for  the  past  fifteen 
years  has  been  nearly  45  per  cent,  or  times  that  on  unsized  print  paper; 
or  a percentage  of  duty  125  per  cent,  greater  than  that  charged  on  unsized 
printing  x>aper,  80  per  cent,  greater  than  on  sized  or  glued  printing 
paper,  and  30  per  cent,  greater  than  on  all  other  paper  and  manufact- 
ures of  paper,  including  writing  paper,  &c.  The  law  as  it  stands  there- 
fore seems  to  make  an  unfair  discrimination  against  the  manufacture 
of  paper,  which,  from  being  one  of  the  best-protected  industries  through 
all  the  changes  in  the  tariff  from  1824  to  1846  (during  which  term  of 
years  printing  paper  bore  a duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  and  writing 
paper  a duty  of  15  cents  to  17  cents  per  pound),  has  become  one  of  the 
least  protected  of  all  of  the  great  industries  of  the  country.  The  cost 
of  plant  necessary  for  making  paper  and  the  capital  necessary  for  carry- 
ing on  the  business  are  greater  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  product 
than  in  most  kinds  of  manufactures. 

In  the  building  of  a paper  mill  large  quantities  of  heavy  timber,  of 
lumber,  of  brick,  cement,  and  lime,  are  necessary,  as  the  machinery  is 
ponderous  and  powerful,  requiring  heavy  foundations  and  settings,  and 
even  then  the  buildings  and  machinery  require  renewal  every  ten  to 
fifteen  years.  The  machinery  in  its  construction  calls  for  great  outlay 
for  iron,  steel,  brass,  and  copper.  All  these  materials  are  u protected.” 
The  following  table,  made  up  from  the  census  reports  of  1870,  shows 
comparative  facts  in  regard  to  capital  and  value  of  products  of  some  of 
our  leading  industries. 


•976 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL. 


This  list  could  be  largely  extended,  but  it  is  sufficient  to  show  the 
disadvantages  in  this  regard,  appertaining  to  the  paper  manufacture  as 
compared  with  other  branches  of  manufacture. 

In  manufacturing,  motive  power,  whether  derived  from  steam  or  water, 
is  an  important  item,  aud  the  production  capacity  per  horse  power  em- 
ployed in  the  different  kinds  of  industry  becomes  of  interest.  The  value 
of  product  per  horse-power  employed  is  less  in  paper  making  than  in 
most  of  our  industries  of  equal  importance,  as  per  census  reports  for 
1870. 

The  following  is  the  product  per  each  horse-power  employed  in  the 
industries  stated : 


Leather $3, 972 

Iron 1,  530 

Cotton  goods 1,210 

Woolen  goods 1,777 

Food  preparation 1, 020 

Steam  engines  and  boilers 3, 596 

Furniture 2, 665 

Cotton  and  woolen  machinery 2, 246 

Paper 928 


In  view  of  such  a presentation  of  facts,  it  is  difficult  to  account  for 
the  slight  protection  granted  to  the  paper  industry  as  compared  with 
other  home  manufactures  which  require  less  capital  and  power  for  a 
given  value  of  product,  and  which  consume  a smaller  amount  of  the 
products  of  protected  home  industries  and  of  dutiable  imported  mate 
rials. 

Having  seen  how  American  paper-making  stands  related  in  the  mat- 
ter of  protection  to  home  industries  in  general,  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire 
what  are  the  facts  in  regard  to  its  relations  to  foreign  competition  in 
its  own  particular  product. 

The  following  is  a list  of  articles  largely  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
paper,  many  of  which  are  imported,  and  all  of  which  are  subject  to 
duty,  viz : 

Alum  and  aluminous  coke,  60  cents  per  100  pounds,  or  equal  to  35  to 
48  per  cent. 

Aniline  colors,  50  cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Caustic  soda,  1J  cents  per  pound,  or  equals  35  to  50  per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rem. 

Sal  soda,  \ cent  per  pound,  or  equal  to  15  to  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Soda  ash,  ^ cent  per  pound,  or  equal  to  10  to  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Bituminous  coal,  75  cents  per  ton,  or  equal  to  25  to  40  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

Canvas  (cotton),  40  to  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Glue,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Starch,  1 cent  per  pound  and  20  per  cent.,  or  equal  to  40  to  50  per 
cent.,  ad  valorem. 

Rosin,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Wires,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Felts,  67  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Lime,  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Oil,  35  to  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Terra  alba,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Clay,  $5  per  ton. 

Boards,  $1  to  $2  per  M. 

All  iron,  steel,  brass,  copper,  and  other  metals  used  in  making  or  re- 
pairing machinery  or  buildings. 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


PAPER. 


977 


It  is  estimated  that  paper-mills  can  be  built  in  Europe  at  one-half 
the  cost  of  similar  establishments  in  this  country. 

In  the  matter  of  labor  we  pay  our  mill  hands  from  200  to  300  per  cent, 
more  wages  per  hand  than  is  paid  abroad  for  the  same  sort  of  labor. 
A prominent  paper  manufacturer  of  Great  Britain  said  that  if  he  paid 
the  wages  which  our  paper  manufacturers  did  he  could  make  no  money. 
In  a mill  in  France,  where  a comparison  of  wages  was  made  with  those 
paid  here,  it  was  found  that  3 francs,  or  60  cents  per  day,  was  the  com- 
mon price  for  the  average  workman.  The  cost  of  labor  here  is  from 
20  to  40  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  the  manufactured  article.  The  cost  of 
freight  on  paper  to  seaport  markets  from  the  mills  in  this  country 
is  frequently  much  greater  than  the  freight  would  be  from  Europe  to 
the  same  ports.  The  rates  of  interest  here  are  from  50  to  75  per  cent, 
higher  than  in  Europe,  and  interest  is  no  insignificant  item  in  the  pros- 
ecution of  paper  manufacturing.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  rags  being 
free  of  duty,  paper  should  therefore  be  admitted  at  a low  rate  of  duty. 
It  is  true  that  rags  are  admitted  into  this  country,  as  into  all  other 
countries,  free  of  duty,  but  many  countries  from  which  we  bring  them 
charge  an  export  duty  which  is  more  than  an  equivalent  to  any  reason- 
able import  duty.  Germany  is  considering  the  expediency  of  prohibit- 
ing the  exportation  of  rags,  and  Turkey  has  virtually  prohibited  it.  The 
export  duty  on  rags  from  Italy,  from  whence  comes  a large  proportion 
of  rags  used  in  the  manufacture  of  writing  paper,  is  so  great  that  it 
amounts  to  over  one  cent  per  pound  on  every  pound  of  paper  made  from 
them.  No  other  equally  important  imported  article  is  charged  with  an 
export  duty.  The  raw  material  for  many  other  large  industries  is  im- 
ported free.  Hides,  and  tanners’  crude  materials  for  converting  them 
into  leather,  are  free ; so  are  India  rubber,  gutta-percha,  cotton,  plum- 
bago, argols,  tin,  raw  silk,  soap  stock,  &c.  The  manufactured  products 
of  these  free  materials  are  protected  by  a much  higher  average  rate  of 
duty  than  paper.  Imported  leather  goods  are  charged  with  a duty  of 
from  25  to  50  per  cent.,  rubber  goods  from  30  to  60  per  cent.,  plumbago 
goods  from  50  to  60  per  cent.,  soap  47  per  cent.,  products  of  argols  from 
10  to  40  per  cent.,  manufactures  of  tin  20  to  35  per  cent.,  manufactures 
of  silk  30  to  60  per  cent. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  other  home  industries  with  raw  materi- 
als free  are  treated  with  greater  consideration  in  making  up  our  tariff 
than  the  paper  industry.  Some  of  the  European  countries  escaped 
these  export  duties  by  reciprocity  treaties,  and  all  have  the  advantage 
of  cheaper  freight  from  countries  exporting  rags. 

No  demand  for  a reduction  in  the  tariff  on  paper  has  been  made  for 
years  save  by  a few  newspaper  publishers  who,  taking  advantage  of  an 
exceptional  condition  of  the  market  in  the  fall  of  1879,  for  which  con- 
dition the  paper  manufacturers  were  in  no  way  responsible,  clamored 
for  free  printing  paper.  As  the  duty  on  paper  suitable  for  their  use 
was  but  20  per  cent.,  an  easy  way  out  of  their  temporary  troubles  would 
have  been  to  import  paper.  But  the  imports  of  printing  paper  for  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1880  (which  time  covered  the  rise  and  fall  of  the 
boom), were  but  $75,936,  dropping  to  $55,329  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1881,  and  to-day,  taking  quality  into  consideration,  news  paper  is  but  a 
shade  higher  in  this  country  than  the  average  European  price,  and  the 
average  standard  of  quality  is  much  higherin  this  country  than  in  Europe. 
The  above  shows  that  home  competition  will  insure  reasonable  prices  for 
home  consumption,  and  that  the  outcry  against  paper-makers  was  un- 
just and  uncalled  for.  Had  the  newspaj>ers  had  their  way  they  would 
now  be  paying  higher  prices  for  their  paper,  as  the  building  of  mills 
H.  Mis.  6 62 


978 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WELLINGTON  6MI1H  ET  AL. 


would  have  ceased  and  the  trade  been  generally  demoralized  from 
threatened  imports  of  foreign  surplus  papers.  During  the  agitation  of 
the  question  of  the  repeal  or  reduction  of  the  duty  on  paper,  agents  of 
foreign  manufacturers  were  offering  their  goods  here  at  less  than  their 
prices  to  home  customers.  A small  surplus  of  paper  thrown  upon  the 
market  is  sufficient  to  break  prices  to  a greater  degree  than  is  possible 
with  most  other  manufactured  goods. 

The  consumption  of  paper  cannot  be  forced  by  small  reduction  of 
price,  as  is  the  case  with  many  other  goods.  No  newspaper-publisher 
will  print  12,000  copies  of  his  paper  if  his  subscription-list  is  but  10,000, 
simply  because  his  printing  paper  costs  him  one- half  cent  or  1 cent  per 
pound  less.  No  book-publisher  will  publish  an  edition  of  5,000  copies 
of  any  book  when  3,000  copies  is  all  the  market  will  take,  because  paper 
is  1 cent  lower  in  price.  No  person,  because  he  can  buy  five  sheets  of 
note  paper  for  a cent  instead  of  four  sheets  for  a cent,  will  increase  his 
correspondence  25  per  cent. 

While  the  imports  of  printing  paper  which  bears  the  lowest  rate  of 
duty  have  decreased,  the  importation  of  writing  papers  bearing  the 
highest  rate  of  duty  have  increased.  The  imports  of  writing  paper 
have  increased  from  $8,944  in  1877  to  $40,778  in  1881 — over  4£  times. 
These  imported  writing  papers  are  mostly  if  not  entirely  of  a high  grade  of 
paper — fancy  note  papers,  &c.,  which  are  in  the  nature  of  luxuries. 
If  the  duty  were  even  higher,  there  would  still  be  a demand  for  them 
and  if  the  duty  were  reduced  the  sale  of  them  would  scarcely  be  increased. 
Steadiness  in  prices  is  desired  by  the  manufacturer  and  his  customers 
but  this  can  never  be  assured  when  frequent  changes  are  made  in  legis- 
lation affecting  the  manufacturer,  or  when  such  changes  are  impending. 
No  stability  to  trade  and  manufacture  can  be  looked  for  when  the  mar- 
ket is  liable  to  be  disturbed  by  an  influx  of  foreign  goods  imported  at 
a low  valuation  and  a low  rate  of  duty. 

Recognizing  the  desirability  of  steadiness  and  stability,  the  paper- 
manufacturers  of  this  country  are  content  to  abide  by  the  tariff*  as  it 
is,  rather  than  unsettle  the  business  by  asking  for  any  increase  of  duty 
to  make  them  on  a par  with  other  industries;  and  at  the  same  time  they 
are  confident  that  home  competition  will  continue  to  furnish  all  the 
paper  demanded  here  at  reasonable  prices.  They  believe  that  the  best 
interests  of  the  country,  so  far  as  their  industry  is  concerned,  affecting 
both  the  manufacturer  and  his  customers,  will  be  best  served  by  pre- 
serving the  present  rates  of  duty. 

I have  a letter  here,  which  I will  read,  from  a practical  paper-maker 
who  has  been  abroad,  and  who  was  bred  in  the  business.  He  is  now 
treasurer  and  general  agent  of  a large  paper-manufacturing  association 
in  Massachusetts,  which  manufactures  15  tons  of  paper  per  day. 


[Treasurer’s  office,  Montague  Paper  Company,  George  E.  Marshall,  treasurer.] 

Turner’s  Falls,  Mass.,  September  4,  1882. 

Dear  Sir:  I regret  very  much  that  I was  out  of  town  when  you  visited  our  mills 
last  Saturday.  I visited  some  of  the  largest  mills  in  England  this  summer,  and  could 
not  fail  to  observe  many  advantages  the  English  paper-manufacturer  has  over  the 
American.  In  one  very  large  mill,  running  twelve  machines,  their  coal  costs  but  C«., 
or  about  $1.50  per  ton.  Our  coal  costs  nearly  four  times  as  much.  The  tine  Leemore 
clays  which  costs  the  American  manufacturer  $26  to  $23  per  ton,  are  laid  down  at  the 
mills  in  England  at  about  $8.50  per  ton.  And  I will  here  remark  that  English  papers 
contain  double  the  amount  of  clay  found  in  American  papers.  All  chemicals  used  in 
the  manufacture  of  papers  are  cheaper  in  England  than  here. 

The  regular  pay  of  machine-tenders  is  $8  to  $9  per  week,  while  here  we  pay  from  $15 
to  $20  per  week. 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


PAPER. 


1)79 


In  the  English  paper-mills  I saw  girls  filling  the  boilers  with  stock,  and  tending  the 
stock-cutting,  and  cleaning  machinery — considered  in  this  country  to  be  the  most  dis- 
agreeable and  unhealthy  work  about  the  mill  and  always  performed  by  men;  theso 
girls  received  10s.,  or  .$2.40,  per  week  for  doing  the  work  that  we  pay  men  $9  to  $10  per 
week.  I saw  girls  assisting  about  the  rag-engines,  doing  the  work  that  we  employ 
men  to  do,  the  girls  working  in  the  rag  room  and  finishing  rooms  receiving  about  $2.50 
per  week  for  doing  the  work  that  we  pay  from  $5  tp  $7  per  week.  Notwithstanding 
allth  is  the  publishers  of  newspapers  and  books  in  England  pay  nearly  or  quite  as 
much  for  their  paper  as  American  publishers  using  a similar  quality  of  paper. 

The  publishers  of  the  large  daily  papers  of  England  pay  about  5-£  cents  per  pound 
for  their  paper,  and  sell  their  papers  at  Id.,  or  2 cents  per  copy.  Here  the  publishers 
of  the  largest  daily  papers  are  paying  from  5f  to  6£  cents  per  pound  for  their  paper, 
and  sell  at  from  3 to  5 cents  per  copy.  As  there  are  from  eight  to  ten  copies  in  a pound 
of  the  printing  paper  used,  the  publishers  here  charge  the  dear  people  who  buy  their 
printed  wares  from  8 to  24  cents  more  per  pound  of  printed  paper  than  the  English 
publishers  charge. 

Yours  truly, 


GEO.  E.  MARSHALL. 


C.  O.  Chapin,  Esq.,  Chicago , III. 


A manufacturer  of  Great  Britain  was  dining  with  me  less  than  two  years 
ago,  and  I referred  to  this  matter  of  labor  and  said  to  him,  “ We  have 
had  a man  in  our  employ  who  learned  his  trade  in  your  mill — a machine- 
tender.  He  has  now  gone  from  us  and  has  charge  of  a department  in  one 
of  the  mills  at  Holyoke.”  He  said  beknew  him.  I said,  u What  did  you 
pay  him,  he  being  a first-class  workman?”  He  said:  “ We  paid  him  $7  a 
week,  aud  if  the  out-put  of  the  machine  was  so  much  more  than  the 
regular  stint,  he  could  earn  a half  dollar  a week  more,  or  $7.50  a week, 
which  was  the  extent.”  Said  I,  u Our  regular  pay  to  this  man  was  $3.50 
per  day  or  $21  per  week.”  And  further,  I said,  “ What  sized  house  do 
suph  men  as  he  have  with  you?”  He  said,  “We  house  our  employes 
well,”  and  naming  the  man  he  said:  “He  would  have  a house  that  had 
three  rooms  and  a closet.”  Said  I,  u The  man  had  with  us  a house 
containing  a parlor,  bed-room,  sitting-room,  dining-room,  kitchen,  a 
back  kitchen,  a cellar  under  all  but  the  back  kitchen,  and  three  good 
chambers,  closets  and  buttery,  and  a good  big  garden  plat.”  ne  said, 
u If  we  paid  him  that  much  we  would  not  make  any  money  at  all.” 

In  regard  to  the  French  prices,  I sent  a young  man  to  France  a year 
or  more  ago  to  put  up  an  apparatus,  in  which  I am  interested,  in  a mill  in 
France,  and  the  report  which  he  made  is  that  the  wages  there  paid  are 
three  francs  or  GO  cents  a day.  That  I know  is  correct. 

In  regard  to  coal,  I will  say  that  Mr.  Marshall’s  statement  is  true,  be- 
cause I know  that  in  our  own  case,  perhaps  forty  miles  from  him,  our 
coal  costs  us  $6  a ton,  and  the  coal  which  Mr.  Smith  uses  costs  $6  a 
ton.  Saying  nothing  about  his  using  steam  made  from  coal  for  power,  it 
would  make  a difference  of  $18,000  a year  just  on  one  item. 

The  present  law  has  too  much  verbiage  in  its  specifications.  It  speci- 
fies numbers  of  sizes  of  paper  rather  than  qualities,  as,  for  instance,  it 
says,  the  duty  on  paper,  on  demy  paper,  antiquarian,  imperial,  and  royal, 
and  specifies  the  numbers  of  papers  as  though  they  were  the  kind  of 
paper  rather  than  sizes  of  the  same  quality.  If,  in  making  up  a new 
tariff,  this  should  happen  to  occur  to  you,  you  might  cut  off  a good  many 
of  these  things,  which  simply  lumber  up  the  present  tariff  law  and  con- 
fuse it. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Could  you  not  make  a recommendation  of  changes  in  the 
verbiage  which  you  think  would  be  desirable  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I can 
do  that  more  at  my  leisure.  I might  take  the  present  tariff  and  strike 
out  some  of  those  things. 

Q In  your  statement  you  named  certain  materials  used  in  paper-mak- 
ing and  the  rates  of  duty  charged  on  them.  Can  you  state  what  propor- 


980 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL. 


tion  of  the  cost  of  paper  these  articles  would  be? — A.  The  percentage 
of  the  use  of  those  various  items  varies  with  the  kind  of  paper  made. 

Q.  I mean  an  average. — A.  For  instance,  take  caustic  soda  or  soda-ash 
— those  who  make  the  cheaper  grades  of  paper  use  the  stronger  chemicals 
much  more  than  the  makers  of  fine  paper.  There  is  no  average,  be- 
cause hardly  any  two  mills  make  exactly  the  same  kind  of  paper.  I 
can  give  you  the  percentage  of  my  own  mill  which  makes  a fine  writing 
paper,  and  we  do  not  use  so  much  chemicals  there  as  are  used  in  the 
paper  made  by  my  friend  Smith. 

Q.  Take  any  print  paper,  for  instance,  what  proportion  would  these 
materials  that  are  imported  bear  to  the  cost? — A.  I do  not  make  that 
grade  of  paper,  and  have  never  made  it  a particular  study.  I do  not 
know  whether  the  other  members  of  the  committee  moke  that  paper 
and  would  be  able  to  tell,  or  not. 

Mr.  Wellington  Smith.  From  one-half  cent  to  one  cent  per  pound. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  idea  is,  whether,  if  these  articles  are  put 
upon  the  free  list,  you  could  stand  the  reduction  in  duty. 

Mr.  Chapin.  My  idea  about  the  duty  is  this:  At  certain  times  there 
is  a surplus  of  paper  made,  and  we  want  to  keep  that  surplus  from 
coming  in  to  disturb  our  market  and  unsettle  prices,  and  demoralize 
things  generally.  It  takes,  as  I remarked,  but  a very  small  percentage 
of  surplus  to  put  down  the  prices  of  the  entire  product  of  any  industry. 
If,  for  instance,  there  is  made  in  Holyoke  100  tons  of  fine  paper  per  day, 
and  the  normal  demand  takes  that  amount,  with  the  exception  of,  per- 
haps, one  or  two  months  in  the  year,  and  during  those  one  or  two 
months  paper  accumulates  in  the  hands  of  the  manufacturers,  when 
the  busy  season  comes  they  get  rid  of  it.  Now,  if  there  should  be 
thrown  upon  the  market,  instead  of  100  tons  per  day,  105  tons  per  day, 
the  price  would  be  reduced  on  the  whole  output,  so  that  the  manufact- 
urers would  not  get  as  much  for  the  105  tons  as  they  would  for  90  tons 
if  the  market  had  been  kept  in  its  normal  condition.  The  overproduc- 
tion depreciates  the  price  to  a very  much  greater  extent  than  the  per 
centage  of  surplus. 

By  Mr.  Oliver  : 

Q.  What  is  the  price  of  print  paper? — A.  The  price  of  common  news- 
paper, as  Mr.  Marshall  states,  is  5f,  or  54  to  cents;  and  the  price  in 
Europe,  he  said,  was  5J,  I think. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  the  reason  why  sized  paper  should  be  5 per  cent, 
more  than  unsized  paper,  used  in  the  manufacture  of  books  and  papers  ? — 
A.  Sized  paper  requires  more  labor  to  finish  it. 

Q.  Do  they  ever  size  paper  in  this  country  that  has  been  imported 
unsized. — A.  I have  never  known  it  to  be  done. 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that  it  is  often  difficult  to  determine  whether  a paper 
is  sized  or  not  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I don’t  think  it  is  very  difficult,  generally 
speaking.  It  certainly  is  not  in  the  highest  sized  paper. 

Q.  I am  speaking  of  printing  paper  only.  We  have  had  papers  im- 
ported into  New  York  that  were  claimed  by  the  importers  to  be  un- 
sized, but  which,  on  the  part  of  the  government,  were  claimed  to  be 
sized? — A.  I suppose  an  analysis  would  show  it  at  any  rate. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  You  mention  the  expense  of  the  paper  establishment,  and  you  gave 
an  interesting  account  of  the  difference  in  prices  between  here  and 
Europe.  I would  like  to  have  you  state  what  proporton  of  that  ex- 
pense is  labor  f — A.  1 stated  from  20  to  40  per  cent,  (according  to  the 
kind  of  paper)  is  labor. 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


PAPER. 


981 


Q.  Do  you  mean  that,  in  manufacturing  paper,  from  20  to  40  per 
cent,  of  your  output  goes  into  the  hands  of  the  workmen? — A.  From 
20  to  40  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  paper  goes  to  the  laborer. 

Q.  You  mention,  also,  the  cost  of  the  plant  of  a paper  establishment, 
and  you  drew  a comparison  between  that  industry  and  various  other 
industries  in  the  country.  You  mentioned  the  buildings,  the  materials 
of  which  they  were  made,  the  foundations  of  the  machinery,  which  had 
to  be  heavy,  as  the  machinery  was  ponderous.  In  making  your  estimates 
of  the  value  of  other  leading  products,  did  you  include  the  same  material 
and  the  same  items  as  in  your  statement  of  the  cost  of  the  plant  of 
a paper  establishment? — A.  The  buildings  for  other  establishments 
require,  of  course,  timber,  brick,  and  all  that,  but  not  to  the  same  extent 
as  in  paper  establishments.  The  foundations  for  our  paper-engines  have 
to  be  heavy,  and  the  machines  have  to  be  very  strong.  The  timbers  in 
the  buildings  are  very  heavy.  I also  stated  that,  heavy  and  expensive 
as  they  were,  they  had  to  be  renewed  every  ten  or  fifteen  years.  Not  so 
with  the  buildings  for  the  manufacture  of  woolens  and  the  like. 

Q.  I want  to  get  at  the  fact  whether,  in  making  up  the  estimate  of  the 
cost  of  the  plant  of  other  leading  manufactures,  you  included  the  build- 
ings and  machinery  as  well  as  in  your  own  ? — A.  The  table  which  I made 
up  was  taken  from  the  census  reports,  which  stated  the  amount  of  capital 
invested. 

Q.  Was  your  own  also  taken  from  the  census  returns,  or  did  you  not 
put  in  your  own  estimate  of  the  buildings  ? — A . I j ust  took  all  the  returns 
I read  from  the  census  reports. 

Q.  Your  own  also? — A.  My  own  included. 

Q.  They  are  all,  then,  on  the  same  footing? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I took  a 
few  from  Evans’s  publication,  and  some  of  the  others  from  a book  issued 
by  the  go  vernm  ent — Heyl’s  Digest.  Those  two  books  don’t  agree  exactly 
in  their  statements,  but  the  discrepancy  is  accounted  for  in  this  way: 
In  Heyl,  he  takes  certain  kinds  of  paper  and  classes  them  together, 
while  in  Evans  they  are  classed  in  a different  way;  but  taking  them 
all  together  they  would  probably  foot  up  about  the  same.  I took  them 
all  from  official  sources. 

Q.  Your  statistics  came  from  the  same  sources  in  drawing  your  com- 
parison?— A.  Oh,  yes,  sir;  certainly. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  As  I understand  you,  your  idea  is  that  one  of  the  most  important 
things  in  connection  with  your  industry  is  to  be  relieved  against  the 
surplus  you  mentioned? — A.  Yes,  sir;  as  a general  thing  we  can  com- 
mand the  market  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Wellington  Smith,  again  addressing  the  Commission,  spoke 
as  follows : 

Our  secretary  has  given  us  the  main  facts  in  relation  to  this  matter 
in  a way  that  I think  you  can  understand,  but  I wish  to  refer  to  the  dif- 
ference in  prices  of  paper,  which  has  been  alluded  to  by  one  of  the  Com- 
mission. You  all  know  that  in  this  country  if  there  is  any  money  in 
any  business,  it  is  not  a great  while  before  others  get  into  it.  The  result 
has  been  that  there  has  been  a large  increase  in  the  growth  of  all  our 
industries,  paper  included.  I have  here  a table  showing  the  daily  capac- 
ity of  the  paper  mills  of  the  United  States,  as  reported  by  the  manufact- 
urers for  insertion  in  the  seventh  edition  of  Lockwood’s  Directory  of  the 
Paper  Trade  for  1881.  This  gives  it  by  States,  showing  that  the  total 
production  of  paper  is  about  2,000  tons  per  day. 


982 


TARIFF  COMMISSION 


[WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL- 


Table  showing  the  daily  capacity  in  pounds  of  the  paper  mills  of  the  United  Slates  now  run- 
ning, as  reported  hy  the  manufacturers  for  insertion  in  the  seventh  edition  of  Lockwood's 
Directory  of  the  Paper  Trade , 1881  (a). 


[Submitted  to  the  third  annual  convention  of  the  American  Paper  Makers’  Association,  by  Howard 
Lockwood,  publisher  Paper  Trade  Journal.  1 


States. 

Binders’  board. 

it) 

.9 

o 

<0 

t? 

® 

a 

o 

o 

M 

Building, roofing, 
sheathing. 

cS 

O 

Chemical  fiber 
(c). 

Collar. 

Colored  (d). 

1,  000 

12,  500 
1,000 
90,  700 
47,  000 
3,  000 
7,  900 
24,  000 
32,  000 
2,  000 
1,500 
32,  000 
86,  000 
44,  500 
289,  200 
46,  400 
7,  000 

30,  300 

1,500 

3,  000 

1,  000 

6,  000 

2,000 

23,  300 
500 

12,  090 

6,000 

3,  000 
1,  500 
10,  500 
8,  000 

2,  000 

34,  000 

2,  000 

3,  000 

Massachusetts 

6,  000 

18,  500 

30,  000 

5,500 

23, 50l 
4,  OOv 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

10,  000 
52,  800 
8,  500 
202,  900 
5,100 
108,  500 
500 
191, 400 
2,  000 
200 
9,250 
200 

28,  000 
2,  500 
2,  000 
39,  500 

New  Hampshire ....  

1,000  ' 
49,320 
1,500 

2,  000 
1,  500 
4,  000 

70,  000 

1,  400 
I 6, 80C 
8,  700 
1, 100 
16,  000 

New  J ersey  ......... 

6,  000 
5,  500 

1,500 
3,  000 

New  York  .... 

8,  000 

North  Carolina, 

Ohio 

6,  000 

2,  000 

37,  300 

Oregon  

Pennsylvania 

32,  000 

31,  000 

6,  000 
2,  000 

47,  000 

1,  500 

Rhode  Island 

South  Carolina 

Tennessee 



1,  000 

Utah 

Vermont ...... 

4,  000 

3,  000 

22,  500 
; 

Virginia 

1,000 

West  Virginia  . . . 

1,  500 

1 

Wisconsin  

;;;;;;;; 

30,  000 

2,  000 

Totals 

124,120 

11,500  |l,  390,  050  153,800 

41,  000 

199,  500 

14,  000 

111,900 

States. 

£ 

§ d 

1 jfi 

1 

& 

CS 

© 

t 

<D 

\ 

cS 

c3 

o 

m 

o 

u 

3 

s 

03 

0 

pO 

1 

w. 

s 

& 

ft 

if 

ci 

Cm 

02 

tc 

C 

'ft 

| 

if 

if 

cj 

W 

3 

O 

55 

X 

H 

California 

2,  000 

3,  000 

13,  500 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

6,  500 

9,  000 

68,  700 
750 
1,  000 
5,  900 
8,  500 
5,  900 

6,  000 

20,  200 

2,  500 

1,  700 

Delaware 

District  of  Columbia 

( J-eorg  ia 

Illinois 



87,  000 
10,  000 

54,  000 
7,  500 

Indiana 

1,  500 

(a)  This  table  shows  the  daily  capacity,  not  the  actual  production , of  all  the  mills.  The  basis  of 
the  table  is  the  statement  and  claims  of  manufacturers.  In  some  instances  figures  have  been  altered 
when  manufacturers  have  reported  a producing  capacity  which  was  evidently  incorrect  when  compared 
with  the  size  and  number  of  engines,  the  power  and"  other  details  in  our  possession,  and  which  in 
themselves  determine  very  closely  what  a mill  can  produce.  About  4 per  cent,  of  the  mills  were  idle 
at  last  reports,  the  capacity  of  which  does  not  appear  in  this  table.  Total  number  of  mills  as  last  re- 
ported, 957;  idle,  34. 

( b ) Every  kind  of  book  and  news  paper  from  all  classes  of  stock  is  embraced  in  this  column. 

(c)  These  totals  represent  the  product  of  mills  solely  devoted  to  the  manufacture  of  chemical  fiber. 
We  do  not  include  pulp  made  by  paper  mills  for  their  own  consumption. 

( d ) All  kinds  of  colored  paper,  except  ordinary  tinted  book  and  writings,  are  included  under  this 
heading. 

(e)  This  column  includes  many  small  “air-dried”  mills,  whose  product  for  the  season  aggregates  only 
a comparatively  small  amount. 

(/)  This  does  not  include  pulp  made  from  straw  at  regular  print  mills,  but  only  at  such  mills  as  sell 
to  paper-makers. 

(g)  Includes  all  kinds  of  white  and  colored  tissue. 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


PAPER. 


983 


Table  showing  the  daily  capacity  in  pounds  of  the  paper  mills,  <fc. — Continued. 


States. 

Hanging  and  cur- 
tain. 

Leather  board. 



Manilla. 

Press  board. 

| 

Straw  hoard. 

& 

Pi 

£ 

oS 

m 

Straw  wrapping. 

1 Tissue. 

6,  000 

43, 500 
1,000 

2,  000 
8,000 
16,  000 
113, 700 
1,000 
3,  000 

22,  500 



Maryland 

8,000 
500 
8, 000 

35,700 

2,000 

22,500 

M&ssftch  usotts 

13, 000 

42, 100 

1,000 

2, 000 

Michigan  . 

Minnesota 



Missouri. 

Nebraska 

New  Hampshire 

2,  900 

3,  500 
74,  800 

14,  000 
1,  200 
5,  500 

23,  400 
74,  500 
90,  200 
600 
69,  500 
500 
84,  700 

23,  000 

24,  000 
109,  500 

2,  000 

New  Jersey 

6,  500 
2,  600 

New  York 

600 

5,  000 

283,  900 

North  Carolina.  

Ohio  . ..  

110,  000 

40,  000 

13,  500 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

7,  500 
4,  000 

37,  800 

8,  300 

Rhode  Island 

South  Carolina 

500 
4,  750 

Ten  n esse,  a . 

1,  500 

Utah 

Vermont 

20,  300 
1,500 
4,  000 
38,  000 

2,  000 
14,  000 
24,  000 
18,  000 

Y irginia  

VV est  Virginia  

11,  000 

YV  isennsin  

Total  s 

112,  200 

94,300  648,900 

7,  600 

505,  000 

45,  000 

502, 400 

14,  300 

States. 

Tissue  manilla. 

Wood  pulp  ( h ). 

Pi 

P 

rP  o 
o 
£ 

Wrapping  (i). 

Writing  ( k ). 

II 

Miscellaneous. 

; 

Total  capacity  of 
States. 

California 

4,  500 
1,  000 
6,  000 

36,  500 
2,  000 
306,  800 
49, 180 

4,  000 

17,  200 
270,  000 

87,  900 
57,  500 
2,  500 
34,  500 
244,  500 
110,  300 
865,  000 
161,  900 

18,  500 
1,800 

10,  000 
238,  200 
213,  020 
1,  098, 100 
10, 300 
527,  600 
2,  000 
504,  400 
8,  000 

5,  200 
16,  500 

800 
124,  700 
21,  000 
42,  500 
183,  000 

Colorado 

Connecticut  . 

2, 800 
180 

9,  000 

16,  600 
500 

Delaware 

250 

District  of  Columbia 

Georgia 

3, 400 

Illinois 

4,  000 
9,  000 

80, 500 
14,  000 

Indiana 

3,  000 

5,  000 

Towa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

500 

3,  000 
1,600 

54,  500 
24,  000 

4,  500 
1,800 

Maine , 

47,  000 

36,  000 

1,  000 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

2,300 

20,  009 
48,  000 
4,  000 

230,  700 

Michigan  

Minnesota 

Missouri 

N ebraska 

New  Hampshsre 

3,  500 
12,  200 
3,  200 

37,  200 

3,  500 
10, 000 
64, 300 
2,  000 
92,  200 
1,  000 
29,  700 

1.500 

7,  500 
14,  000 

1.500 

8,  000 

N e w J ersey 

New  York 

210,  900 

North  Carolina 

Ohio 

24,  000 

Oregon . 

Pennsylvania 

3,  500 

6,  000 

17,  000 

1,  000 

Khode  Island 

South  Carolina 

4,  000 

500 

Tennessee 

Utah  

600 

1,200 

Vermont 

10,  500 
2,  000 

33,  200 

Virginia 

\V  est  Virginia 

Wisconsin 

28,  000 

27,  500 

Totals  

40, 180 

484,  300 

39,  000 

428, 400 

305,  700 

2, 250 

5,  275,  400 

( h ) Some  ground  wood  pulp,  made  and  used  at.  the  paper  mill,  is  not  included  in  these  aggregates. 

(i)  Includes  all  grades  of  wrapping  and  bogus,  except  straw  wrapping. 

{k)  Includes  all  grades  of  bank-note,  ledger,  flat  and  folded,  tub  and  engine-sized,  and  envelope  papers. 


984 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  FT  AL. 


I also  wish  to  state  that  we  are  paying  very  nearly  twice  as  much  for 
labor  now  as  twenty  years  ago,  and  we  are  selling  our  product  to  the 
publishers  of  the  country  at  one-half  the  prices  of  ten  years  ago.  If 
that  is  not  one  of  the  best  arguments  for  protection,  I don’t  know  where 
to  find  one.  Here  is  a great  development  in  business,  giving  emploj7- 
ment  to  labor  and  capital  and  skill  and  improvements  in  machinery, 
creating  competition  among  ourselves.  We  have  built  up  an  enormous 
business  and  have  reduced  the  cost  of  the  manufactured  article  to  the 
consumer.  That  is  true,  I think,  of  nearly  all  industries.  I am  a pro- 
tectionist from  principle,  not  from  interest,  for  I think  it  is  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  country.  I have  visited  other  countries  and  have  seen 
the  working  men  there,  and  I presume  most  of  the  members  of  this 
Commission  have,  and  we  know  that  there  is  no  country  on  the  face  of 
the  globe  where  the  poor  man  has  any  such  comforts,  houses,  and  homes 
as  in  America,  and  I attribute  it  all  to  our  system  of  protection.  As 
our  secretary  has  said,  the  foreigners  can  transport  their  products  from 
any  part  of  Europe  to  New  York  for  less  freight  than  we  pay  from  our 
mills  to  New  York.  I saw  women  tending  masons  and  working  in  the 
fields  in  Austria  at  about  40  cents  a day,  while  our  common  laborers 
here  are  paid  $1.50  a day,  and  skilled  workmen  receive  as  high  as  $3.50 ; 
and  yet  the  same  class  of  labor  in  Europe,  as  the  secretary  has  said, 
only  receives  about  one-third  that  amount.  Protection  stimulates  pro- 
duction and  gives  employment  to  labor,  and  results  in  the  home  con- 
sumption of  everything  we  raise. 

There  are  one  or  two  questions  we  can  ask  ourselves.  One  is,  is  this 
country  prosperous  oris  it  not?  And  is  it  not  the  only  country  that  makes 
any  pretense  of  paying  its  national  indebtedness  ? You  all  know  that 
in  the  last  fifteen  years  we  have  paid  olf  over  100  millions  of  our  na- 
tional debt.  Bismarck  has  alluded  to  it  in  Germany,  and  it  is  perfectly 
astonishing  to  them.  This  system  has  given  employment  to  our  own 
people,  and  at  the  same  time  we  have  paid  a large  proportion  of  our 
debt — something  that  the  world  has  never  seen  before. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Can  you  give  me  any  explanation  about  wood  pulp  % — A.  If  I can’t, 
Mr.  French  can.  I manufacture  it  and  buy  it. 

Q.  I just  wanted  to  have  some  information  from  you  as  to  whether 
you  consider  the  duties  on  wood  pulp  such  as  ought  to  be  paid  ? — A.  I 
think  that  the  duty  on  pulp  is  a very  small  one.  There  has  been  a tre- 
mendous hue  and  cry  about  a very  small  matter,  in  my  opinion.  At 
the  time  the  newspapers  attacked  the  pulp  interest,  pulp  was  selling  at 
3}  to  4 cents  a pound,  and  they  could  have  imported  it  at  that  time  and 
laid  it  down  at  2 cents  a pound,  but  nobody  felt  disposed  to  do  it.  Ow- 
ing to  the  small  protection  in  this  country  it  is  now  delivered  at  1|  to 
2 cents  a pound  dry  weight  at  thG  mills,  and  it  is  declined  to  be  received. 
In  Canada  there  is  cheap  water-power,  plenty  of  labor,  and  the  labor  is 
cheaper  than  here.  Men  will  work  in  Canada  for  one-half  of  what  they 
ask  here.  This  tariff  on  pulp  gives  the  pulp-makers  a small  protection. 
If  there  is  any  class  of  people  in  the  world  that  ought  to  be  thankful 
for  wood  pulp  it  is  the  newspapers.  If  it  were  not  for  wood  pulp  I do 
not  know  where  the  material  would  come  from  to  supply  the  immense 
demand  for  paper,  and  it  has  resulted  in  reducing  the  cost  of  printing 
paper  to  such  a low  price  as  the  world  has  never  seen  before. 

Q.  And  the  paper  manufacturers  are  perfectly  satisfied,  are  they  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir.  We  have  become  adjusted  to  the  present  duty  on  paper  and 
pulp,  and  they  a re  perfectly  satisfied,  so  far  as  I know.  At  no  time 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


PAPER. 


985 


within  twenty  years  has  the  margin  been  so  close  on  paper  as  it  is  to-day. 
Pulp  is  an  article  that  requires  a greater  investment  of  capital  than 
almost  any  other  branch  of  industry. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Wood  pulp,  you  say,  is  sold  by  the  pound  at  If  to  2 cents  a 
pound? — A.  Yes,  sir;  dry  weight. 

Q.  The  duty  is  20  per  cent.  Would  not  consumers,  in  your  opinion, 
prefer  a specific  instead  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  per  cent.? — A.  I don’t 
know  that  there  is  very  much  difference.  They  simply  want  a protec- 
tion against  the  cheap  water-power,  wood  and  labor  of  Canada.  I think 
the  more  specific  you  can  get  all  duties  the  better. 

Q.  Is  there  much  of  it  brought  from  Canada  now? — A.  I do  not 
know. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  Canada  prices  ? — A.  I do  not.  People  cannot 
be  very  onerously  taxed  on  an  article  that  will  sell  for  2 cents  a pound, 
and  any  tariff  that  could  be  put  upon  it  would  not,  in  my  judgment, 
affect  the  price  of  paper  at  all. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  There  are  a great  many  varieties,  are  there  not? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
there  are  some  of  the  finer  grades  made  by  chemical  processes. 

Mr.  J.  W.  French,  of  Three  Rivers,  Michigan,  present  president  of 
the  American  Paper-Makers’  Association,  was  next  introduced  to  the 
committee,  and  said: 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : The  ques- 
tion of  the  duty  on  pulp  seems  to  have  been  raised  here  at  this  time; 
and  as  I have  been  quite  largely  engaged  in  its  manufacture  for  several 
years,  I would  like  to  make  a statement.  I was  connected  with  the  first 
institution  that  manufactured  ground  wood  pulp  in  the  Western  States. 
This  was  perhaps  in  the  neighborhood  of  I860,  and  it  was  with  very 
great  difficulty  that  we  could  get  the  wood  pulp  introduced  into  the 
market  in  the  manufacture  of  paper.  The  great  difficulty  was  that  the 
newsaapers,  one  and  all,  pitched  into  the  paper  manufacturers,  and  even 
went  so  far  as  to  say  to  them,  “If  you  put  any  wood  pulp  into  our  paper 
we  shall  cancel  all  orders  and  refuse  to  buy  any  more  from  you.”  At 
that  time  and  up  to  1870,  say,  fine  wood  pulp  was  worth  6 cents  a pound. 
I know  of  no  parties  at  that  time  who  were  able  to  make  a pound  of 
wood  pulp  for  less  than  about  4 to  4J  or  5 cents  a pound,  prime  cost.  It 
was  a matter  that  the  manufacturers  knew  little  about.  In  the  first 
place,  we  got  our  machines,  and  they  told  us  that  a machine  of  20  to  25 
horse  power  was  all  that  was  required.  The  result  was  that  the  product 
of  our  mills  was  very  small.  W e didn’t  know  how  to  make  it,  and  the 
paper  manufacturers  didn’t  know  how  to  use  it,  but  gradually  we  im- 
proved the  manufacture;  we  manufactured  cheaper  and  put  the  prices 
down.  The  price  went  down  from  6 to  5 ; then  to  5 J ; then  down  to  4 
and  to  3,  on  account  of  the  competition.  New  mills  being  started  we 
ascertained  that  instead  of  putting  25  horse-power  engines  in  we  could 
use  50  horse  power,  and  then  we  ascertained  that  we  could  use  75,  and 
then  100.  We  got  up  various  kinds  of  machinery  for  preparing  the 
wood,  which  largely  reduced  the  cost  of  manufacturing  the  pulp,  until 
finally  there  was  a time  when  pulp  came  down  to  2J  cents  a pound  de- 
livered at  the  mill.  In  1879  the  prices  of  the  stock  of  all  grades  ad- 


986 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL. 


vanced  largely.  Pags,  paper,  and  various  kinds  of  stock  that  enter  into 
the  manufacture  of  paper  advanced  from  50  to  125  per  cent. 

Now,  right  here,  gentlemen,  while  all  this  advance  was  going  on  in 
other  stocks,  the  price  of  wood  pulp  simply  advanced  25  per  cent.  only. 
No  stock  that  entered  into  the  manufacture  of  paper  but  advanced  in 
larger  proportion,  and  yet,  what  did  the  newspapers  say  of  us  ? Nothing 
very  flattering  certainly  to  the  wood-pulp  manufacturers.  What  is  the 
result  of  the  manufacture  of  wood  pulp  ? To-day  there  is  made  in  the 
United  States  150  tons  of  ground  wood  pulp  daily,  and  the  same  quan- 
tity of  chemical  wood  pulp,  so  that  we  have  about  300  tons  daily  enter- 
ing into  the  various  kinds  of  paper  manufactured  in  this  country. 
There  was  a large  amount  of  money  invested  in  the  patents.  Those  patents 
were  stolen  by  Canadians,  and  there  they  commenced  manufacturing  wood 
pulp  by  our  patents  without  paying  for  them.  Of  course,  if  the  patents 
cost  them  nothing,  they  could  very  readily  put  their  pulp  into  the  mills 
in  this  country,  if  there  was  no  duty,  and  shut  us  all  out.  One  con- 
cern that  I was  connected  with  paid  $57,000  towards  the  patents  on  the 
wood  pulp.  If  our  Canadian  friends  have  cheaper  wood,  cheaper  labor, 
and  pay  nothing  for  patents,  of  course  they  could  come  in  here  and  up- 
set us  if  there  was  no  tariff.  Were  it  not  for  the  reason  that  wood  pulp 
had  been  brought  forward,  or  some  other  substance  found  that  would 
answer  in  its  stead  (and  which  has  not  been  found),  my  impression  is 
that  printing  paper  to-day  would  be  selling  for  25  cents  a pound. 
There  is  no  surplus  of  rags  on  the  market,  and  if  you  will  take  the  pains 
to  figure  300  tons  a day  for  a year,  you  will  see  what  an  enormous 
amount  of  stock  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  paper.  If  we  should 
wipe  that  out  the  newspapers  that  are  crying  out  against  the  paper 
and  pulp  manufacturers  as  monopolists  would  stop  that. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  When  you  say  print  paper,  do  you  mean  the  paper  upon 
which  newspapers  are  printed  ? — Answer.  I mean  such  as  newspapers 
are  printed  on ; just  such  paper  as  that  produced  after  the  war  was 
worth  9 cents  and  upwards  a pound,  and  to-day  it  is  selling  for  5J  to  6 
cents  a pound,  perhaps  owing  to  the  quality  of  the  paper.  Of  course 
you  readily  understand  that  certain  grades  of  wheat  flour  sell  for  $5  a 
barrel ; but  Mr.  A.,  it  may  be,  has  put  in  new  machinery,  and  makes  a 
better  flour  worth,  $7  a barrel ; so  in  the  quality  of  paper — it  is  not  all 
of  uniform  quality.  One  man  wants  paper  made  entirely  of  rags,  and 
he  is  willing  to  pay  for  it ; another  party  wants  cheaper  paper,  into 
the  manufacture  of  which  wood  pulp  may  enter. 

What  I want  to  say  is  this : that  while  paper  was  9 cents  a pound  a 
few  years  ago,  and  to-day  it  is  cheaper,  the  duty  remains  the  same. 
But,  as  my  friend  Mr.  Smith  has  said,  there  is  plenty  of  capital  in  this 
country,  and  when  any  one  branch  of  business  appears  to  be  one  in  which 
there  is  a large  amount  of  money  to  be  made,  there  are  plenty  of  men 
ready  to  put  up  new  mills  and  invest  their  capital.  The  erection  of  mills  in 
this  country  has  advanced  within  the  last  two  years  to  a greater  extent 
than  at  any  time  within  the  past,  perhaps.  I don’t  think  there  has  been  * 
any  time  when  there  have  been  so  many  new  mills  erected,  and  in  pro- 
cess of  erection,  as  in  the  last  two  years. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  You  mean  in  reference  to  the  manufacture  of  paper  ? — A.  I mean 
in  all  grades  of  paper.  I refer  to  paper,  of  course. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Yrou  argue  from  that  that  the  profit  on  paper  manufacture  is 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.  | 


PAPER. 


987 


greater  no  w t han  heretofore  ? — A.  No,  sir ; hut  the  newspapers  gave  people 
to  understand  that  all  that  was  necessary  for  any  man  or  set  of  men  to 
do,  if  they  had  any  desire  to  become  millionaires,  was  to  build  a paper 
mill.  They  advertised  that  broadcast  over  the  country,  and  the  result 
is  seen  in  the  number  of  mills  being  erected.  There  is  no  business  to- 
day that  has  received,  perhaps,  as  close  and  careful  attention  as  that  of 
paper-making  in  order  to  make  both  ends  meet.  There  is  no  question 
about  that.  The  duty  on  wood  pulp  is  20  per  cent.  I suppose  our 
Canadian  friends  are  selling  pulp  to-day  for  less  than  we  are,  and  I 
know  the  wood-pulp  mills  in  this  country  to-day  are  shut  down  for  want 
of  orders.  They  are  willing  to  place  this  pulp  at  the  mills  throughout 
the  country  at  two  cents  a pound,  and  yet  there  are  not  a sufficient 
number  of  orders  to  keep  the  mills  running.  Now,  I am  credibly  in- 
formed that  the  pulp  mills  in  Canada  sell  their  pulp  as  high  there  as 
we  do  here;  but  if  they  can  dispose  of  their  surplus  here  occasionally 
and  sustain  the  full  price,  they  are  all  right.  We  have  invested  our 
money — Isay  “ we ; ” I meanthe  wood-pulp  manufacturers  in  this  country 
as  well  as  the  paper  manufacturers — in  the  plant,  and  towns  are  built 
up.  They  have  got  their  operatives,  their  labor,  and  their  facilities  for 
doing  business.  If  foreigners  come  in  here  and  dump  a little  surplus 
into  our  market  we  must  put  up  the  tariff.  Suppose  a gentleman 
comes  here,  to  Chicago,  to-morrow  morning  with  two  car-loads  of  paper, 
which  he  sells  at  o cents;  what  is  the  result?  To-morrow  night’s  mail 
goes  out  from  this  city  to  every  paper  manufacturer  in  this  country, 
and  those  letters  will  say,  “You  must  reduce  the  price  of  paper.  We 
can  buy  at  5 cents  a pound.”  They  don’t  know  exactly  how  much 
papqr  is  offered,  but  they  say,  “We  can  buy  at  that  price.  We  like  to 
trade  with  you,  and  if  you  will  reduce  the  price  we  will  give  you  the 
preference  in  our  orders.”  You  see  the  damage  that  is  done  in  that 
way.  It  is  the  little  surplus  that  the  Canadians  drop  in  on  our  market, 
and  we  must  conform  to  them  or  shut  up  our  mills,  as  the  case  may  be. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q,.  Your  special  business  is  the  ma  nufacture  of  wood  pulp  ? — x\.  Wood 
pulp  and  paper.  I am  connected  with  some  three  or  four  paper  mills, 
and  manufacture  paper  more  largely  than  wood  pulp ; yet  1 am  con- 
nected with  several  wood-pulp  manufactories. 

Q.  You  state  that  when  you  introduced  or  attempted  to  introduce 
wood  pulp  the  newspapers  objected  to  it,  and  even  refused  to  give  you 
orders.  What  was  the  ground  of  their  objection  ? — A.  At  the  start  it 
was  that  wood  pulp  would  make  a paper  that  they  could  not  use ; that 
it  would  spoil  their  type.  Now  they  come  to  us  and  say,  “We  would 
like  to  have  some  paper,  but  we  must  have  wood  pulp  in  it.”  They  have 
ascertained  one  fact : that  the  type  will  last  longer  where  the  paper  con- 
tains wood  pulp  than  with  other  kinds  of  paper. 

Q.  Experience  has  proved  that  you  were  right  and  they  were  wrong  ? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  manufacture  of  wood  pulp,  not  paper,  what  amount  ot 
labor  do  you  pay  for  in  proportion  to  your  other  disbursements  ? — A. 
In  wood  pulp  the  labor  is  about  60  to  70  per  cent,  of  the  cost. 

Q.  Is  that  common  labor  or  skilled  ? — A.  A portion  is  skilled  and  a 
portion  common.  Of  course  we  have  to  have  our  machinists,  the  same 
as  in  the  paper  mills,  because  it  is  run  over  the  machines  in  the  same 
manner  as  paper. 

Q.  What  proportion  is  skilled  and  what  proportion  is  common  labor? 
— A.  I presume  likely  two-thirds  of  the  labor  would  be  classed  as  com- 


988 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL. 


mon  labor.  There  was  a time  when  the  labor  in  the  making  of  wood 
pulp  was  over  3 cents  a pound. 

Q.  By  that  you  do  not  mean  the  labor  of  bringing  the  sawdust  or 
wood  to  your  mill  ? — A.  No ; we  buy  our  wood  delivered  at  the  mill,  at 
a specified  price. 

Q.  Your  common  labor  is  confined  to  the  handling  of  raw  material  at 
your  mills  ? — A.  Certainly.  We  have  the  wood  delivered  at  the  mill. 
We  count  no  labor  before  the  wood  is  delivered  there. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  kind  of  wood  is  used  ? — A.  Several  kinds  are  used.  The 
wood  that  is  mostly  used  for  printing  paper  is  what  we  call  poplar  wood. 
Then,  there  is  the  wood  that  goes  into  the  pulp  that  makes  manila 
paper;  that  is  spruce.  Poplar  and  spruce  are  the  two  woods  that  are 
mostly  used  in  making  ground-wood  pulp. 

Q.  Is  wood  pulp  used  in  Europe? — A.  Yes,  sir;  very  largely.  The 
first  process  of  making  wood  pulp  originated  in  Germany.  They  were 
using  it  there  prior  to  its  being  used  in  this  country.  Parties  took  the 
ground  at  the  time  of  the  great  rise  in  paper,  some  three  years  ago,  that 
the  cause  of  the  rise  was  the  advance  in  wood  pulp.  The  advance  in 
wood  pulp  simply  increased  the  cost  of  paper  not  to  exceed  one  cent  a 
pound. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  was  the  total  rise  in  paper  at  that  time  ? — A.  Print  paper 
went  from  about  6 to  9 cents,  while  wood  pulp  only  advanced  25  per 
cent.  For  instance,  we  bought  rags  at  $1.60  per  hundred,  and  2 pounds 
of  rags  make  a pound  of  paper. 

Hon.  W.  H.  H.  Stowell,  a paper  manufacturer  of  Appleton,  Wis., 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

Mr.  President,  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : The  ground  has 
been  pretty  well  covered  on  this  question,  and  I only  desire  simply  to 
state  that  a workman  that  we  have  received  from  us  $2.50  a day.  He 
went  over  to  England  about  six  months  ago,  as  he  had  a little  Sort  of 
an  invention  that  he  had  made,  and  which  he  thought  he  would  like  to 
introduce  there.  Since  he  has  been  there  I have  received  a letter  from 
him  in  which  he  says  that  engine-men  receive  75  cents  a day  there, 
while  they  are  paid  here  $2.25.  His  statement  agrees  very  closely  with 
that  made  by  Mr.  Marshall.  The  pay  here  is  about  three  times  what  it 
is  in  England.  I took  the  trouble  a little  while  ago,  with  reference  to 
our  own  business,  to  make  a little  estimate,  as  correct  as  I could  make 
it,  of  what  proportion  of  the  20  per  cent,  duty  covered  the  wages  of  the 
workmen.  I figured  up  the  difference  in  prices  and  estimated  about 
how  many  men  of  the  different  classes  there  were  in  the  mills,  what  their 
wages  were  in  oiy  own  mill,  as  an  example,  and  the  total  amount  of 
wages.  I then  figured  what  the  same  number  of  men  would  receive  in 
England  according  to  the  estimate,  and  also  the  proportion  that  labor 
costs  in  the  manufacture  of  paper,  taking  the  total  cost  of  the  paper,  and 
finding  what  proportion  is  common  labor.  As  I figure  it  out,  it  came 
to  15  per  cent,  of  the  20  per  cent.  duty.  That  covers  the  difference  in 
labor.  The  other  5 per  cent,  would  go  to  the  manufacturer  or  go  to 
cover  any  difference  there  is  in  the  cost  of  material.  But  about  15  per 
cent  of  the  duty  that  is  now  upon  paper  covers  the  difference  in  the  cost 
of  labor  between  England  and  America.  It  took  quite  elaborate  figur- 
ing to  reach  it.  1 did  not  bring  the  figures  with  me  at  all,  because  I am 


PAPER. 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


989 


rather  indisposed  and  hardly  expected  to  be  here  to-day.  I simply  make 
that  statement,  however. 

I think  that  there  was  one  point  that  Mr.  French  stated  in  the  cost  of 
labor  in  the  making-  of  pulp  that  I will  hardly  agree  with,  as  to  00  per 
cent,  covering  the  cost.  I should  put  it  at  a higher  figure. 

Commissioner  Kenner,  he  said  60  to  70  per  cent. 

Mr.  French.  That  does  not  include  the  wood. 

Mr.  Stowell.  Some  of  the  men  who  make  pulp  cut  their  own  wood. 
I should  think  the  cost  was  90  to  95  per  cent.  It  is  labor  almost  alto- 
gether, with  the  exception  of  the  interest  on  the  capital,  the  insurance, 
taxes,  and  the  stumpage;  the  stumpage  amounts  to  practically  nothing. 
Everything  else  is  labor  in  the  manufacture  of  paper. 

By  Commsssioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  And  profit,  of  course? — A.  Profits  are  getting  down  pretty  small, 
now  as  low  on  wood  pulp  as  they  are  on  paper.  Wood  pulp  used  to  pay  a 
little  larger  per  cent,  than  paper,  but  I think  they  are  about  equal  now. 
Like  other  manufacturing  business,  it  barely  pays  a living  profit.  The 
way  it  lias  been  the  last  six  months,  I think  quite  a large  per  cent,  of 
them  are  not  paying  that  much.  I think  a great  many  of  them  are  not 
making  any  money. 

In  regard  to  prices  of  paper,  Mr.  Smith  made  the  statement  that  the 
price  of  paper  a number  of  years  ago — I could  not  say  how  many — was 
25  cents  a pound  and  had  gone  down ; I heard  of  paper  being  offered 
here  in  Chicago,  yesterday,  at  5.20  cts.  per  pound,  that  was  about  one- 
half  wood  pulp. 

I wanted  to  call  attention  to  one  thing:  While  the  price  of  paper  has 
gone  down  from  25  cents  a pound  to  about  5J,  the  newspapers  them- 
selves have  never  lowered  their  subscription  price.  The  subscription 
price  of  the  Chicago  Tribune  was  $12  a year  when  paper  was  25  cents  a 
pound,  and  all  through  these  years,  when  the  price  has  been  gradually 
falling,  it  has  remained  the  same. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  That  is  a question  between  the  newspaper  publishers  and  the  pub- 
lic with  which  we  have  nothing  to  do.  I would  like  to  ask  you  a question, 
however.  You  made  a statement  just  now  which  was  very  interesting. 
You  said  you  had  made  a calculation  by  which  you  judged  that  about 
15  per  cent,  of  the  duty  inured  to  the  benefit  of  labor.  You  say  you 
have  not  that  paper  with  you.  Can  you  furnish  us  with  that  paper,  or 
give  us  verbally  the  basis  upon  which  you  made  your  calculations? 
How  did  you  proceed? — A.  I did  not  bring  the  paper  with  me,  because 
I am  not  feeling  physically  in  a good  condition,  and  hardly  expected  to 
be  here.  I arrived  here  this  morning;  the  other  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee got  here  yesterday.  I came  in  at  the  last  moment.  I took  the 
number  of  men  in  our  own  mill,  where  we  employ  about  150  men.  We 
pay  different  prices  for  wages,  of  course — I should  say  from  $1.50  to  $5 
rpe  day.  Our  young  men,  of  course,  we  pay  much  more.  Then  I obtained 
from  the  United  States  statistical  commission,  and  from  other  sources, 
— the  best  I could  get,  like  this  letter  I got,  for  instance — the  wages 
paid  in  the  English  mills  for  corresponding  labor.  I then  had  the  basis 
for  a comparison  between  the  two.  I went  over  my  ledger  and  found 
out  exactly  what  the  total  cost  of  making  that  paper  was.  We  make 
so  many  pounds  during  the  year,  and  it  cost  us  so  much  money  to  make  it, 
and  that  would  give  the  rate  per  pound — about  5 cents  a pound,  as  I re- 
collect, or  5J,  perhaps,  without  counting  interest  and  other  things. 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WELLINGTON  (SMITH  ET  AL. 


990 


Then  the  labor  cost  a certain  proportion  of  that.  Then  I took  the  dif- 
ference in  labor  between  the  two  countries,  and  I figured  it  out  that  it 
amounted  to  about  15  per  cent.  That  was  the  process  I employed.  Of 
course,  what  would  be  true  of  the  mill  I am  interested  in  would  not  be 
exactly  true  of  other  mills.  We  make  two  kinds  of  paper,  for  instance. 
It  is  not  strictly  true  for  either  kind  of  paper  we  make.  I had  to  take 
the  whole  amount.  I suppose  I could  have  separated  the  items,  but  I 
took  the  total  amounts.  We  make  a print  paper  and  a manila  paper, 
and  different  grades  of  manilas.  We  make  five  or  six  kinds  of  paper. 
Taking  the  average  paper  we  make,  and  the  cost  to  us  of  making  it,  15 
per  cent,  was  just  about — indeed,  almost  exactly — thedifference  in  labor. 
I thought  that  would  be  a statement  that  would  be,  perhaps,  as  practi- 
cal and  interesting  as  any  other. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  you  will  present  that  statement. — A.  I will 
send  it  to  the  Commission  if  desired. 

Q.  What  source  was  it  you  got  your  foreign  wages  from? — A.  I said  I 
got  them  from  the  statistical  bureau,  and  from  such  other  sources  as  I 
could  find  that  gave  the  rates  of  wages  paid.  For  instance,  this  letter 
I got  from  one  of  our  former  employes;  that  is  definite.  He  is  a man 
whom  I know  personally.  He  has  worked  in  Appleton.  He  is  now 
working  in  England.  He  gave  the  rates  of  wages  paid  there,  and  says 
he  is  going  to  come  back  to  this  country  just  as  soon  as  he  gets  through 
with  his  little  patent. 

By  the  President  : 

Are  you  familiar  with  the  manufacture  of  wood  pulp  ? — A.  I have  had 
some  little  experience. 

Q.  Is  it  made  of  wood  that  would  be  otherwise  useless? — A.  It  is 
made  of  poplar,  spruce,  and  pine.  It  is  one  of  the  anomalies  of  trade 
that  when  a thing  is  perfectly  useless  it  becomes  valuable.  Poplar  is 
almost  entirely  useless  except  for  making  pulp.  I never  heard  of  its 
being  used  for  anything  else.  We  grind  about  one-half  poplar  and  one- 
half  pine  for  our  pulp.  To  follow  out  your  question  still  further — per- 
haps you  might  get  an  erroneous  impression — we  pay  about  twice  for 
the  poplar  what  we  do  for  the  pine.  It  is  a singular  thing  that  poplar 
is  almost  entirely  useless  for  anything  else,  while  pine  is  valuable  for 
other  things,  and  yet  our  poplar  wood  costs  us  fully  twice  as  much  as 
the  pine. 

Q.  The  manufacture  of  wood  pulp  has  made  a product  of  the  soil  val- 
uable which  before  was  valueless? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  part  of  it  is  true. 
I thought  perhaps  you  had  a different  thing  in  view. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Is  it  yellow  poplar? — A.  White  poplar.  We  have  to  get  a pulp 
that  will  make  white  paper. 

Q.  Will  yellow  poplar  answer  at  all? — A.  I never  heard  of  its  being 
used.  Basswood  will  not  do.  It  turns  red.  Pine  makes  a good  pulp 
that  has  a good  color,  and  is  used  in  wrapping  paper. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Is  it  the  tulip  poplar? — A.  I do  not  know  the  botanical  name.  It 
requires  the  white  poplar  tree. 

Mr.  C.  O.  Chapin  subsequently  furnished  to  the  Commission  the  fol- 
lowing tabular  statement: 


WELLINGTON  SMITH  ET  AL.] 


PAPER. 


991 


Comparison  of  rates  of  ivayes  paid  at  Chapin  Gralte’s  mill , in  Russell,  Mass.,  in  1860 

and  1882. 


Product  paper.  j *»*•  ^weck, 

Rate  per  week, 
1882. 

Machine-tender 

$9  00 

4 00  to  $6  00 
7 00 

5 00 
7 50 

6 50 

7 00 
6 00 

10  00 

8 00 
6 00 

$15  00  to  $18  00 
9 00  to  10  00 
12  00 
7 00 
12  50 
12  00 
12  00 
12  00 

10  00  to  19  50 
12  00 
9 00 

Machine-helper 

Engineer  on  rag-engines - 

Helper  on  rag- engines 

Calender-men  

'Finishers 

TiOftman . . 

Ragman 

Machinist  or  millwright 

Carpenter _ . _ _ 

Size  ni alter __ __ __ 

Calender- girls per  month. . 

Sorter-girls do 

Rag- room  girls . do 

11  50  to  14  00 
11  00  to  13  50 
10  00  to  20  00 

20  00  to  32  00 
19  00  to  24  00 
15  00  to  40  00 

Mr.  Marshall,  of  the  Montague  Paper  Company,  Massachusetts, 
states  that  in  England  machine* tenders  were  paid  in  July,  1882,  $9  to 
$10  per  week;  that  girls  were  at  work  doing  the  labor  we  employ  men 
to  do,  the  girls  doing  for  10  shillings,  or  $2.40  per  week,  what  we  pay 
men  $9  to  $10  per  week  for,  and  that  rag-room  and  finishing-room  girls 
receive  in  England  $2.50  per  week,  while  our  girl  help  received  $5  to 
$7  per  week  for  the  same  kind  of  work.  Mr.  Stowell  stated  that  rag- 
engineers  received  in  England  $4.50  per  week,  and  here  he  paid  them 
$13.50  per  week. 


992 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  KCELKENBECK. 


H.  KCELKENBECK. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  8, 1882. 

Mr.  H.  Kcelkenbeck  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the 
following  statement: 

I appear  before  you,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Com- 
mission, in  order  to  plead  the  cause  of  the  total  abolition  of  the  duty  on 
raw  flax  and  tow,  and  the  retention  of  the  present  rate  of  duty  on  linen 
goods.  If  I were  to  follow  my  own  inclination,  I would  advocate  at 
least  a reduction  and  simplification  of  the  present  rates  of  duty  on  the 
latter  too,  but  I shall  be  satisfied  if,  for  the  present,  I succeed  in  creat- 
ing a favorable  impression  in  your  minds  as  to  the  reasonableness  of 
putting  raw  flax  on  the  free  list. 

I cannot  conceal  from  myself  the  difficulties  with  which  the  task  I 
have  undertaken  is  surrounded.  I have  to  combat  some  very  able  argu- 
ments brought  forward  by  the  gentlemen  who  appeared  before  you  at 
Long  Branch  on  July  28 ; but  I may  remark  that  they  confined  them- 
selves, in  advocating  a further  very  considerable  increase  of  duty  on  the 
above  articles,  to  the  vague,  much  used,  and,  I may  add,  abused,  phrase 
of  “pauper  labor  in  Europe,”  without  attempting  to  bring  forward 
actual  facts  and  figures  bearing  on  the  question.  I shall,  therefore, 
apply  myself  to  the  task  of  proving  that  so  far  as  the  articles  before  us 
are  concerned,  the  “pauper  labor  of  Europe”  is  not  at  all  to  be  feared  by 
the  producer  of  flax  in  the  West.  I shall  begin  by  stating  that — 

1st.  Flax  can  be  produced  in  the  Western  States  of  America  much 
more  cheaply  than  in  any  country  of  Europe;  “pauper  labor”  is  not 
the  principal  factor  in  the  production  of  flax,  but  the  rent,  which  in 
Ireland,  Belgium,  France,  and  Germany  is  very  high. 

2d.  The  assertion  of  the  committee  of  flax  growers  of  the  State  of 
New  York  and  of  the  flax- spinning  companies  of  Paterson  and  Troy, 
to  the  effect  that  the  increase  of  duty  on  flax,  tow,  yarn,  and  linen 
would  give  an  impetus  to  the  manufacture  of  coarse  fabrics  and  give 
value  to  the  flax,  of  which  500,000  tons  are  annually  burned  or  allowed 
to  rot  in  the  Western  States,  I believe  to  be  a fallacy.  The  consump- 
tion of  foreign  flax  in  the  Eastern  factories  has  risen  from  1,927  tons  in 
1870  to  5,440  tons  in  1881,  while  the  quantity  in  the  fiscal  year  1881-’82 
has  remained  stationary.  The  actual  quantity  of  flax  straw  annually 
burned  or  left  to  rot  in  these  Western  States  is  about  800,000  tons,  which 
would  yield  about  150,000  tons  of  flax  fiber ; this  is  about  25,000  tons 
more  than  Belfast,  with  its  immense  number  of  spinning  mills  and  linen 
factories,  annually  consumes,  and  I believe  I am  not  very  far  wrong  in 
saying  that  the  time  when  American  factories  will  annually  consume 
the  above  vast  quantity  of  raw  flax  is  still  very  remote,  taking  the  prog- 
ress made  during  the  last  decade  as  a basis. 

But  the  before-mentioned  800,000  tons  of  flax  straw  are  by  no  means 
suitable  for  being  converted  into  material  for  manufacturing  purposes, 
but  are  only  fit  for  upholstery  stuff*,  coarse  twine,  and  cotton  bagging, 
and  no  amount  of  duty  on  imported  flax  will  induce  the  Western  farmer 
either  to  increase  the  quantity  or  improve  the  quality  of  the  flax  straw 
as  now  produced,  but  only  the  erection  of  flax  mills  in  his  immediate 
neighborhood,  where  he  could  dispose  of  his  produce,  and  his  gradual 


II.  KCELKENHECK.J 


FLAX. 


993 


education  in  an  improved  method  of  flax  culture,  of  which  he  is  now 
totally  ignorant. 

3d.  Now  as  regards  the  “pauper  labor  in  Europe,”  a term  which  has 
been  very  profusely  applied  by  our  Eastern  friends  to  the  flax  industry, 
when  they  appeared  before  you  on  July  28,  at  Long  Branch,  I have 
shown  that  it  does  not  prevent  our  Western  farmers  from  producing 
flax  very  much  cheaper  than  their  European  competitors;  in  fact,  the 
preparation  of  the  land  for  the  flax  crop,  the  plowing,  harrowing,  sow- 
ing, weeding,  harvesting,  is  not  dearer  here  than  in  Europe.  Where, 
however,  the  said  “pauper  labor”  comes  in,  and  would  really  be  a seri- 
ous item,  is  in  the  preparation  of  the  fiber  for  manufacturing  purposes, 
the  rotting  (or  retting),  the  breaking,  scutching,  hackling  of  the  flax. 

These  complicated  operations  our  Western  farmer  will,  I am  afraid, 
never  consent  to  undertake,  owing,  as  I stated  before,  to  his  ignorance 
of  the  process,  but  chiefly  because  he  has  no  time  for  it.  His  wheat 
and  corn  crops,  his  stock,  and  many  other  things  do  not  leave  him  any 
leisure  to  go  through  the  process  of  preparing  the  flax  fiber  for  the 
market. 

I may,  therefore,  I think,  assert  that  our  immense  wealth  in  flax  straw 
will  continue  to  go  to  waste  until  flax  mills  are  established  and  multi- 
plied all  over  the  country,  the  flax  bought  from  the  farmer  right  from 
the  field,  rotted,  scutched,  &c.,  by  men  who  thoroughly  understand  the 
handling  of  flax. 

But  to  return  to  the  “pauper  labor  of  Europe,”  as  applied  to  the  prepa- 
ration of  flax:  I wish  to  remark  that  the  breaking,  hackling,  &c.,  is  done 
in  Europe  almost  universally  by  hand  labor,  whereas  we  have  in  the 
United  States  several  excellent  machines  which  do  the  work  more 
quickly,  more  economically,  and  better  than  can  be  done  by  hand.  I 
believe,  therefore,  that  in  this  respect  also  we  have  nothing  to  fear  from 
European  competition. 

As  regards  the  assertion  of  a member  of  the  Saratoga  committee  that 
“ there  was  no  chance  of  making  Irish  linen”  in  this  country,  I quite 
agree  with  him ; for  if  ever  we  set  about  making  linen  it  will  be  thor- 
oughly American,  whereas  the  so-called  Irish  linen  is  chiefly  made  of 
Belgian,  Dutch,  and  Bussian  flax,  because  Ireland  produces  only  about 
20,000  or  25,000  tons  of  flax,  while  her  consumption  is  about  125,000  tons 
per  annum. 

As  to  the  climate  and  the  nice  sort  of  grass  which  grows  in  Ireland, 
they  have  nothing  to  do  witli  the  bleaching,  which,  for  the  last  fifty 
years,  is  entirely  done  by  a chemical  process.  It  is  true  that  during 
this  process,  which  lasts  about  thirty  days,  the  linen  is  laid  for  about 
twelve  days,  at  intervals,  on  grass,  but  only  to  be  exposed  to  the  atmos- 
phere, and  any  kind  of  grass  will  do  for  that  purpose. 

I may  further  remark  that  Ireland  is  by  no  means  the  only  country 
which  produces  excellent  linens  and  bleaches  them  admirably ; and, 
passing  over  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  and  Austria,  all  of  which 
countries  manufacture  considerable  quantities  of  superior  linens,  I may 
be  allowed,  by  way  of  contrast,  to  speak  of  the  beautiful  linens  pro- 
duced by  Messrs.  Grib  an  off  & Sons,  of  Vologda,  Bussia  (at  about  one 
thousand  miles  from  St.  Petersburg),  and  the  linen  goods  sent  to  the 
Paris  Exposition  of  1878  by  Messrs.  Hille  & Dietrich,  of  Girardova,  in 
Bussian  Poland,  regarding  which  the  Uniied  States  Commissioner 
states  in  his  report  that  “ they  were  superb  in  manufacture  and  finish.” 
Neither  of  these  two  firms  sent  their  goods  to  Ireland  to  be  bleached 
and  finished,  and  a greater  contrast  in  point  of  climate  between  Ireland 
and  Bussia  could  not  well  be  imagined.  1 conclude  from  this  that  there 
H.  Mis.  G 03 


994 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  KCELKEN  BECK. 


is  absolutely  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  United  States  could  not  pro- 
duce all  the  linen  they  consume  ; and  I believe  I have  shown  to  your 
satisfaction — 

First.  That  we  are  able  in  the  Western  States  to  produce  flax  a great 
deal  cheaper  than  any  European  country  5 that  consequently  the  West- 
ern flax  grower  needs  no  protection. 

Second.  That  by  means  of  our  excellent  machinery  we  are  able  to 
compete  with  the  u pauper  labor”  by  hand  in  Europe  in  the  preparation 
of  the  fiber  for  the  market. 

Third.  That  the  American  climate  would  be  no  barrier  to  our  manu- 
facturing, bleaching,  and  finishing  all  sorts  of  linens,  from  the  coarsest 
to  the  finest,  and  that,  having  raw  material  in  immense  abundance  and 
much  cheaper  than  any  European  country  at  our  disposal,  I may  safely 
conclude  that  we  would  be  able  to  produce  all  the  linen  goods  we  con- 
sume at  a lower  cost  price  than  any  of  the  aforementioned  nations, 
provided — 

First.  That  an  improved  mode  of  flax  cultivation  be  introduced  into 
the  Western  States,  to  which  end  our  farmers  must  be  gradually  edu- 
cated, and  the  present  cultivation  of  flax  for  the  seed  only  be  aban- 
doned to  a certain  extent. 

Second.  That  a number  of  flax  mills  for  the  preparation  of  the  fiber 
be  erected  in  the  Western  States,  in  order  to  promote  flax  culture;  and 
nothing  would  show  better  the  interest  of  our  Eastern  manufacturers 
in  this  matter  than  if  they  took  the  initiative  and  the  lead,  to  which 
they  are  entitled  by  their  experience  and  their  need  of  the  ra  w material 
we  could  produce.  My  conclusion  is,  that  an  industry  which  can  be 
carried  on  under  such  favorable  conditions  does  not  need  any  more  pro- 
tection than  it  already  enjoys,  and  that  the  enormous  increase  of  duty 
on  flax,  tow,  yarn,  and  linen  goods  would  be  an  unjust  and  unnecessary 
burden  and  taxation  put  on  50,000,000  American  citizens  for  the  sole 
benefi  t of  a dozen  of  manufacturers  of  such  fabrics,  as  stated  by  a mem- 
ber of  the  Saratoga  committee. 

In  conclusion,  I beg  to  ask  that  raw  flax  and  tow  be  placed  on  the 
free  list,  like  raw  silk  and  raw  cotton,  in  order  to  enable  the  home  man- 
ufacturer to  produce  cheap  linen  goods,  twines,  &c. 

As  for  all  manufactured  linen  goods,  if  the  duty  cannot  be  lightened, 
at  least  let  the  present  rates  of  duty  not  be  increased. 

I give  an  extract  from  a letter  received  from  a practical  flax  grower  re- 
siding in  the  vicinity  of  Rotterdam,  who,  having  heard  of  the  intended 
cultivation  of  flax  for  the  fiber  in  the  Western  States,  wishes  to  take  an 
interest  in  it.  He  writes  as  follows: 

Although  this  enterprise,  like  the  beginning  of  everything  else  in  this  world,  will 
have  to  overcome  some  difficulties,  I have  no  doubt  but  that  they  will  be  of  little  im- 
portance, because  the  rent  of  the  land  is  so  infinitely  lower  in  the  United  States  than 
here  in  the  Netherlands,  where  people  gladly  pay  for  one  hectare  of  best  land  300  to 
350  francs  rent  for  one  year  for  cultivating  flax  on  it.  Such  a rent  is  never  thought 
of  in  America,  and  this  constitutes  the  heaviest  burden  for  the  Netherlands  flax 
farmer,  who,  in  consequence  of  it,  has  been  far  from  flour  shing  of  late  years. 


H.  KCELKENBKCK.J 


FLAX. 


995 


COST  OF  CULTIVATION  OF  FLAX  IN  ILLINOIS. 

An  extract  from  the  report  of  the  Illinois  State  Board  of  Agricul- 
ture for  1880  is  as  follows: 


Items. 

Boone 

County. 

Christian 

County. 

Henry 

County. 

Kane 

County. 

TTse  of  land 

$3  75 
1 00 

$2  50 
85 

$5  00 
1 25 

$4  50 
1 30 

Plowing 

Harrowing 

35 

21 

20 

15 

25 

Planting _ _ 

20 

55 

10 

30 

1 35 

1 75 

1 00 

Cutting 

85 

60 

50 

50 

Stacking 

75 

1 00 

2 00 

80 

Thrashing 

1 50 

2 50 
35 

50 

3 50 

Marketing _ _ _ _ . 

50 

50 

1 25 

Total 

10  30 

8 75 

11  75 

13  40 

Average  cost  of  cultivation  in  Illinois,  $10  per  acre. 


Cost  of  cultivation  of  an  acre  of  flax  in  Ireland. 

L Extract  from  the  work  of  Mr.  John  It.  Proctor,  Frankfort,  Ky.,  published  in  1880.] 

£ s.  d. 


One  plowing _ 12  0 =$3  00 

Seed,  2-|  bushels 16  0 4 00 

Harrowing,  picking  off  stones,  sowing  seed,  and  rolling 10  0 2 50 

Weeding 6 3 156 

Cutting  rushes  and  making  ropes  of  same * 7 0 1 75 

Palling  and  binding 16  5 4 10 

Rent  and  taxes 2 5 0 11  25 


Total 5 12  8 28  16 


» 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  Are  hemp  and  jute  produced  in  this  country  in  any  con- 
siderable quantities,  and  would  not  the  same  reasoning  apply  to  them? — 
Answer.  Hemp  is  produced  in  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  Kansas,  and 
jute  is  produced  to  a certain  extent  in  Louisiana,  but  I am  not  prepared 
to  say  what  effect  the  removal  of  duty  would  have  on  those  articles; 
I have  not  been  connected  with  those  articles  in  Europe  as  much  as 
with  flax. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Are  you  connected  with  any  flax  manufacture  in  this  country 
now? — A.  No;  I have  come  here  to  improve  the  flax  culture  in  the 
West. 

Q.  Where  are  you  located? — A.  I am  a citizen  of  Chicago,  but  I have 
been  visiting  the  flax  districts  in  the  States  of  Missouri,  Illinois,  and 
Iowa,  and  have  become  acquainted  with  all  the  details  of  the  flax  in- 
dustries. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  You  are  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  the  taking  off  of  the  duty 
on  flax  would  not  interfere  with  its  manufacture  in  this  country? — A. 
My  opinion  is  that  if  there  was  $1,000  duty  on  flax  it  would  not  make  the 
slightest  difference  with  farmers.  I have  been  four  weeks  among  the 
farmers  of  Missouri  and  Illinois,  and  I have  asked  them,  “ What  do 
you  think  of  the  present  duty?”  They  say,  “We  do  not  trouble  our- 
selves about  it ; we  could  not  undertake  the  preparation  of  flax  fiber  for 


996 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  KCELKENBECK. 


manufacturing  purposes;  it  is  altogether  out  of  our  power  to  do  so: 
we  have  not  the  knowledge  nor  the  time  for  it.” 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Does  not  the  principal  cost  of  manufacturing  flax  arise  from  labor 
after  the  flax  has  been  produced — the  handling,  water  rotting,  and  all 
that ; does  not  the  principal  cost  come  in  upon  the  hand  labor  after  the 
article  has  been  produced  on  the  land? — A.  Not  as  a general  rule.  In 
Belgium,  for  instance,  where  the  best  flax  in  the  world  is  produced, 
people  pay  as  much  as  $50  for  an  acre  of  flax  in  the  field,  while  here 
you  could  buy  the  best  flax,  provided  it  be  cultivated  according  to 
the  Belgium  method,  for  not  more  than  $20.  There  is  already  a very 
considerable  item  in  the  cost  of  raw  flax,  because  there  are  about  six 
tons  of  raw  flax  entering  into  the  manufacture  of  one  ton  of  clean  flax 
fiber.  In  Holland  or  Belgium  you  would  have  to  pay  about  $300  for 
one  ton  of  flax  fiber,  whereas  here  in  the  United  States  it  would  not 
cost  you  more  than  $120. 

Q.  It  would  cost  about  three  times  as  much  to  dress  an  acre  of  flax 
in  Holland,  Belgium,  and  Ireland  as  it  would  in  this  country  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Now,  if  that  be  the  fact,  I will  ask  you,  if  the  principal  part  of  the 
labor  of  the  United  States  (to  perfect  that  raw  flax  in  its  crud  estate,  still 
with  the  wood  in  it)  would  not  be  so  much  greater  in  this  country  that, 
whereas  you  could  buy  in  this  country  for  $120  what  would  cost  $300 
in  Holland,  yet  it  would  more  than  destroy  the  difference  in  the  price 
of  the  article? — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not  believe  that  to  be  the  case. 

Q.  Why  is  it  then  that  the  farmers  state  that  they  cannot  afford  to  cul- 
tivate flax  in  this  country  ? Why  can  they  not  afford  it  when  they  can 
produce  it  for  one-third  of  its  cost  in  Europe? — A.  In  the  first  place, 
they  do  not  produce  it  because  nobody  a^ks  for  it.  At  present  they  only 
cultivate  flax  for  the  seed  for  the  market.  But  here  in  the  Western 
States  there  is  nobody  who  has  ever  troubled  himself  about  flax  fiber. 
They  take  the  flax  straw  as  it  is  now  produced  in  a very  slovenly  way 
and  make  upholstery  stuff  from  it. 

Q.  The  reason  the  farmers  gave  you  was  that  they  could  not  afford  to 
cultivate  flax  even  at  $120? — A.  Oh,  no;  that  was  not  the  statement  I 
made. 

Q.  What  was  the  statement  you  made  ? — A.  The  statement  I made 
was  that  1 asked  a farmer  whether  if  there  was  a higher  duty  on  flax  it 
would  induce  him  to  cultivate  flax  for  the  fiber.  The  answer  was  66 1 can- 
not trouble  myself  about  that,  because  there  is  nobody  who  wants  the 
fiber;  nobody  comes  and  pays  me  a reasonable  price  for  it ; for  if  I was  to 
cultivate  flax  especially  for  the  fiber  I would  have  to  bestow  a great  deal 
more  labor  and  care  upon  it,  and  have  to  sow  four  times  as  much  seed 
(which  also  is  a considerable  item),  and  I prefer  my  present  mode  of 
culture.”  That  is  the  reason  which  he  gave. 

Q.  Then  you  think  that  the  reason  the  farmer  does  not  cultivate  it 
arises  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no  demand,  and  from  the  fact  that  it 
would  cost  more  than  it  would  bring? — A.  Yes;  that  is  my  conviction, 
and  1 have  acquired  proof  of  it  by  talking  with  a great  many  farmers. 

Q.  Why  is  there  no  demand  for  American  flax  in  this  country?  Is  it 
not  as  good  ? — A.  It  is  quite  as  good. 

Q.  Why  is  there  no  demand  for  it  in  the  East  ?— A.  The  Eastern  man- 
ufacturers have  never  encouraged  flax-culture  in  the  West. 


H.  KCELKENBECK.] 


FLAX. 


997 


Q.  Cannot  there  be  some  reason  why  they  do  not  ? — A.  I cannot  posi- 
tively say  why  they  do  not  come  West  to  buy  flax  instead  of  buying  it 
in  Canada  or  Russia  or  Ireland;  but  my  impression  is  that  the  Eastern 
gentlemen  are  afraid  that  if  there  was  a considerable  quantity  of  flax 
grown  here  in  the  West  they  would  lose  their  trade.  I may  be  mistaken, 
but  I only  give  you  this  as  my  impression, 

Q.  Flax  can  be  grown  in  the  United  States  for  one-third  less  than  in 
Europe,  and  better  in  quality,  and  still  the  Eastern  manufacturer  will 
not  come  West  to  get  it;  now  I ask  you  to  account  for  that  condition  of 
things. — A.  It  is  difficult  to  say,  but  still  it  is  the  fact. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  if  there  was  a duty  of  $1,000  a ton, 
still  flax  would  not  be  grown  here  ? — A.  I gave  the  remark  of  the  farmer, 
which  was  that  he  could  not  trouble  himself  about  the  duty  on  flax  be- 
cause he  had  no  demand  for  flax,  and  he  said  if  the  government  put  a 
duty  of  $1,000  on  the  ton  it  would  not  affect  my  flax-growing. 

Q.  You  did  not  give  that  as  your  own  statement,  then  ? — A.  No;  it 
was  not  my  own  statement,  it  was  the  farmer’s  statement. 

The  witness  also  submitted  the  following : 

Chicago,  III.,  September  6,  1882. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission: 

Whereas  a committee  of  representatives  of  the  flax-growing  interests  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  and  of  flax-spinning  companies  of  Paterson  and  Troy,  on  the  28th  July, 
addressed  you  advocating  an  increase  of  50  per  cent,  on  the  present  duty  on  flax  and 
tow,  an  increase  of  duty  on  linen  and  tow  yarns,  and  on  linen  fabrics  from  30,  35,  and 
40  per  cent,  to  50  per  cent,  all  round,  I beg  leave  to  submit : 

.First.  That  so  far  as  the  Western  and  Northwestern  States  of  the  Union  are  con- 
cerned, the  production  of  flax  in  no  way  needs  protection,  as  flax  can  be  produced  in 
these  States  cheaper  than  in  Europe,  owing  to  our  cheap  lands. 

Second.  That  the  assertion  of  the  above-named  committee  to  the  effect  that  the 
increase  of  duty  on  linen  goods  to  50  per  cent,  would  give  an  impetus  to  the  manu- 
facture of  coarser  fabrics  and  give  value  to  the  flax,  of  which  500, (J00  tons  are  annually 
burned  or  allowed  to  rot  in  the  Western  States,  is  a fallacy,  because  the  past  progress 
of  manufacturing  in  the  Eastern  States  conclusively  shows  that  such  a vast  quantity 
of  raw  material  as  mentioned  above  (which  is  even  much  below  the  reality)  is  not 
likely  to  be  consumed  by  our  factories  during  the  next  century  or  so,  supposing  that 
the  progress  goes  on  in  the  same  ratio  as  hitherto. 

Third.  That  where  the  so-called  “pauper  labor  in  Europe,”  as  applied  to  the  flax 
industry,  comes  in,  is  in  the  preparation  of  the  flax  straw  for  manufacturing  purposes, 
which,  in  Europe  is  almost  universally  done  by  hand,  whereas  we  possess  in  the 
United  States  several  most  excellent  machines  which  perform  the  work  of  breaking 
and  scutching  more  quickly  and  economically  than  can  be  done  by  hand  labor,  that, 
therefore,  also  in  this  respect,  we  have  nothing  to  fear  from  European  competition. 

Fourth.  That  the  only  reason  why  such  vast  quantities  of  valuable  raw  material 
have  hitherto  been  allowed  to  go  to  waste  in  the  Western  States,  is  the  inability  of 
the  Western  farmer  to  undertake  the  preparation  of  the  flax  fiber,  owing  to  his  igno- 
rance of  the  process  and  his  want  of  time  to  devote  to  it  even  if  he  knew  howto  do  it. 

Fifth.  That  the  only  remedy  to  the  present  state  of  things  is  the  erection  of  flax 
mills  in  the  principal  flax-growing  centers  all  over  the  Western  States. 

Sixth.  That  above  all  an  improved  mode  of  flax  cultivation  must  be  introduced 
into  the  Western  States,  as  the  flax  straw,  as  at  present  produced,  is  only  tit  for  uphol- 
stery stuff,  for  coarse  twine,  and  cotton  bagging,  &c.,  and  that  this  desirable  end  will 
only  be  attained  when  the  flax  farmer  will  be  sure  to  obtain  a more  remunerative  price 
for  his  flax  straw,  for  which  he  now  gets  next  to  nothing. 

Seventh.  That  the  assertion  of  a member  of  the  above  committee,  “that  no  Irish 
linen  could  be  made  in  this  country,”  is  only  correct  in  so  far  as  we  would  make  “Amer- 
ican” and  not  “Irish”  linen,  but  that  as  regards  fineness,  bleaching,  finishing,  &c., 
there  is  nothing  to  show  that  we  could  not,  in  course  of  time,  compete  with  any  Euro- 
pean country,  aud  manufacture  cheaper  linens  than  Ireland,  Belgium,  France,  Ger- 
many, and  Russia. 

Eighth.  That  the  only  effect  of  the  increase  of  duty  on  raw  flax  and  linen  fabrics 
would  be  to  increase  the  already  heavy  burden  of  taxation,  under  which  50,000,000 


998 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  KCELKENBECK. 


American  citizens  are  groaning,  for  the  sole  benefit  of  a dozen  manufacturers  of  such 
fabrics. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

H.  KCELKENBECK, 

180  Randolph  /Street . 

P.  S. — As  a representative  of  the  flax  interest  in  the  West,  and  actively  engaged  in 
the  promotion  of  flax-culture  iu  the  Western  States,  I shall  be  happy,  if  the  Tariff 
Commission  desire,  A^erbally  to  substantiate  the  statements  contained  in  my  foregoing 
memorandum. — H.  K. 


JOHN  TYRRELL.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


999 


JOHN  TYRRELL. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  John  Tyrrell,  of  the  firm  of  Burley  & Tyrrell,  on  behalf  of  him- 
self and  other  wholesale  dealers  in  and  importers  of  earthenware  of 
Chicago,  submitted  the  following  statement : 

The  earthenware  interests  of  the  United  States  have  been  presented 
to  you  so  well  from  both  the  standpoint  of  the  home  manufacturer  and 
the  importer  of  foreign  wares,  that  we  will  take  but  little  of  your  valu- 
able time. 

We  indorse  the  candid  statement  of  the  case  offered  you  by  Mr.  W. 
R.  Wright,  of  Philadelphia. 

We  should  have  a tariff  (giving  justice  to  all  interests)  sufficient  to 
meet  the  necessities  of  an  economical  government ; and  as  the  cause 
for  the  present  high  tariff  has  ceased,  its  modification  should  not  longer 
be  delayed. 

We  would  recommend  a uniform  duty,  ad  valorem,  on  all  earthenware, 
china,  and  porcelain  (plain  or  decorated) ; this  would  increase  the  im- 
portation of  the  better  grades  of  goods,  which  are  not  and  cannot  be 
produced  in  this  country.  With  our  present  tariff  the  great  middle 
classes  do  not  have  as  good  wares  on  their  tables  as  the  laborers  of  for- 
eign countries. 

Again,  the  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  must  not  overlook  the 
fact  that  they  would  gain  nothing  by  a higher  tariff,  for  the  higher  the 
tariff  the  greater  the  number  who  join  their  ranks  for  a share  of  the 
plunder. 

Again,  “facts  are  facts”;  notwithstanding  this  industry  has  been 
nursed  for  nearly  a century,  it  shows  itself  by  its  own  confession  a very 
wTeakly  child,  unable  to  stand  under  any  conditions. 

The  manufacturers  of  crockery  in  the  United  States  have  demon- 
strated their  incapacity  to  produce  the  better  grades  of  goods  under  a 
protection  averaging  80  per  cent.,  and  they  now  are  besieging  Congress 
to  make  the  duty  proliibitory,  or  nearly  so.  Instead  of  developing  their 
natural  advantages,  they  have  been  content  to  take  their  profits  from 
the  pockets  of  forty-nine  millions  of  people,  and  we  respectfully  repre- 
sent to  your  honorable  body  that  the  large  number  of  consumers  of 
pottery-wares  are  entitled  to  some  consideration  at  your  hands,  and  also 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

We  believe  that  the  interests  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
would  be  much  better  served  by  a uniform  duty,  ad  valorem,  of  30  tier 
cent,  on  all  earthenware,  china,  and  porcelain  (plain  or  decorated),  to 
be  levied  on  the  cost  of  the  bare  goods  at  the  various  factories  or  places 
wheresoever  bought,  than  under  the  present  tariff. 

This  duty  would  protect  the  grades  of  goods  that  can  be  produced  in 
the  United  States  at  least  65  per  cent. 

BURLEY  & TYRRELL. 

PITKIN  & BROOKS. 

R.  ABBEY  & CO. 

F.  & E.  JAEGER  & CO. 

FRENCH,  POTTER  & WILSON. 


1000 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  TYRRELL. 


By  Commissioner  Amblek  : 

Question.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  manufacture  of 
earthenware  in  this  country  is  now  of  one  hundred  years7  growth  ?^- 
Answer.  Nearly  a century’s  growth,  I said. 

Q.  Where  ? — A.  It  has  been  made  in  the  country,  so  far  as  my  recol- 
lection goes,  the  coarser  grades,  always. 

Q.  Yes ; and  are  now.  I believe  they  are  made  successfully,  so  as  to 
compete  with  foreign  goods. — A.  They  have  a protection  of  over  100  per 
cent. 

Q.  That  still  does  not  answer  the  question  I ask.  Is  it  the  fact  that 
the  coarser  grades  of  crockery  ware — I suppose  you  mean  Rockingham 
or  yellow  ware — are  made  as  cheaply  in  this  country  as  anywhere? — A. 

I don’t  know  about  the  cheapness.  There  is  none  imported. 

Q.  You  know  there  is  a tariff  on  them,  and  you  are  not  able  to  say 
whether  those  goods  are  now  furnished  in  this  country  as  cheap  as  any- 
where else  or  not? — A.  No,  sir;  I cannot  say. 

Q.  I suppose  the  next  grade  would  be  white  ware? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  is  it  since  the  manufacture  of  that  grade  started  in  this 
country  ? — A.  I should  think  that  had  been  going  on  perhaps  twenty  or 
thirty  years;  I cannot  exactly  tell  you. 

Q.  It  started  in  1863,  did  it  not  ? — A.  Perhaps  so. 

Q.  It  had  been  tried  as  a matter  of  experiment  as  early  as  1850, 1 be- 
lieve ; but  for  anything  pretending  to  b&a  commercial  success,  1863  was 
the  first  we  know  anything  of  it.  It  is  so  stated  to  us  by  gentlemen  who 
assume  to  know,  and  who  give  names,  places,  and  dates. — A.  I presume 
that  is  correct. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  business  of  importing  ?— A.  Thirty 
years. 

Q.  Do  you  import  directly  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  the  relative  prices,  as  furnished  to  retail  mer- 
chants, of  the  class  of  goods  that  were  manufactured  in  this  country,  say, 
in  1860,  and  now  ? — A.  No  ; I cannot. 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that  they  are  now  sold  more  cheaply  to  the  retail  mer- 
chant than  they  were  in  1860? — A.  No,  sir ; I think  not. 

Q.  Could  you  give  us  the  variance  in  prices,  as  nearly  as  possible  ? — 
A.  I have  not  looked  at  it  sufficiently. 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that  what  are  called  the  cream-colored  goods  are  now 
sold  very  much  more  cheaply  than  they  were  in  1860  ? That  is  a grade 
known,  I believe,  to  the  trade  as  CC. — A.  Yes,  sir ; my  information  is 
that  they  are  not  sold  very  much  cheaper. 

Q.  Some  cheaper,  however? — A.  It  may  be.  But  they  are  a class  of 
goods  which  are  very  little  sold  in  this  country  now.  They  have  nearly 
gone  out  of  use. 

Q.  The  next  grade,  I believe,  is  what  is  called  white  granite  ? — A.  * 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  us  what  the  relative  prices  are  for  that  grade 
between  1860  and  now  ? — A.  I cannot. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  say  whether  the  tendency  of  the  prices  in  the  last 
eight  years  has  been  up  or  down  ? — A.  1 think  it  has  been  down. 

Q.  What,  within  that  time,  has  been  the  fall  in  the  prices  ? — A.  I can- 
not say. 

Q.  I do  not  mean  exactly  ; but  give  us  your  idea. — A.  I am  not  pre- 
pared to  answer  that  question. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  give  us  the  discounts  of,  say,  eight  or  ten  years 
since? — A.  Yes. 


joiin  tyruell..]  EARTHENWARE.  1001 

Q.  Wliat  was  the  discount,  say,  ten  years  ago  ? — A.  The  discounts 
vary  upon  the  various  grades  of  goods  from  40  to  00  per  cent. 

Q.  1 am  talking  at  this  moment  of  white  granite. — A.  There  are  sev- 
eral grades  of  goods  which  are  put  into  this  market  called  white  granite, 
but  which  are  inferior  to  real  white  granite. 

Q.  Let  us  take  an  average  grade,  then,  of  white  granite  goods  ten 
years  ago,  and  uow,  and  give  us  tbe  discounts. — A.  I think  the  dis- 
counts were  the  same  for  the  goods  we  used  ten  years  ago  that  they  are 
to-day. 

Q.  What  is  the  discount  from  the  list  price  ten  years  ago  ? — A.  Some 
52£  per  cent.  Some  goods  not  so  well  known  were  sold  at  a greater  dis- 
count, and  others  better  known  at  a less  discount. 

Q.  About  52 J you  say  is  the  average  ? — A.  For  a good  quality,  yes. 

Q.  Is  there  not  a large  class  discounted  at  57  and  55  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  are  these0? — A.  The  goods  I refer  to  brought  in  here  have 
not  the  same  reputation,  and  are  not  as  good  as  the  goods  which  are 
sold  at  52£. 

Q.  Which  class  is  the  bulk  of  the  importation  ? — A.  I think  the  bulk 
of  the  importation  is  52J;  possibly  55  per  cent. 

Q,  And  you  think  the  discount  has  been  the  same  from  ten  years  ago 
until  now? — A.  It  varies  occasionally  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year, 
and  it  varies  with  certain  manufactures.  If  men  want  money,  they 
will  give  you  goods  for  less. 

Q.  You  think  they  run  along  about  the  same? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  take  that  same  class  of  goods,  and  how  are  they  furnished 
to  the  retailer  ? What  are  your  prices  to  the  retailer  immediately  be- 
fore the  war,  and  ten  years  ago,  and  now? — A.  Before  the  war  they 
were  higher  than  now. 

Q.  That  is,  you  sold  to  the  retailer  in  1800  higher  than  now  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  But  that  was  for  the  reason  that  owing  to  the  price  of  gold  the 
goods  cost  us  more. 

Q.  In  I860?— A.  No;  I understood  you, just  before  that. 

Q.  I was  taking  1860  so  as  to  avoid  the  complications  of  the  war,  and 
make  it  on  a gold  basis. — A.  You  said  before  the  war;  and  I took  it,  be- 
fore the  fire.  We  date  everything  from  the  conflagration  here.  1 can- 
not give  you  the  price  of  goods  back  to  1860 ; but  my  impression  is  that 
tbe  gold  prices  of  goods  then  and  now  are  about  the  same. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  if  I understand  you,  the  prices  of  goods  in  1860 
and  now,  for  the  class  of  goods  we  are  speaking  of,  are  just  about  the 
same? — A.  I could  not  tell  you  exactly;  I would  not  want  to  be  held 
responsible  for  saying  that  they  were  the  same,  because  it  is  a long 
while  for  me  to  recollect,  and  I have  no  data  by  which  to  be  governed. 

Q.  I am  not  trying  to  tie  you  to  anything,  but  to  get  your  recollec- 
tion upon  that  subject.  Your  memory  would  be  that  they  were  about 
the  same;  is  that  right? — A.  That  is  my  memory. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  me  whether  the  cost  of  making  those  goods 
in  Great  Britain  between  1860  and  now  has  advanced  or  receded?— A. 
That  I cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  tell  me  whether  the  selling  price  in  Great  Britain 
in  that  time  advanced  or  receded  ? — A.  The  selling  price  in  Great  Britain 
has  been  raised  twice  since  1868;  that  is,  on  the  sterling  price-list,  I 
think. 

Q.  Once  in  1872 — 10  per  cent.? — A.  Ido  not  recollect;  but  it  has 
been  raised  altogether. 

Q.  1 only  state  it  as  Mr.  Wright  stated  it  at  Buffalo. — A.  It  has  been 
raised. 


1002 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  TYRRELL. 


Q.  So  that,  in  point  of  fact,  while  the  selling  price  has  advanced  in 
Great  Britain,  the  selling  price  in  this  country  is  just  about  the  same 
as  in  1860  ? — A.  I cannot  say  that  the  English  advanced  their  prices ; 
but  whether  the  discounts  have  equaled  the  advances  in  price,  I cannot 
tell. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you  thought  the  discounts  in  1860 
and  now  were  about  the  same. — A.  Exactly.  But  there  has  been  a rise 
of  price  between  1860  and  now,  and  that  would  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  discount. 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  there  has  been  an  actual  increase  in 
the  price  of  goods  between  1860  and  now? — A.  1 would  not  like  to  say, 
because  I do  not  know.  I have  not  evert  cursorily  examined  the  books 
back  to  see. 

Q.  In  any  event,  you  would  say  that  you  do  not  know  that  there  has 
been  an  increase  in  the  price  of  goods  between  1860  and  now  ? I am  com- 
paring 1860  and  now,  and  trying  to  get  rid  of  the  whole  question  of 
gold  premium  during  the  war. — A.  I cannot  tell. 

Q.  At  least  you  would  not  say  that  they  have  advanced? — A.  No; 
because  I do  nut  know. 

Q.  I believe  the  tariff  in  1860  was  24  per  cent.? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  is  now  40  per  cent,  on  the  class  of  goods  we  are  talking 
about.  If,  in  point  of  fact,  they  have  not  advanced  at  all,  how  do  you 
attribute  the  high  price  of  goods  at  this  time  to  the  tariff  ? — A.  There 
are  various  causes  that  I cannot  go  into.  If  the  prices  are  higher,  there 
might  be  several  causes.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  been  sliding  down 
from  1873.  If  we  have  got  lower  prices  than  then,  we  have  been  sliding 
down  to  it  on  account  of  the  lessening  business;  it  might  have  been 
that. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  instead  of  lessening  it  has  increased,  and  that 
to-day  there  is  more  imported  than  in  1860? — A.  Yes ; because  1860  was 
a dull  year;  anywhere  from  1858  to  1861  was  dull. 

Q.  I will  go  back  to  1856  or  1855,  and  still  it  is  a fact  that  the  im- 
portation is  very  much  larger  than  anywhere  between  1860  and  1870. 
— A.  Not  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  people  w ho  consume  the  goods. 

Q.  Yrou  think  it  is  not? — A.  I know  it  is  not. 

Q.  There  is  about  $10,000,000  worth  of  crockery  used  in  the  United 
States  now. — A.  I haven’t  any  data. 

Q.  By  the  way,  you  import  directly,  as  I understand? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  your  classification  for  importation  how  do  they  run  ? Are  a 
portion  of  your  goods  named  seconds  and  thirds  ? — A.  A very  few  very 
fine  goods  are  imported  in  firsts;  but  very  few.  Most  of  the  goods  are 
imported  in  what  is  called  u unselected”;  that  is,  that  includes  the  best 
quality,  and  the  seconds  and  thirds  are  taken  out. 

Q.  Are  firsts  and  seconds  sold  at  the  same  price  here  ? — A.  They  are 
mixed  all  together. 

Q.  Then  you  separate  them? — A.  No,  sir;  those  are  sold  now  as  un- 
selected goods. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  The  manufacturers  of  earthenware  submitted  to  us  a copy  of  an 
invoice  (of  an  assorted  grade  of  earthenware,  such  as  would  go  in  farm- 
ers’ houses),  dated  at  ]New  York  in  1852  or  1853,  I forget  which,  when 
there  was  no  ware  of  any  amount  made  in  the  United  States,  and  it  was 
just  double  the  amount  of  an  invoice  of  1880  or  1881,  for  exactly  simi- 
lar articles.  And  they  made  their  argument  upon  that  fact  that  this 
common  ware  used  in  farmers’  houses  throughout  the  country  is  to-day, 


JOHN  TYRRELL.] 


EARTHENWARE. 


1003 


under  protection,  just  one  half  the  price  that  it  was  in  1853,  when  the 
duty  was  comparatively  low  and  all  the  ware  was  made  abroad.  Now, 
1 know  nothing  of  the  truth  of  that  statement  at  all;  but  you  have 
been  in  the  business  for  thirty  years,  and  I want  you  to  answer  as  to 
whether  that  statement  is  correct  or  not. 

The  Witness.  Do  you  know  whose  invoice  that  was? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  It  was  Mr.  Davenport’s,  a manufacturer  of 
Trenton,  1 think. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  will  be  printed  with  our  report,  and  they 
put  it  on  record  in  that  shape  so  that  there  should  be  no  question  as  to 
the  authenticity  of  this  invoice. 

The  Witness.  I have  no  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  it.  There 
were  no  factories  in  existence  then. 

Q.  You  are  getting  away  from  my  question.  I am  putting  it  to  you 
that,  according  to  this  invoice,  the  price  in  1852  or  1853  was  just  one- 
half  of  the  wholesale  cash  price  in  New  York  in  1880  or  1881,  under 
protection;  and  I want  to  know  from  you  whether  it  is  a fact  that  this 
common  line  of  goods  used  by  the  working  people  on  the  farms  of  the 
country  is  one-half  the  price  to-day  of  what  it  was  in  1853? — A.  It  is 
my  impression  that  the  prices  are  about  the  same  for  that  class  of  goods. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  You  make  a recommendation  for  a uniform  rate  on  earthernware — 
porcelain,  plain  or  decorative? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recommendation  to  make  as  to  closely-connected 
ware,  glassware? — A.  I should  put  that  all  in  the  same  category. 

Q.  We  have  had  recommended  to  us  a specific  duty  per  cubic  foot  on 
earthernware.  Do  you  favor  that? — A.  No,  sir. 


1004 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  W.  POTTER. 


O.  W.  POTTER. 

The  following  communication  from  Mr.  O.  W.  Potter,  president  of 
the  North  Chicago  Rolling  Mill  Company,  relating  to  the  iron  and  steel 
interest,  was  read  and  ordered,  to  be  printed: 


Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

To  the  members  of  the  Tar  iff  Commission : 

Gentlemen:  It  was  my  expectation  to  have  appeared  before  you 
this  morning,  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  any  argument  bearing 
upon  the  relations  of  the  iron  and  steel  industries  of  this  city  and  State, 
or  in  relation  to  the  numerous  collateral  industries  that  are  affected  by 
the  prosperity  or  adversity  attending  these  industries,  but  rather  to  ex- 
plain to  you  why  there  would  probably  be  no  argument  made  before 
you  relative  to  the  industries  above  named  during  your  stay  in  this  city. 

The  appointment  of  the  Tariff  Commission  being  considered  a matter 
of  such  moment  by  the  manufacturers  of  iron  and  steel  in  this  country, 
and  by  the  producers  of  iron  ore  and  all  other  materials  entering  into 
the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel,  there  has  been  a convention  called 
to  meet  at  Cresson,  Pa.,  on  Tuesday,  the  12th  of  September,  at  which 
convention  representatives  of  all  these  different  industries  throughout 
this  entire  country  are  to  be  present,  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
carefully  the  relations  of  the  tariff  to  these  industries,  and  any  changes 
that  may  be  made  therein  affecting  them  in  any  way. 

After  a full  and  careful  consideration  of  this  entire  subject,  it  is  the 
intention  to  have  appointed  by  that  convention  a committee  who  shall 
present  the  results  of  that  convention  to  your  honorable  body  in  as  con- 
cise and  condensed  a form  as  it  is  possible  to  present  a subject  of  such 
magnitude,  special  care  being  taken  to  avoid  details  that  may  tend  to 
take  up  the  limited  time  that  has  been  allotted  to  you  by  Congress  in 
which  to  make  your  report,  that  is  of  so  much  moment  to  the  people  of 
this  entire  country. 

As  all  of  the  individual  interests  of  these  industries  in  the  different 
cities  and  States  of  this  Union  will  be  presented  to  you  through  that 
committee,  it  has  been  thought  wisest  and  best  that  this  whole  subject 
be  so  presented  to  you  in  that  manner,  rather  than,  by  the  individuals 
iu  person  at  the  different  towns  and  cities  at  which  your  sessions  may 
be  held  during  the  time  allotted  for  this  work. 

This  explanation  is  made  to  you  that  you  may  feel  that  the  represent- 
atives of  these  industries  in  the  city  of  Chicago  and  State  of  Illinois 
fully  appreciate  the  importance  of  having  their  interests  properly  pre- 
sented to  you,  and  that  the  representatives  not  appearing  before  you  in 
person  is  calculated  in  no  way  whatever  to  ignore  the  value  and  impor- 
tance that  they  place  upon  the  report  of  your  Commission  to  the  members 
of  Congress. 

Trusting  this  explanation  may  prove  what  the  representatives  of  these 
industries  of  this  city  and  State  desire,  namely,  their  full  appreciation 
of  the  work  you  have  iu  hand,  and  their  reasons  for  not  appearing  be- 
fore you  at  this  time,  I am, 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

O.  W.  Rotter, 

President  North  Chicago  Rolling  Mill  Company. 


FRANCIS  T.  SHERMAN  ET  AL.] 


BARBED  WIRE. 


1005 


FRANCIS  T.  SHERMAN  ET  AL. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  Francis  T.  Sherman,  of  Chicago,  of  the  firm  of  Sherman  & 
Marsh,  manufacturers  of  barbed  wire,  addressed  the  Commission  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I am  here 
to  represent  a new  interest,  one  which  has  sprung  into  existence  within 
the  last  ten  years,  and  one  which  is  going  to  add  to  the  prosperity  of 
the  farmers.  I represent  also  some  forty  or  fifty  manufacturers  who 
have  selected  me  and  my  colleagues  as  a committee  to  represent  our 
industry  before  you,  and  the  effect  of  tariff*  legislation  upon  it.  The 
following  paper  contains  our  suggestions: 

To  the  honorable  Committee  on  Tariff  Revision : 

The  under  signed  would  respectfully  state  that  they  represent  about 
forty  manufacturers  of  barb-wire  fencing,  being  with  two  or  three  ex- 
ceptions all  the  manufacturers  of  that  product,  and  producing  not  less 
than  seven-eighths  of  all  barb-wire  fencing  manufactured  in  the  United 
States. 

This  barb-wire  fencing  has  come  into  general  use  throughout  the  great 
agricultural  regions  of  this  country,  almost  entirely  displacing  all  other 
fencing  material,  being  a practical  solution  of  the  long  discussed  prob- 
lem,* u How  shall  our  lands  be  fenced  V*  So  great  is  the  demand  that 
it  is  estimated  that  over  60,000  tons  will  be  used  this  year,  and  that 
the  annual  amount  used  will  be  greatly  increased  each  year. 

The  present  duty  on  plain  steel  wire,  from  which  the  barbed -wire 
fencing  is  made,  is  2£  cents  per  pound  specific,  and  20  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem, or  about  $3.35  per  ewt.,  or  about  3J  cents  per  pound.  This  duty 
is  prohibition , and  consequently  the  wire  mills  of  this  country  draw  ail 
the  wire  used  in  barb  fencing.  The  result  is  that  the  wire  drawers  are 
amply  protected  against  foreign  wire. 

As  your  committee  undoubtedly  know,  plain  wire  is  drawn  from  wire 
rods.  The  duty  on  steel-wire  rods  is  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  it  having 
been  held  by  the  Treasury  Department  that  they  should  be  classified 
under  u steel  in  any  form,  not  otherwise  specified.”  This  ad  valorem 
duty  is  equivalent  to  a specific  duty  of  about  three-quarters  to  one  cent 
per  pound. 

It  is  now  proposed  by  the  manufacturers  of  the  raw  material  that  the 
steel-wire  rods  shall  be  classified  as  finished  goods , the  same  as  bars,  bil- 
lets, &c.,  and  thus  be  subject  to  the  specific  duty  of2J  cents  per  pound, 
or,  in  other  words,  adding  an  additional  duty  of  If  cents  per  pound,  or 
$35  per  ton  in  addition  to  the  present  duty  of  $15  per  ton  of  2,000 
pounds,  or,  in  all,  $50  per  ton.  During  the  last  two  or  three  years  there 
have  been  imported  about  150,000  tons  of  steel  rods  per  year,  paying  a 
duty  of  about  $2,250,000  per  year,  and  at  the  increased  duty  amounting 
to  $7,500,000  per  year.  The  largest  part  of  the  wire  drawn  from  these 
rods  is  used  for  barb-wire  fencing,  plain-wire  fencing,  and  binding  wires. 
The  duties  on  barb  fencing  alone,  at  the  proposed  increase,  would  be 
over  $3,000,000  per  year,  and  this  enormous  sum  would  fall  on  the  con- 
sumer. The  result  would  be  total  prohibition  of  all  importation  of  steel 
rods,  as  the  Bessemer  plants  do  not  pretend  that  they  are  at  a disad- 


11006 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FRANCIS  T.  SHERMAN  ET  AL. 


vantage  of  2J  cents  per  pound  in  the  production  of  the  raw  material. 
The  government  would  thereby  lose  its  present  revenue  of  $2,250,000, 
and  the  agricultural  interests  would  pay  this  increased  duty  (less  such 
amount  as  would  be  necessary  in  order  to  avoid  importations),  not  to  the 
government  for  revenue,  but  to  the  manufacturers  of  the  raw  material. 

This  increased  cost  of  plain  wire,  caused  by  the  proposed  increase  of 
duty  on  rods,  will,  of  course,  be  added  to  the  cost  of  barbed-wire  fenc- 
ing, and  thereby  cause  a very  great  diminution  in  its  sales,  as  its  cheap- 
ness is  one  of  the  greatest  elements  of  its  popularity.  The  result,  there- 
fore, is  a great  burden  to  the  agricultural  interests,  and  the  almost  total 
suppression  of  the  manufacture  of  this  great  leading  staple,  now  employ- 
ing millions  of  capital  and  thousands  of  laborers ; and  in  place  of  con- 
stantly decreasing  the  cost  of  barb  fencing,  as  has  been  the  object  of 
the  manufacturers,  the  proposed  increase  of  duty  would  increase  its  cost 
almost  to  its  prohibition. 

Again,  barb- wire  fencing  has  been  adopted  the  world  over,  and  its 
export  has  become  a very  large  interest,  taking  almost  the  entire  product  of 
some  of  the  manufacturers.  Thus  far  the  factories  of  this  country  have 
manufactured  all  the  barb-wire  fencing  for  foreign  countries  except  a 
limited  amount  made  in  Canada.  Should  the  proposed  change  in  the 
tariff*  be  made,  this  country  could  no  longer  compete  with  the  world  for 
its  fencing. 

It  must  also  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  American  steel  manufacturers 
have  for  their  further  protection  the  cost  of  transporting  the  steel  ma- 
terials from  inland  Europe  to  the  coast,  the  ocean  freights  to  this  country, 
and  the  cost  of  insurance  on  goods  while  being  transported,  making  in 
all  an  additional  protection  of  from  $6  to  $8  per  ton. 

In  conclusion  we  submit — 

1st.  That  the  interests  of  the  country  at  large — of  consumers  and 
manufacturers — should  not  be  made  subservient  to  the  interests  of  the 
few. 

2d.  That  the  tariff  on  raw  materials  should  not  be  increased  to  give 
the  manufacturers  of  the  same  such  a superabundant  protection  as  to 
seriously  cripple  and  possibly  destroy  the  interests  of  those  engaged  in 
the  more  diversified  workings  of  the  finished  materials. 

3d.  That  the  present  tariff  on  wire  rods  and  steel  blooms  should  be 
decreased  as  rapidly  as  possible,  so  as  to  give  a better  protection  to 
wire  mills  and  barb-wire  manufacturers,  in  order  that  they  may  the 
more  quickly  furnish  so  leading  a staple  at  the  lowest  minimum  cost. 

We  would  therefore  suggest  that  a specific  duty  of  $10  per  ton  on 
steel  rods  and  blooms  would  afford  American  labor  and  capital  ample 
protection,  and  would  at  the  same  time  secure  American  consumers  from 
rapacious  producers  of  the  unfinished  steel. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

F.  T.  SHERMAN. 

R.  E.  SEARS. 

A.  R,  STILES. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Question.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  inform  the  Commission  the 
price  of  barbed  wire  to  the  farmer  ? — Answer.  The  cost  of  barbed  wire 
at  the  present  time  is  about  8J  to  8J  cents  a pound,  depending  some- 
what on  the  quality. 

Q.  What  are  the  jobbers’  prices  to  the  retailers  ? — A.  About  8 cents 
a pound. 

Q.  You  make  this  barbed  wire  of  imported  steel,  do  you  not  ? — A. 


FRANCIS T.  SHERMAN  ETAL.1  BARBED  WIRE.  1007 

No,  sir ; we  make  the  barbed  wire  from  the  wire  that  is  drawn  from  im- 
ported rods  by  manufacturers  in  this  country. 

Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  the  wire'? — A.  About  4|  cents. 

Q.  What  is  the  cost  of  the  barbing? — A.  That  depends  upon  circum- 
stances. It  runs  from  1£  to  2 cents.  Some  factories  have  machinery 
that  will  probably  make  it  for  less  than  that. 

Q.  The  lowest  possible  cost  of  barbing  would  be  cents  ? — A.  No, 

sir ; about  1 cent.  I think  we  can  manufacture  for  delivery  for  about 
1 cent,  to  cover  all  cost  of  material. 

Q.  That  would  bring  it  up  to  about  6 cents  a pound? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  recommend  a specific  duty? — A.  Yes,  sir;  on  wire  rods. 

Q.  Practically,  the  material  which  enters  into  the  manufacture,  as 
I understand  it,  comes  from  abroad? — A.  Practically,  yes;  it  comes 
from  England,  Germany,  Belgium,  and  from  all  the  iron  centers  of 
Europe. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  recommend  the  reduction  of  duty  on  steel  rods  about  one- 
lialf  of  what  it  is  at  present  ? — A.  About  one-third.  Steel  rods  at  present 
are  about  $15  a ton  ; that  is  ad  valorem  duty. 

Q.  Is  there  any  duty  paid  upon  the  barbed  wire  imported  under  that 
name  at  all? — A.  No,  sir;  there  is  no  barbed  wire  imported  into  the 
United  States.  It  is  covered  doubly,  by  our  patent  laws  as  well  as  by 
our  tariff  laws. 

Q.  If  you  get  the  raw  material — the  steel  rods — at  a reduction  of 
duty  of  one-third,  how  much  of  the  reduction  would  the  farmer  get  ?— 
A.  The  reduction  to  the  farmer  should  be  in  the  ratio  of  the  reduction 
of  the  tariff. 

Q.  Is  not  that  within  the  option  of  the  owners  of  the  patent  ? — A.  No, 
sir  ; it  is  not.  The  prices  of  the  materials  govern. 

Q.  You  are  not  one  of  the  patentees? — A.  No,  sir;  unfortunately. 

Q.  What  royalty  is  paid  to  the  owners  of  the  patent? — A.  Fifteen 
dollars  a ton. 

Q.  You  think  the  price  of  barbed-wire  fence  could  be  reduced  if  the 
government  reduced  the  duty  one-third  upon  the  steel  rods,  even  paying 
that  royalty  ? — A.  It  would  reduce  the  price  in  the  same  ratio  as  the 
reduction  upon  the  steel  rods. 

Q.  Are  you  prepared  to  say  that  you  would  reduce  the  price  of  barbed 
wire  one-third  if  the  govenment  reduced  the  duty  upon  steel  rods  one- 
third  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I am  prepared  to  say  that  we  would,  provided 
that  the  parties  from  whom  we  purchase  the  wire  should  reduce  the 
price  of  their  wire  pro  rata. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  steel  rods  from  which  the  wire  is  made 
come  in  at  a lo\^r  rate  of  duty  than  any  other  manufactured  form  of 
iron  or  steel,  except  pig  iron  ? — A.  I believe  that  is.  true,  and  therefore 
I appear  before  this  Commission  to-day  to  try  to  prevent  any  further 
rise  in  this  material. 

Q.  In  consequence  of  that,  the  price  is  correspondingly  less  to  the  farm- 
er ? — A.  I would  say  that  if  the  duty  is  placed,  as  it  has  been  attempted 
to  be  placed  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  that  is,  to  classify  wire 
rods  as  finished  material  coming  in  at  2J  cents  a pound  duty,  that  would 
be  an  actual  prohibition,  for  it  would  add  from  $40  to  $50  per  ton  to 
the  cost  of  barbed  wire  which  go?s  out  to  fence  our  treeless  plains. 


1008 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FRANCIS  T.  SHERMAN  ET  AL. 


By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  How  many  barbed-wire  manufactories  are  there  in  the  United 
States? — A.  Between  forty  and  fifty. 

Q.  And  yon  represent  them  all  ? — A.  Yes;  with  one  or  two  excep- 
tions. 

Q.  Is  there  not  some  patent  on  the  mode  of  drawing  wires. — A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  You  can  go  to  any  mill  and  get  your  wire  drawn,  and  then  you 
barb  it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  the  manufacturers  of  barbed  wire  would  con- 
sent to  a corresponding  reduction  of  the  price,  in  case  the  tariff  was  re- 
duced one-third  ? — A.  They  would  consent  to  a reduction  of  one-third  of 
the  duty  upon  the  wire  rod.  For  instance,  if  a wire  worth  4J  were  reduced 
to  4J  we  could  vrery  well  afford  to  put  down  the  price  one-fourth  of 
a cent  a pound,  and  so  on  as  the  market  fluctuates. 

Q.  Where  does  the  interest  of  the  consumer  come  in? — A.  In  the  cost 
to  the  manufacturer  of  the  wire. 

Q.  Then  you  would  sell  it  for  less? — A.  Yes,  sir;  competition  forces 
us  to  do  it,  like  any  other  business.  Although  we  are  paying  tribute 
to  the  patent  laws  of  this  country,  at  the  same  time  the  different  man- 
ufacturers of  the  country  get  together  and  put  the  prices  down  to  the 
minimum  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  and  making  our  goods  popu- 
lar, and  they  are  largely  taking  the  place  of  lumber  for  fencing. 

Q.  How  long  has  your  patent  to  run? — A.  Until  1891.  The  courts  of 
this  country  have  decided  that  that  is  the  life  of  the  patent. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  At  present  I understand  there  is  no  barbed  wire  in  this  country, 
except  for  fencing? — A.  No,  sir;  there  are  a few  factories  in  Canada  for 
their  consumption  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  patents  have  been  taken  out  in  foreign 
countries  upon  that  article ?— A.  I understand  there  have  been  patents 
taken  out  in  England,  Germany,  and  the  provinces  of  Canada. 

Q.  So  that  it  is  quite  within  the  range  of  probability  that  this  barbed 
wire  for  fencing  will  be  imported  into  this  country  soon? — A.  No,' sir. 

Q.  Why  not  ? — A.  Simply  because  it  comes  in  under  the  rulings  of 
the  Treasury  Department  as  finished  goods,  and  would  be  chargeable 
with  a duty  of  2J  cents  a pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Q.  I mean  to  say,  if  it  were  not  for  the  tariff  upon  the  introduction 
of  this  barbed  wire,  it  would  be  made  in  England  and  Germany  and 
would  be  imported  very  soon,  I suppose? — A.  I will  state  for  your  in- 
formation that  there  are  factories  at  Birmingham,  in  England,  where 
they  propose  doing  it,  and  they  can  produce  it  there  more  cheaply  than 
we  can  here,  and  so  meet  our  export  trade,  for  those  things  are  now 
going  to  South  America  and  West  Indies,  Mexico,  a^d  New  Zealand 
largely. 

Q.  The  present  duty  on  your  finished  article  (barbed-wire  fence)  is  2J 
cents  a pound,  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  f — A.  Yes,  sir;  tbe  same  as 
the  best-finished  wire. 

Q.  What  would  you  have  to  say,  you  being  interested  in  the  subject, 
as  to  whether  that  duty  should  be  maintained,  or  enlarged,  or  reduced  ? — 
A.  My  individual  opinion  is  that  it  should  be  reduced.  But  I am  now 
speaking  for  the  manufacturers.  I believe,  speaking  for  myself,  that 
we  are  overprotected  in  this  country. 

Q.  What  rate  would  you  recommend? — A.  I should  think  1J  cents 
per  pound  specific,  or  $25  a ton,  for  wires. 


FRANCIS  T.  SHERMAN  ET  AL.] 


BARBED  WIRE. 


1009 


Q.  That  would  be  about  25  per  cent.? — A.  Specific  would  be  over  100 
per  cent.  The  present  duty  is  2£  cents  a pound,  and  20  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem; I would  drop  the  ad  valorem  entirely,  because  the  ad  valorem  is 
sometimes  simply  measured  by  a man’s  conscience  who  ships  to  this 
country. 

Q.  So  that  you  would  recommend  the  dropping  of  the  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  and  divide  the  specific  duty  by  two  ? — A.  I would  put  it  at  $25 
a ton ; and,  if  we  are  protected  against  the  bugbear  of  pauper  labor,  we 
can  produce  our  goods,  which  I stand  here  representing  to-day,  to  the 
farmer  for  $25  or  $30  a ton  less  than  we  are  now  charging  them. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  You  say  $25  a ton  (1J  cents  a pound)  would  be  the  duty  that  you 
would  recommend  on  barbed  wire? — A.  I said  the  plain  wire. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  That  was  not  what  I asked  you,  at  all. — A.  Barbed  wire  at  the 
present  time  has  not  been  classified,  because  there  have  been  no  imports 
of  any  such  goods  in  this  country. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  are  leaving  an  impression  on  the  minds 
of  the  Commission  that  you  recommend  a duty  of  1J  cents  a pound  on 
barbed  wire. 

The  Witness.  Not  at  all.  I wish  a duty  of  1J  cents  a pound  on  steel 
wire,  made  plain,  not  barbed  wire,  and  I want  1^  cents  a pound,  or  $25 
a ton,  specific  duty,  on  barbed  wire. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  So  you  meant  to  say  that  the  tariff  on  barbed  wire,  as  well  as  steel 
wire  for  barbing,  should  be  1 J cents  a pound  ? — A.  They  should  be  rated 
alike.  I will  guarantee  that  the  American  manufacturers  will  never 
suffer  from  foreign  competition  on  barbed  wire. 


Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  B.  E.  Sears,  of  Marshalltown,  Iowa,  representing  the  Iowa 
Barbed  Steel  Company,  made  the  following  statement : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  : At  the  present  time  there  have 
been  various  rulings  upon  steel  rods,  they  at  one  time  being  held  at  2£ 
cents,  and  then  again,  by  Judge  French,  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  or  about  three-fourths  of  a cent 
a pound.  The  result  of  it  is  that  there  is  an  uncertainty  in  the  price  of 
plain  wire.  The  proprietors  of  the  wire  mills  are  unwilling  to  make 
contracts  with  us  which  shall  run  for  any  length  of  time,  fearing  that 
there  may  be  a change  of  this  decision,  whether  a specific  duty  or  ad 
valorem.  In  place  of  having  this  uncertainty  now,  your  Commission 
should  recommend  a specific  duty  of  so  much  per  pound,  so  that  there 
would  be  no  further  uncertainty  in  regard  to  this  duty. 

The  duty  is  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  rods,  or  about  $15  a ton,  three- 
fourtlis  of  a cent  a pound.  That  we  think  could  be  lowered.  At  the 
same  time  we  do  not  so  much  recommend  the  lowering  of  it  as  making  a 
certainty  of  it,  so  that  the  wire  mills  may  be  able  to  supply  the  rods, 
knowing  just  what  the  duty  will  be,  and  then  we  will  be  able  to  buy  the 
wire  of  the  wire  mills  knowing  what  the  price  will  be. 

The  McKinley  bill  proposed  to  establish  a specific  duty  of  2£  cents 
II.  Mis.  0 G4 


1010 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FRANCIS  T.  SHERMAN ET  AL. 


a pound.  That  we  object  to,  because  it  would  bring  this  additional 
duty  upon  the  consumer.  As  has  already  been  stated,  one  of  the  lead- 
ing reasons  why  barbed  wire  has  become  so  popular  has  been  its  cheap- 
ness ; and,  if  this  duty  should  be  added,  it  would  add  about  2 cents  a 
pound  to  the  cost,  to  the  farmer. 

I have  listened  this  morning  to  some  of  the  lumbermen  speaking  of 
the  scarcity  of  lumber.  To  show'  you  the  enormous  amount  of  barbed 
wire  that  is  being  used,  I will  state  that  the  amount  this  year  will  be 
about  60,000  tons,  or  120,000,000  rods.  Eight  feet  of  fencing  to  the  rod 
would  make  960,000,000  feet  per  year  of  fencing  that  barbed  wire  has 
displaced.  You  see  it  is  an  enormous  amount,  and  it  has  come  to  be  in 
general  use  through  all  the  agricultural  regions.  When  you  add  this  2 
cents  a pound  to  it,  you  take  away  the  popularity  of  barbed  wire,  and 
the  farmer  will  then  either  use  the  timber  for  fencing,  which  is  becoming 
scarcer  each  year,  or  else  do  without  it  in  farming,  as  has  been  done  in 
the  psfet. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  How  many  miles  of  barbed-wire  fencing  per  day  are  now 
made  l — Answer.  About  1,200  miles. 


C.  M.  FAY.] 


CORKS. 


1011 


C.  M.  FAY. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  C.  M.  Fay,  of  the  firm  of  C.  M.  Fay  & Co.,  cork  manufacturers, 
of  Chicago,  made  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : The  manufacturing  of  corks  by 
machinery  in  this  country  is  of  recent  origin.  About  twenty-five  years 
ago  the  enterprise  was  originated,  and  has  assumed  sufficient  importance 
of  late  to  attract  the  attention  of  certain  importers  of  corks,  prompting 
them  to  efforts  looking  to  the  removal  or  modifying  of  the  duty  of  bO  per 
cent,  now  imposed  upon  imported  corks. 

To  regulate  or  establish  a duty  upon  a different  basis  from  that  now 
existing — say,  to  place  a tariff*  of  25  cents  a pound  upon  all  imported 
corks,  instead  of  the  30  per  cent,  upon  value  now  imposed — would  in 
our  opinion  obviate  serious  difficulties  now  arising  from  undervaluing 
of  this  merchandise,  and  insure  a full  and  equitable  tariff*  upon  all  manu- 
factured goods  coming  into  this  country. 

It  is  a fact,  usually  well  understood,  that  owing  to  the  undervalua- 
tion, not  over  15,  or  20  per  cent,  at  most,  is  realized  of  the  30  per  cent, 
imposed.  To  remove  the  duty  entirely  from  imported  corks  could  have 
only  one  result,  namely,  to  render  worthless  a large  amount  of  most  ex- 
pensive machinery,  and  the  effectual  closing  up  or  wiping  out  of  all  cork 
manufacturers  in  this  country. 

Among  and  comprising  twenty  firms  there  is  invested  in  cork  manu- 
facturing in  this  country  at  present  about  $1,000,000,  with  an  annual 
product  therefrom  of  not  to  exceed  $2,000,000.  There  is  employed  about 
1,000  persons,  and  about  equally  divided  between  male  and  female  help; 
full  50  per  cent,  is  skilled  labor,  the  majority  of  whom,  owing  to  long 
service  in  their  special  duties,  would  be  rendered  in  a large  measure 
helpless  should  their  present  vocation  cease. 

As  to  the  comparative  merits  of  imported  or  hand-cut  corks,  and 
American  or  machine-cut  corks,  for  practical  uses,  there  can  be  but  one 
honest  opinion,  and  that  in  favor  of  our  machine-cut  goods,  which  is 
best  evidenced  from  the  fact  that  outside  of  a few  vial-corks  of  the  finest 
grade,  of  champagne  and  wine  corks  of  the  finer  grades,  there  is  no 
market  for  said  goods  in  this  country.  Certainly  not  10  per  cent,  in 
bulk  and  not  20  per  cent,  in  value  of  the  goods  consumed  here  are  im- 
ported corks;  and  that  notwithstanding  the  fact  our  machine-cut  goods 
cannot  be  afforded  and  are  not  sold  within  10  per  cent,  as  low  for  rela- 
tive grades.  The  fact  that  we  do  place  in  the  hands  of  consumers  a 
serviceable  cork^to  stopper  all  bottles,  sized  1 to  8 ounces,  at  an  average 
price  of  5 cents  per  gross,  effectually  answers  the  cry  u that  the  cost 
is  too  great.”  Fully  two-thirds  of  the  stock  turned  out,  of  this  class  of 
corks,  is  of  this  grade,  and  for  this  grade  barely  returns  to  the  manufact- 
urer, the  cost  of  the  raw  material,  not  to  speak  of  the  cost  of  manufactur- 
ing. The  better  grade  of  corks  of  this  class,  placed  in  the  hands  of  con- 
sumers at  an  average  figure  of  20  cents  per  gross,  must  make  up  the  loss 
sustained  on  the  lower  grade,  and  also  afford  the  needful  profit  to  the 
manufacturer.  The  best  grades  go  into  the  hands  only  of  the  better  class 
of  pharmacists ; of  bottlers  of  wines,  cha  mpagnes,  and  beer,  where  the  ad- 
ditional expense  can  be  well  afforded.  Should  the  30  per  cent,  duty  be 


1012 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[C.  M.  FAY. 


removed  entirely  it  would  only  cheapen  to  the  consumer  tbe  better 
grades,  which  comprise  25  to  30  per  cent,  only  of  the  bulk  of  goods  con- 
sumed. Our  belief  is,  it  would  advance  the  cost  of  the  lower  grades  by 
closing  our  factories,  shutting  out  competition,  and  thereby  increase  the 
burden  of  cost  among  the  bulk  of  consumers. 

The  regularity  of  sizes  and  lengths  of  our  American  product,  which 
cannot  be  obtained  in  the  hand-cut  corks,  secures  to  the  purchaser  a 
guarantee  that  he  will  get  value  received,  and  hence  the  preference 
given  by  tradesmen  to  our  American  goods. 

The  refuse  from  manufacturing  corks,  which  comprises  fully  one-half 
the  raw  material  brought  into  the  country,  and  which  has  until  recently 
been  worthless,  is  now  ground  up  and  largely  utilized  in  the  manufact- 
uring of  linoleum,  in  packing  fruits  (being  one  of  the  best  non-conductors 
of  heat  known),  and  is  a most  serviceable  filling  for  ice  machines,  refrigera- 
tor cars,  and  ice-houses  generally,  and  is  being  so  applied.  These  par- 
ticular uses  of  cork  are,  in  our  opinion,  destined  to  become  general  and 
important,  as  the  results  achieved  in  this  field  thus  far  are  of  a most 
decided  and  satisfactory  character. 

The  best  evidence  that  there  is  no  undue  profit  in  this  branch  of  in- 
dustry, is  the  fact  that  ten  manufacturing  firms,  several  among  the  oldest 
established  and  best  known,  have  sold  out  or  been  closed  by  the  sheriff 
within  the  past  two  years,  and  have  thereby  ceased  to  exist. 

To  remove  the  tariff  from  imported  corks,  or  to  reduce  it  to  any  con- 
siderable extent,  must  have  but  one  result,  and  that  a speedy  and  most 
unhappy  one  to  those  at  iiresent  engaged  in  manufacturing  in  this 
country  by  machinery. 

We  therefore  pray  your  honorable  body  to  use  your  influence  in  our 
behalf  to  foster  and  sustain  one  of  the  youngest  and  minor  industries  of 
our  country. 

Mr.  Fay  then  submitted  the  following  petition : 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  and  the  House  of  Representatives , in  Congress  assembled  : 

We,  the  undersigned  employes  of  the  cork  manufacturers  of  the  United  States,  re- 
spectfully petition  your  honorable  bodies  that  before  you  engage  in  any  legislation 
affecting  the  cork-manufacturing  interest  of  the  country,  by  removing  or  modifying 
the  duty  now  imposed  upon  imported  corks,  you  will  carefully  weigh  and  consider  its 
effects  upon  the  laboring  classes  of  our  country. 

We  are  now  employed  by  the  manufacturers  of  corks,  and  depending  upon  that  em- 
ployment for  the  support  of  ourselves,  and  those  of  us  having  families  for  their  sup- 
port. That  many  of  us  have  been  engaged  in  our  present  employment  for  a number 
of  years,  and  have  acquired  that  skill  in  our  labor  which  could  only  be  employed  and 
used  in  our  present  employment.  That  part  of  the  work  is  light  and  is  done  by  the 
females  of  our  number,  who  would  not  be  able  to  support  themselves  in  any  other  em- 
ployment. 

The  modes  of  employment  for  the  females  of  our  country  are  few,  and  the  policy  of 
the  government  should  be  to  increase  the  industries  that  open  up  new  avenues  for 
female  labor,  rather  than  to  close  up  any  of  those  already  opened,  and  throw  among 
the  unemployed  laborers  of  the  country  those  who  are  now  continually  employed. 

That  the  unemployed  labor  of  the  country  is  now  too  large,  and  that  a large  unem- 
ployed laboring  class  is  a dangerous  element  to  society  and  to  government,  and  we  sub- 
mit to  you  whether  it  would  not  be  the  wise  and  proper  policy  of  our  government  to 
prosper  and  foster  the  present  manufacturing  interests  of  the  country,  as  well  as  pro- 
mote the  establishment  of  others  that  would  call  into  use  the  idle  capital  of  the 
country,  and  furnish  labor  and  employment  for  the  poor,  unemployed  laboring  classes 
of  the  country. 

Your  petitioners,  therefore,  fearing  the  injurious  effect  of  free  trade  upon  their  labor, 
earnestly  and  respectfully  pro  est  against  any  legislation  affecting  or  changing  the 
present  duty  upon  imported  corks. 

Signed  by  R.  W.  McCready,  Chicago,  111.,  and  62  others. 


.JOHN  HITT.  1 


CUSTOMS  LAWS 


1013 


JOHN.  HITT. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  John  Hitt,  special  deputy  collector  of  the  port,  appeared  before 
the  Commission  by  request,  aud  was  interrogated  as  follows: 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  The  Commission  would  like  you  to  give  them  an  idea  of 
any  ambiguities  in  the  tariff  laws  that  have  come  under  your  notice, 
and  to  suggest  any  changes  that  would  better  the  service. — Answer.  I 
am  so  accustomed  to  administering  the  tariff  and  not  questioning  it, 
that  I have  not  thought  upon  that  questiop  very  much.  Of  course,  I have 
formed  some  opinions  about  it,  as,  for  instance,  in  regard  to  the  col^ec- 
ton  ot  fees,  I have  thought  for  a good  many  years  that  it  was  unneces- 
sary. There  is  but  a small  sum  realized  from  it,  and  it  requires  a great 
deal  of  time  to  collect  them.  The  amount  collected  under  the  tariff  is 
so  very  large,  the  fees  so  very  small,  aud  the  irritation,  you  might  say, 
if  you  please,  is  so  great  between  the  importer  and  the  government, 
that  I consider  it  unnecessary.  For  instance,  when  a merchant  or  dis- 
tiller comes  in  to  pay  an  internal-revenue  tax  of  $10,000,  he  pays  it, 
and  off  he  goes.  But  if  a merchant  goes  to  a collector  of  customs  to 
get  a withdrawal  (the  simplest  form  of  paper  that  we  have  in  the  cus- 
toms business),  he  must  pay  50  cents.  Those  fees  ought  to  be  abolished. 
They  grew  originally  out  of  the  necessity  for  a fund  for  the  payment  of 
officers.  The  collector  in  that  way  collected  money  enough  to  pay  his 
clerks.  It  is  now  merely  a sum  turned  over  to  the  Treasury,  and  it 
amounts  to  very  little,  and  complicates  matters,  not  a little,  but  a good 
deal.'  v A new  clerk  in  the  custom-house  is  generally  engaged  for  the 
first  six  months  in  learning  the  fees. 

We  are  more  interested  here  in  the  immediate  transportation  act 
and  its  effects,  Chicago  being  an  interior  port.  In  fact,  pretty  much 
all  the  business  we  have  here  grows  out  of  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
July  14,  J 870.  Before  that  time  it  was  a small  prairie  port,  if  you 
please,  collecting  half  a million  dollars  merely  on  imports  from  Mon- 
treal, such  as  salt,  heavy  goods,  chemicals,  and  the  like.  It  was 
pretty  much  plain  work,  although  it  was  nearly  all  specific  duties. 
After  the  passage  of  that  act,  we  commenced  importing  dry  goods,  and 
on  the  30th  of  June,  1882,  we  finished  the  collection  of  $3,394,000  duty, 
a million  and  a half  of  it  upon  dry  goods.  Of  course,  when  we  are 
collecting  duties  upon  that  kind  of  goods,  we  have  some  experience  in 
the  tariff.  We  collect  upon  every  kind  of  goods  known  to  New  York 
or  to  any  port  in  the  country.  There  are  not  so  many,  but  the  variety 
is  almost  as  great  here  as  in  New  York.  It  had  been  feared  very  much 
that  the  revenue  would  suffer  under  that  act ; that  there  would  be  a 
chance  for  fraud,  but  I have  never  heard  of  a dollar  being  lost  to  the 
government  under  the  immediate  transportation  act.  Sometimes  we 
have  goods  destroyed : atone  time  there  were  three  or  four  car-loads 
burned  u}>  during  the  riots.  In  that  case  they  were  simply  treated  as 
if  they  had  been  warehoused  at  New  York  or  Philadelphia.  The  re- 
sult would  have  been  the  same.  The  government  does  not  require  the 
duties  in  such  a case,  where  the  loss  can  be  proved. 

There  are  also  damages  allowed  here  now,  and  our  western  importer 
receives  the  benefit  of  the  damages  that  occur  between  New  York  and 
Chicago ; but  the  amount  of  that  is  only  a few  hundred  dollars  in  a 


1014 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


| JOHN  HITT. 


whole  year.  Our  goods  seem  to  get  here  in  pretty  good  order,  accord- 
ing to  the  return  of  the  appraiser. 

I was  asked  one  question  to-day  by  Commissioner  McMahon — whether 
I ever  knew  any  considerable  line  of  goods  being  received  here,  the 
duties  upon  them  collected  here,  and  then  the  goods  being  placed  upon 
a car  and  sent  back  to  New  York  and  sold  at  a profit  ; which,  I suppose, 
is  one  form  of  saying  that  the  duties  were  not  collected  properly  here, 
and  that  the  appraiser  probably  did  not  know  enough  to  detect  it.  The 
appraiser  is  a very  honest  gentleman,  and  very  capable.  We  have  had 
the  same  appraiser  here  for  ten  years.  He  is  a very  careful  man,  to  the 
extent  of  his  knowledge,  and  will  do  the  very  best  he  can.  There  was 
one  importerof  cloths  here  who  paid  probably  $80,000 duty.  Hegotalong 
pretty  well  for  a year,  and  then  we  found  that  he  had  commenced  ship- 
ping goods  to  New  York  and  San  Francisco  to  sell  just  as  fast  as  he  paid 
duties  here.  lie  was  duly  watched,  and  in  the  course  of  two  or  three 
weeks  he  was  in  the  county  jail.  If  all  the  undervaluing  men  were  put 
there,  I think  some,  of  your  jails  in  the  East  would  be  pretty  full.  This 
man,  we  found,  had  been  committing  frauds  upon  the  government,  and 
had  not  paid  for  some  months.  We  ascertained  the  facts,  but  even 
then  were  unable  to  make  good  our  charge  of  undervaluation.  Ordi- 
narily 1 think  we  have  collected  the  duties  very  well. 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  that  on  account  of  the  interior  ports  not  hav- 
ing appraisers  for  each  department — not  having  expert  appraisers,  you 
might  term  them — goods  are  brought  in  at  a lower  valuation. — A.  That 
is  very  plausible  on  its  face;  but  we  have  our  appraiser  here  who  has 
been  in  office  nearly  ten  years,  as  I say,  and  was  a man  of  very  decided 
ability  when  he  went  there.  The  first  assistant  has  been  nearly  eight 
years  in  office,  and  the  third  assistant  has  probably  only  had  about 
three  years7  experience. 

While  we  will  not  claim  anything  but  a good  fair  average,  it  is  to  be 
recollected  that  they  send  samples  of  their  goods  to  New  York,  Boston, 
and  Philadelphia  cons' antly,  every  week,  and  thus  have  the  benefit  of 
the  experience  of  the  Eastern  offices.  It  takes  only  a little  over  24  hours7' 
time  now  to  send  them' there. 

Q.  Is  it  the  law,  or  does  a regulation  of  the  Treasury  Department  re- 
quire them  to  send,  samples  of  goods;  or  is  it  merely  the  custom  ? — A.  It 
is  just  the  custom.  This  opportunity  of  having  the  benefit  of  the  ex- 
perience of  the  Eastern  appraisers  is  of  great  importance,  and  Mr.  Ham 
indulges  in  it  very  freely  indeed.  He  holds  goods  here  for  weeks  in  order 
to  get  returns  from  Eastern  appraisers,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  he 
should  not  have  the  benefit  of  their  experience  inside  of  a week,  upon 
any  line  of  goods.  And  for  that  reason  I wish  to  say  it  is  not  so  wonder- 
ful that  there  should  be  a very  fair  appraiser’s  office  here.  It  is  so  strict 
an  office  that  we  have  a great  number  of  importers  here  who  do  not  im- 
port a dollar’s  worth  of  goods  into  Chicago,  they  tell  us  because  they  can 
make  better  terms  at  the  Eastern  offices;  they  say  our  appraiser  is  too 
rigid,  especially  on  damages.  I could  uame  three  or  lour  leading  houses 
that  pay  perhaps  over  half  a million  dollars  in  New  York  on  account  of 
not  being  able  to  secure  proper  damages  here  under  the  law,  as  they  say, 
because  the  views  of  our  appraiser  here  are  very  rigid  in  regard  to  that, 
while  in  New  York  they  have  experience,  and  allow  much  more  liberal 
damages.  I intimate  no  impropriety  at  the  New  York  office;  but  it  is 
simply  the  fact  that  all  that  business  has  been  closed  up  here  on  account 
of  the  appraiser’s  strictness.  All  kinds  of  silks,  silk  ribbons,  &c.,  have 
been  closed  up  a number  of  years  ago.  They  do  not  come  here  any  more, 
as  stated  by  Mr.  Field. 


THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL.  ] 


LUMBER. 


1015 


THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  Thaddeus  Dean,  of  Chicago,  dealer  in  lumber,  addressed  the 
Commission  as  follows: 

I am  not  a manufacturer,  and  that  is  what  brings  me  here  to-day.  I 
have  no  special  interest  to  represent,  and  I might  say  that  at  this 
moment  I am  in  the  philanthropy  business,  which  does  not  pay  directly. 
The  manufacturers  had  a meeting  before  you  day  before  yesterday. 
Unfortunately  I had  not  the  pleasure  of  being  present,  and  a report, 
which  I presume  to  be  a correct  one,  published  in  the  Inter-Ocean  yes- 
terday, has  been  placed  in  my  hands,  which  I have  looked  over  within 
the  limited  time  I have  had.  In  that  I see  nothing  to  change  the 
opinion  that  I have  entertained  for  some  years — not  the  opinion  of  the 
free-trader  generally,  for  I have  never  been  accused  of  being  a free-trader ; 
but  as  applied  to  the  lumber  question,  I am  most  decidedly  a free- 
trader.  I think  there  is  no  reason  under  God’s  heavens  why  the  duty 
of  $2  should  be  placed  upon  lumber  from  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  I 
can  see  many  reasons  why  there  should  be  no  duty. 

As  claimed  by  the  manufacturers  who  appeared  before  you  the  other 
day,  there  appears  to  be  now  standing  in  the  States  of  Michigan  and 
Wisconsin  a stock  of  logs  or  stumpage  that  will  last,  say,  about  ten 
years.  I think  that  agrees  with  the  general  estimates  that  are  made. 
It  would  seem  somewhat  alarming  if  we  are  to  be  deprived  of  lumber 
ten  years  hence,  and  I think  it  would  be  in  the  line  of  prudence  to 
draw  from  other  sources,  if  we  have  them  at  command.  That  argu- 
ment has  been  used  before.  The  committee  that  were  before  you  yes- 
terday have  already  suggested  that  it  might  be  well,  if  we  are  so  rapidly 
getting  out  of  stock,  to  draw  our  supplies  from  our  neighbors  for  awhile, 
and  to  impoverish  them  rather  than  ourselves.  Now  there  is  a good 
deal  of  argument  in  that.  If  we  had  but  ten  years’  supply  of  provisions 
on  hand,  we  would  be  lookmg  out  for  something  for  our  children  to  eat 
in  the  years  to  follow  that.  I am  not,  however,  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  idea  that  there  is  but  ten  years’  supply  of  lumber  on  hand ; still, 
there  is  a good  deal  of  force  in  it.  The  stock  is  growing  rapidly  less, 
that  is  very  evident,  and  these  trees  that  do  stand  are  fast  being  ac- 
quired by  a very  few  men.  I think  it  is  estimated  that  something  like 
one  hundred  men  now  own  a large  majority  of  the  trees  standing  upon 
our  soil.  Their  power  is  getting  to  be  a little  dangerous,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  and  as  it  would  appear  by  the  rapid  advance  of  stumpage.  I 
can  remember  when  I first  went  into  the  lumber  business  in  this  city 
some  fifteen  years  ago,  that  stumpage  was  generally  estimated  at  50 
cents  a thousand,  and  that  paid  the  large  stump  owner  considerable  of 
a profit.  His  land  only  cost  him  from  $1.25  to  $2.50  an  acre,  and  I da 
not  think  that,  under  those  circumstances,  he  is  entitled  to  too  much 
consideration.  He  has  a good  profit  even  at  50  cents  a thousand  stump- 
age. But  if  the  stumpage  of  the  Northwest  is  gradually  gathered  into 
a few  hands,  they  have  the  power  to  form  combinations  and  under- 
standings that  have  the  effect  to  bull  up  the  price  of  lumber.  The 
operations  of  these  manufacturers,  who  all  appear  to  run  in  one  groove, 
have  been  advancing  the  price  of  lumber  the  last  two  or  three  years  out 
of  proportion  to  former  years. 


1016 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AD. 


I took  occasion  last  evening  to  gather  from  my  books  some  statistics 
of  the  cost  of  lumber  for  the  last  ten  of  fifteen  years,  and  I have  it  ac- 
curately extended.  I have  been  a lumber  buyer  in  this  market,  and 
have  probably  bought  during  that  time  not  less  than  10,000,000  feet  of 
lumber,  and  from  that  to  25,000,000.  There  are  other  dealers  here  who 
are  similarly  situated.  You  will  understand  that  Chicago  does  a busi- 
ness exceeding  2,000,000,000  per  year,  making  it  by  far  the  largest  market 
on  the  globe  for  the  sale  of  lumber,  and  over  one-half  of  the  gentlemen 
doing  business  here  do  not  own  a single  acre  of  stumpage.  They  buy 
from  the  manufacturers  and  stump  owners  that  appeared  before  you  daj 
before  yesterday.  I notice  that  prior  to  the  fire,  up  to  October  9,  1871, 
lor  that  year  lumber  had  cost  me — and  my  neighbors  as  well,  for  we  buy 
side  by  side — $14.46  per  thousand  feet.  I notice  in  the  estimate  of  the 
Saginaw  gentlemen  they  figure  the  absolute  cost  of  lumber  at  $13.50  to 
the  manufacturer.  As  the  transportation  from  Saginaw  here  is  some- 
times $2  or  $3  per  thousand — 1 have  paid  as  high  $4 — you  will  see  that 
they  have  been  doing  business  at  a tremendous  loss,  1 fear,  and  that  is 
the  reason  they  are  so  wealthy  now,  I presume. 

The  great  fire  in  Chicago  necessarily  had  an  effect  upon  the  value  of 
lumber.  It  had  the  more  effect  because  lumber  was  not  one  of  those 
items  upon  which  a rebate  was  allowed.  You  will  remember  that  when 
the  world  was  weeping  for  our  impoverished  condition  after  the  fire  Con- 
gress passed  a law  giving  us  a rebate  upon  glass,  iron,  and  everything 
else  in  the  way  of  building  materials  in  order  to  facilitate  the  rebuilding 
of  Chicago.  The  lumber  interest,  however,  would  not  submit  to  that 
rebate,  and  this  is  the  effect  of  it : Lumber  for  1872,  following  the  fire, 
cost  us  $16.80  per  thousand  feet.  That  was  the  average  cost  the  whole 
year.  So  you  see  that  the  lumber  manufacturers  and  the  stump  owners 
were  benefited  to  the  extent  of  about  $2.50  a thousand  in  consequence 
of  the  Chicago  fire.  If  the  duty  had  been  off,  or  if  the  rebate  had  been 
allowed,  they  would  ouly  have  been  benefited  to  the  extent  of  50  cents ; 
but,  as  it  was,  they  made  a good  deal  of  money  out  of  the  Chicago  fire. 

For  the  year  1873,  immediately  following  the  fire,  the  average  cost  of 
lumber  was  $12.72,  a falling  off,  you  see,  of  over  $4  a thousand.  Things 
were  beginning  to  regulate  themselves. 

In  1875  it  was  $11.68,  a falling  off  of  another  dollar  per  thousand. 

Now,  we  strike  the  proper  medium  of  trade,  I presume,  without  the 
disturbing  element  of  the  Chicago  fire.  In  1876  it  was  $9.67,  Saginaw 
losing  a tremendous  sight  of  money,  you  see.  I don’t  know  how  they 
can  exist  at  all. 

In  1877  it  was  $9.73. 

In  1878  it  was  $9.66. 

In  1879  it  was  $9.50. 

These  figures  I can  verify  by  oath  to  any  extent.  But  now,  gentle- 
men, this  is  what  I wanted  to  call  your  attention  to  especially.  In  1880 
a little  boom  started,  and  the  stumpage,  being  reduced  to  a small 
amount,  could  be  easily  handled,  and  an  advance  was  made  to  $11.63 
on  the  average. 

In  1881  it  was  still  growing,  and  reached  $13.92. 

In  1882,  so  far,  my  lumber  lias  cost  me  between  $14  and  $15  a thou- 
sand. 

That  is  the  direction  it  has  taken.  It  is  in  consequence  of  the  manip- 
ulation of  the  stumpage.  I can  see  no  earthly  reason  why  the  Ameri- 
can interest  should  have  any  protection.  Only  in  one  thing,  trom  my 
standpoint,  do  1 see  that  it  applies.  I believe  that  we  can  produce  corn, 
pork,  and  beaus  in  Illinois,  and  those  are  the  things  that  enter  into  the 


TH ADI.'lCUs?  l'KAN  ET  AL.  ] 


LUMBER. 


1017 


lumber  business.  The  labor  question  I leave  outside  entirely,  for  I have 
no  faith  in  it  at  all.  I do  not  see  why  a Canadian  should  work  for  $10 
a month  when  he  could  pass  over  an  imaginary  line  into  the  United 
States  and  get  $20  a month.  I believe  that  the  laborer  upon  the  Cana- 
dian side  is  paid  equal  to  our  laborer  here,  and  I can  see  no  sense  in 
anything  else,  and  I object  to  the  proposition  that  he  is  not  paid  as  well, 
unless  it  may  be  that  provisions  would  cost  less  in  Canada  than  they  do 
here.  And  as  I have  before  remarked,  pork,  corn,  and  beans  are  the 
power  that  run  the  lumber  business.  Now,  I believe  that  the  cost  of 
pork,  corn,  and  beans  in  the  States  of  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin 
cannot  far  exceed  the  cost  of  the  same  articles  in  Canada.  They  may 
be  able  to  raise  beans  up  there  a little  cheaper ; I don’t  know  how  that 
is.  But  against  that  there  exists  this  consideration  : That  the  Canadian 
has  to  pay  anywhere  from  a dollar  up  more  for  taking  his  lumber  to 
market  than  the  American  does,  and  the  freight,  as  I understand,  from 
Georgian  Bay  to  Buffalo  at  the  present  time  is  about  $3  a thousand, 
while  the  freight  from  Saginaw  is  about  $2.  There  is  a dollar  against 
them;  for  Saginaw  could  not  get  lumber  in  this  direction  over  these 
Broad  prairies,  where  so  much  lumber  is  used,  for  less  than  $2  a thou- 
sand. There  must  be  a margin  at  least  of  $2  a thousand  against  them 
in  the  delivery  of  lumber  to  our  section  here. 

Then  the  manufacturer  of  lumber  in  Michigan  has  other  advantages  in- 
cident to  his  manufacture.  He  can  utilize  the  offal,  the  worthless  prod- 
uct, so  to  speak,  of  his  saw  logs.  He  utilizes  his  sawdust  and  he  sells 
his  slab  for  tire  wood.  And,  I understand,  there  has  recently  been  dis- 
covered a process  by  which  whisky  is  made  from  sawdust,  and  when 
that  ultimatum  is  reached  the  manufacturer  of  lumber  will  be  solid 
indeed. 

Having,  then,  the  advantage  of  a revenue  from  his  offal,  and  the 
advantage  of  from  $L  to  $3  in  the  delivery  of  lumber,  I cannot  for  the 
life  of  me  see  why  he  should  be  further  protected  by  the  advantage  of  $2 
duty. 

Taking  for  granted  the  estimate  made  by  the  Saginaw  gentleman,  as 
published  in  the  Inter-Ocean,  that  the  expense  of  the  manufacture  of 
lumber  is  $13.50  per  thousand — and,  of  course,  I question  his  figures  all 
the  way  through — you  will  see  that  he  admits  that,  after  paying  a 
stumpage  tax  of  $1.50,  he  still  has  a profit  of  $1.07,  with  which  he  has 
acknowledged  himself  satisfied.  Now  let  us  throw  off  this  $2  duty  and 
give  him  only  a stumpage  of  $2.50.  According  to  late  estimates  which 
are  credited  by  the  manufacturers,  there  stands  now  upon  the  Peninsula, 
reckoning  from  Ludington  east  to  the  Saginaw  Valley,  an  average  of 
5,000  feet  of  fine  timber  on  each  acre  of  ground.  Giving  him  a stump- 
age tax  of  $2.50  would  still  pay  him  $12.50  an  acre  for  every  acre  of  that 
ground,  even  if  it  is  pine  barrens.  Hence  he  would  receive  $2.50  for  each 
thousand  of  stumpage. 

By  Commissioner  Botelee  : 

Question.  Your  argument  seems  to  have  a local  application.  You 
are  aware  that  there  are  vast  forests  of  lumber  in  other  parts  of 
America? — Answer.  In  the  South  and  in  California. 

Q.  And  that  this  matter  of  the  tariff  affects  the  whole  country,  and  is 
not  confined  to  any  particular  locality. — A.  Of  course,  it  cannot  be 
claimed  to  affect  the  Pacific  coast  at  this  time ; but  the  quality  of  lumber 
produced  in  the  South  has  a use  that  the  products  of  Canada  would  not 
interfere  with.  The  southern  pine  is  all  of  a hard  nature,  while  the 
Canada  pine  is  soft. 


1018 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL, 


Q.  Is  the  pine  of  the  Middle  States,  for  instance,  of  West  Virginia 
(if  it  may  be  considered  a middle  State),  of  that  character? — A.  That  is 
my  understanding  of  it.  I am  not  well  informed,  but  I should  judge, 
even  if  they  were  not — I conclude  they  are,  however— there  would  be  a 
local  demand  that  this  would  never  interfere  with  at  all.  We  ship  a 
great  deal  of  lumber  south  from  here,  and  even  buy  Canada  lumber  and 
pay  duty  on  it,  to  ship  it  south.  I do  not  see  how  that  could  affect  the 
question. 

Q.  The  shipments  from  West  Virginia  are  made  over  the  whole  country, 
even  to  France.  They  shij)  a great  deal  of  lumber  to  Europe  from  the 
mountains  of  West  Virginia,  though  practically  the  timber  there  is  un- 
touched. It  is  only  recently  that  the  lumber  happens  to  be  utilized,  in 
consequence  of  increased  facilities  of  transportation,  but  it  is  now  be- 
coming an  important  interest.  The  timber  is  found  to  be  of  excellent 
quality  and  of  great  variety,  not  only  the  pine  but  the  hard  timber.  If 
you  throw  down  the  barriers  entirely,  it  will  affect  the  interests  there, 
besides  depriving  the  country  of  a source  of  revenue. — A.  You  see 
what  advantage  they  would  naturally  have,  any  way,  over  the  Cana- 
dian. There  is  an  immense  territory.  We  ship  lumber  largely  to 
Texas,  and  there  is  a large  Kentucky  demand. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  What  part  of  Texas  do  you  send  lumber  to? — A.  We  ship  it 
largely  to  San  Antonio,  for  instance,  and  also  to  Dallas  largely. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  one-half  of  the  States  of  South  and  North  Car- 
olina and  Georgia,  and  nearly  all  of  Florida  and  part  of  Alabama,  is  a 
pine  forest? — A.  I have  gained  a little  information  on  that  subject. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  they  are  now  shipping  large  quantities  from 
Georgia  to  Cincinnati  and  Louisville? — A.  Yes,  and  they  are  shipping 
some  here. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a very  fine  quality  of  lumber? — A.  For  special  purposes 
it  is;  it  takes  a place  that  neither  the  Canada  lumber  nor  the  Michigan 
lumber  can  supply.  That  is  the  point. 

Q.  Because  it  is  of  superior  quality,  durability,  and  strength  ? — A. 
For  certain  purposes,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  the  States  of  Georgia,  Sofith  Carolina,  and  North  Carolina 
have  been  settled  for  more  than  one  hundred  years,  and  yet  they  have 
been  making  turpentine  and  tar  during  all  that  time.  Are  you  aware 
that  there  is  hardly  any  perceptible  damage  done  to  the  forests  there  as 
yet? — A.  Hardly  an  inroad  made  upon  them.  I understand  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  timber  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  the  governments  of  Bussia  and  Prussia  send 
to  Georgia  to  get  their  pine  there  to  make  the  masts  of  their  vessels? — 
A.  Yes,  I know  it  is  excellent  for  that  purpose  likewise. 

Q.  They  are  the  largest,  straightest,  and  strongest  heart  pines  in  the 
world. — A.  Yes,  but  it  occupies  a different  place,  as  I remarked  before. 
It  supplies  a necessity  that  we  cannot  supply  with  our  pine.  It  is  good 
for  masts,  for  floors,  and  for  some  finishing  purposes,  and  in  this  city 
where,  notwithstanding  we  have  this  duty  to  pay,  we  draw  upon  the 
South  now  and  will  continue  to  do  so  more  and  more,  as  people  build 
better  houses. 

Q.  For  what  purpose  is  the  pine  used  that  you  take  from  here  to 
Texas  and  the  South? — A.  It  is  used  for  putting  up  cheap  houses.  1 
don’t  know  why  it  should  be  shipped  in  that  direction.  I should  think 
that  the  material  that  is  raised  down  there  would  do  about  as  well  if 
the  industry  was  there  to  work  up  the  business. 


THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL.  ] 


LUMBER. 


1019 


Q.  Precisely;  if  they  had  the  same  energy  and  industry,  and  the 
same  means  of  transportation  that  you  have  here,  would  it  not  do  as 
well? — A.  I dare  say  it  would  take  the  place  very  largely  of  what  we 
ship  there,  and  I do  not  see  why  not  almost  entirely. 

Q.  Of  what  particular  advantage  would  it  be,  or  could  it  be,  to  the 
American  people  to  remove  the  duty? — A.  It  would  hell)  us  to  develop 
the  Northwest;  it  would  let  out  that  Canada  lumber. 

Q.  Is  there  not  a geographical  protection  on  the  American  side  that 
would  in  effect  prohibit  the  introduction  of  foreign  lumber? 

The  Witness.  How  do  you  mean? 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I mean  this:  I mean  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation to  get  the  lumber v from  the  Dominion  of  Canada  into  the 
American  ports  or  cities. 

The  Witness.  They  bring  it  now  very  largely,  notwithstanding  the 
duty. 

Q.  If  they  do,  what  is  the  trouble? — A.  The  trouble  is,  that  with  this 
duty  off*  if  would  throw  them  more  nearly  on  a par  with  our  own  man- 
ufacturers here.  It  would  allow  us  to  reach  that  timber  we  need  at  a 
fair  price  and  help  to  develop  the  Northwest.  You  will  see  by  the  ar- 
gument of  the  manufacturers  themselves,  when  fast  running  out  of 
stock,  that  some  day  we  will  have  to  go  to  Canada  and  beg  for  that 
timber,  and  give  them  perhaps  $10  to  $20  per  thousand.  I say  let  us 
have  it  to  day,  and  reserve  our  own  a little  until  our  railroads  reach  the 
tail  end  of  our  own  limits,  which  they  are  fast  doing. 

Q.  If  you  will  penetrate  the  pine  forests  of  the  South  with  your  sys- 
tem of  railroads  and  cheap  transportation,  which  can  be  done,  you  will 
then  get  much  finer  fields  for  the  lumber  interest  than  the  Canadian, 
and  thus  keep  it  in  our  own  country. — A.  The  South  does  not  appear 
to  develop  very  rapidly,  for  they  let  us  furnish  them  a great  amount  of 
lumber. 

Q.  Perhaps  you  are  laboring  under  a mistake.  The  South  is  devel- 
oping very  rapidly.  We  were  unable  to  crawl  for  a time,  but  now  we 
have  got  so  we  can  stand  alone  and  walk,  and  we  will  walk. — A.  I hope 
they  are  developing,  for  there  is  plenty  of  room. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  You  stated  just  now  that  you  had  shipped  lumber  from  here  to  San 
Antonio ; by  what  route  did  you  get  it  there  ? — A.  There  is  one  gentle- 
man here  largely  interested  in  the  lumber  business  who  ships  there,  and 
it  usually  goes  % the  way  of  the  Missouri,  Kansas  and  Texas  Railroad, 
and  through  Saint  Louis  and  over  the  Iron  Mountain  Railroad. 

Q.  If  you  ship  by  that  route  to  San  Antonio,  you  pass  through  an 
almost  unlimited  territory  of  forests  ? — A.  Yes.  The  southern  pine  will 
not  do  for  all  purposes.  The  floor  of  this  room  and  the  joists  could  be 
made  of  it,  but  it  will  not  do  for  the  finer  work.  And  we  now  receive 
lumber  back  from  the  South. 

Q.  Where  from? — A.  We  receive  lumber  from  Tennessee.  I have 
within  a few  days  received  lumber  from  there. 

Q.  What  part  of  Tennessee? — A.  White  oak  from  Nashville.  I dare 
say  I am  receiving  some  to-day.  I know  I have  got  some  on  the  way. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  use  cypress  lumber? — A.  Cypress  does  not  come 
here.  We  have  the  long-leaf  pine  and  some  black-walnut. 

Q.  What  is  the  character  of  the  lumber  you  receive  from  Tennessee; 
what  do  you  call  it? — A.  This  lumber  I am  receiving  to-day  I think  is  a 
quality  called  box-boards.  I presume  it  enters  into  the  manufacture  of 


1020 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[TUADDEU8  DEAN  ETAL. 


wagons.  It  is  a fine  lumber,  without  knots.  It  is  brought  here  because 
it  is  a grade  peculiarly  suited  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  Is  not  box- boards  the  term  applied  to  the  manufactured  article? — 
A.  We  call  the  tree  poplar. 

Q.  Do  you  get  poplar  from  Tennessee  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  get  black- walnut  from  Tennessee? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  not  black- walnut  about  the  only  lumber  you  do  get  from  Ten- 
nessee ? — A.  I say  we  get  this  poplar  for  box-boards. 

Q.  Black- walnut  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  furniture.  You  do 
not  pretend  to  build  houses  of  it.  Do  you  know  that  cypress  is  the  best 
lumber  in  the  world  for  building  purposes,  for  durability ; that  it  will 
take  a hard  finish,  and  is  useful  for  other  purposes,  even  for  furniture  ? — 
A.  I do  not. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  there  are  five  or  six  million  acres  in  Louisiana 
entirely  and  exclusively  covered  with  it,  which  in  time  will  develop  into 
the  greatest  lumber  region  in  the  world,  and  furnish  finer  timber  than 
you  can  ship  to  San  Antonio  ? Better  timber  cannot  be  found  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  and  in  quantities  to  suit  you. — A.  It  would  seem  a 
little  unreasonable  that  we  should  cut  off  our  forests  here ; it  is  eating 
up  our  own  bread,  expecting  to  beg  it  of  somebody  else. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  In  the  prices  of  Chicago  lumber,  as  you  quoted  them,  you  indicated 
a yearly  increase  of  about  $2  to  $2.50,  as  I recollect. — A.  I gave  you 
the  facts. 

Q.  That  I understand.  Did  lumber  advance  correspondingly  in  Can- 
ada during  that  period  ? — A.  Probably  not  correspondingly,  but  it  must 
have  advanced  considerably  in  Canada. 

Q.  Can  you  explain  why,  when  lumber  advanced  in  this  market  $2.50 
with  only  $2  duty,  that  Canada  lumber  did  not  come  in  here  at  that 
time? — A.  They  could  not  so  suddenly  prepare  for  the  condition  that 
existed.  Canada,  trammeled  with  this  $2  duty,  is  now  in  the  back- 
ground, They  have  not  shown  as  much  zeal  in  opening  up  their  streams 
and  in  extending  their  manufactures,  as  I understand,  in  consequence 
of  being  so  trammeled.  Hence  the  American  manufacturer,  knowing 
the  extent  of  their  stock  and  knowing  our  own,  can  advance  the  price 
and  sustain  it,  Canada  not  being  capable  of  furnishing  large  quantities 
at  short  notice.  I should  say  that  would  be  the  answer  to  the  question. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  price  of  stumpage  in  Canada  ? — A.  I am  some- 
what informed  about  the  price  of  stumpage. 

Q,  What  is  it  at  this  time? — A.  I believe  the  cost  to  be  about  $1.25 
to  the  party  enjoying  the  stumpage.  He  pays  the  government  tax  and 
he  pays  for  the  limit,  and  as  I understand,  it  amounts  in  the  aggregate 
to  about  $1.25.  I am  not  closely  informed  about  it. 

Q.  Is  there  a Canadian  tariff  affecting  the  introduction  of  American 
lumber  into  Canada? — A.  We  ship  lumber  there,  but  I have  no  infor- 
mation upon  that  point. 

Q.  Do  you  argue  for  the  taking  off  of  the  duty  on  lumber  here  for 
the  purpose  of  introducing  Canadian  lumber,  irrespective  of  the  duty 
on  American  lumber  in  Canada? — A.  Certainly;  for  we  have  no  lumber 
to  send  to  Canada. 


THADDEL'S  DEAN  KT  AL.  1 LUMBER.  * 1021 

Mr.  A.  G.  Van  Sciiaick,  of  the  firm  of  Ludington,  Welles  & Van 
Schaick,  Menominee,  Wis.,  dealers  in  lumber,  said: 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  : 1 appear  before  you  this  morning 
as  a substitute  for  a gentleman  who  was  to  appear,  but  who  has  been 
unable  to  do  so  ; consequently,  what  1 may  say  to  you  will  perhaps  be 
like  that  of  my  friend  who  has  spoken  to  you  this  morning — more  of  a 
selfish  character  than  of  a general  nature. 

I represent  an  association  of  lumber  manufacturers  of  forty  years 
standing.  I have  been  myself  twenty-nine  years  connected  with  that 
house,  and  during  that  time  I have  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing  the 
effect  of  the  reciprocity  treaty  upon  the  western  lumber  business.  I 
believe  there  are  three  things  that  enter  into  the  consideration  of  tariff 
measures:  first,  the  revenue  for  the  government;  second,  the  interest 
of  the  manufacturers  of  lumber,  and  third,  the  interest  of  the  consumer 
of  lumber.  Those  are  the  vital  points,  as  I understand,  which  you  are 
to  examine. 

I take  an  entirely  different  view  from  my  friend  Dean,  as  to  the 
effect  of  the  removal  of  the  tariff  upon  lumber.  I sympathize  wholly 
with  the  Saginaw  report.  I believe  that  it  has  been  honestly  made,  and 
I believe  as  you  enter  further  into  this  matter  you  will  justify  that  re- 
port. But  I believe  this : that  tbe  moment  you  remove  the  duty  from 
Canadian  lumber,  the  dealers  will  go  to  Canada  and  buy  their  stumpage. 
Why?  Because  this  market  takes  our  lumber  faster  than  we  can  make 
it.  I,  myself,  have  never  reached  the  limit  of  distribution. 

Mr.  Dean’s  interest  is  selfish,  and  mine  is  selfish  ; but  the  interests  of 
the  consumer  are  to  be  considered  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  man- 
ufacturers who  have  invested  their  capital.  If  I understand,  there  is  an 
export  duty  on  logs  of  $1,  and  the  moment  you  remove  that  duty  Canada 
will  require  a price  that  will  make  it  equal  to  the  price  at  Saginaw  and 
Green  Bay,  or  other  parts  of  Michigan  and  Minnesota.  That  is  a propo- 
sition which  I believe  you  cannot  ignore.  That  is  the  strongest  argument 
I shall  make  before  you  to-day. 

Next,  Mr.  President,  let  us  consider  the  interests  of  the  consumer.  I 
will  take  the  manufacturer  last.  The  selfish  interests  should  come  last. 
What  would  the  consumer  of  lumber  gain  in  the  State  of  Illinois  were 
you  to  reduce  the  price  of  lumber  to-day  to  $2  ? Seventy-five  thousand 
men  are  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  that  lumber,  and  for  every 
million  feet  twelve  men  are  constantly  employed.  So  that  for  the  fifty 
millions  produced  we  employ  600  men.  Two  hundred  and  forty  are 
employed  in  Chicago ; 80  on  the  lakes,  and  the  balance  at  the  mills. 
What  do  the  consumers  lose,  the  moment  you  remove  the  duty?  They 
lose  the  support  of  75,000  men.  What  next  ? You  put  them  in  agricult- 
ure as  competitors  in  the  tillage  of  the  soil.  I saw  it  stated  last  year 
that  77,000  men  had  come  from  Canada  to  this  country  to  procure  labor. 
Why?  Because  it  is  better  paid.  But  remove  this  manufacture  to 
Canada,  and  then  what?  Labor  will  advance  there. 

I will  say,  Mr.  President,  that  of  the  $14  that  Mr.  Dean  states  is  paid 
out  for  lumber,  almost  all  goes  for  labor,  provisions,  and  freight.  The 
prosperity  of  the  West  to  day  is  largely  aided  by  tbe  manufacture  of 
seven  billions  and  abalf  of  lumber;  tliirtv-six  millions  of  tbat  pine  bas 
been  burned  since  last  March,  and  in  ten  years  there  would  not  be  a 
vestige  of  pine  in  Minnesota,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  from  the  effect 
of  forest  fires,  which  destroy  four  times  as  much  as  they  did  ten  years 
ago.  Mr.  H.  W.  Sage,  of  Michigan,  stated  on  the  5th  of  September,  1875, 
in  this  city,  that  for  every  thousand  feet  cut  on  the  lower  peninsula, 


1022 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL. 


four  thousaud  was  devoured  by  fire.  I believe  he  was  rightat  that  time. 
Afterwards  the  forest  fires  were  very  great. 

Let  me  say  to  you  that  Canada  has  not  the  lumber  that  Mr.  Dean 
thinks  it  has.  The  impression  is  that  there  are  vast  forests  in  Colling- 
wood  and  other  places,  the  lumber  from  which  will  seek  this  market. 
It  does  not  exist,  I tell  you.  A million  and  a half  was  all  the  export 
from  the  Dominion  last  year.  I can  bring  you  a gentleman  in  this  city 
who  explored  a tract,  and  he  told  me  that  there  was  not  an  average  of 
fifteen  hundred  to  an  acre.  The  timber  does  not  exist.  On  the  Ottawa 
River,  200  miles  above  its  mouth,  the  forests  commence,  and  if  Mr. 
Dean  or  any  man  expects  to  get  it  to  Ottawa  through  the  shoals  and 
rapids,  and  compete  with  American  lumber,  he  will  be  grayer-headed 
than  any  gentleman  in  this  room  before  he  sees  it.  The  consumer 
is  the  man  who  should  come  before  you  to-day,  and  not  Mr.  Dean,  who 
is  here  in  the  interest  of  philanthropy,  as  he  said.  First,  I come  in 
the  interest  of  the  manufacturers  of  the  West,  and  I stand  up  here  and 
say  that  they  are  entitled  to  a support,  to  a certain  extent.  If  they 
were  loading  this  country  down  with  lumber  they  would  not  be  entitled 
to  it.  But  what  is  the  fact?  Mr.  Dean  says  the  prices  dwindled  down 
gradually.  Why?  The  panic  did  it;  it  was  because  com  was  selling 
for  30  cents  instead  of  70  cents;  wheat  for  80  cents  instead  of  $1.25. 
It  was  simply  impossible  to  pass  through  a panic  where  everything  was 
-entirely  out  of  joint,  aud  expect  lumber  to  sell  at  a profit. 

But  Mr.  Dean  does  not  state  that  during  the  last  three  years  the  ad- 
vance in  wages  was  at  least  30  per  cent.  There  was  an  advance  in 
everything  we  consume,  and  lumber  is  simply  made  up  of  provisions 
and  labor. 

My  point  is  this:  Remove  the  duty  in  the  United  States,  and  give  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  that  increase,  and  they  would  not  sell  their  lumber 
at  the  present  prices. 


Mr.  A.  Soper,  of  the  firm  of  Soper,  Pond  & Co.,  of  Chicago,  lumber 
dealers,  said : 

I can  say  briefly  that  I indorse  heartily  the  argument  and  statement 
of  facts  made  by  Mr.  Dean  this  morning,  and  I think  before  many  months 
have  passed  we  shall  show  you  that  we  have  a large Tol lowing  among 
the  lumber  dealers  and  consumers  throughout  the  West. 

The  question  of  the  difference  between  the  yellow  pine  of  the  South 
and  the  white  pine  of  the  North  has  been  discussed,  and  I should  like 
to  have  our  secretary  called  for  the  purpose  of  giving  you  information 
upon  that  point. 


Mr.  G.  W.  Hotchkiss,  secretary  of  the  Lumbermen’s  Exchange,  of 
Chicago,  said : 

There  has  been  some  question  asked  upon  which,  perchance,  I may 
be  able  to  give  you  some  information.  There  is  a great  deal  of  timber 
in  West  Virginia,  and  there  is  a small  proportion  of  it  of  a similar  char- 
acter to  our  timber  in  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  aud  Canada, 
but  the  proportion  is  infinitesimal.  From  extensive  research  in  that  di- 
rection, I am  prepared  to  say  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  State  of  West 
Virginia  which  would  affect  one  way  or  the  other  the  supply  of  lumber 


THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL.  J 


LUMBER. 


1023 


which  we  recognize  as  the  lumber  of  the  Northwest.  We  have  here  in 
the  States  of  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota,  and  in  the  provinces 
of  Canada,  what  you  would  better  know  as  the  w hite  pine,  a soft  pine 
which  is  valuable  for  linishing.  It  is  strong  in  texture,  easily  trans- 
ported, and  is  fitted  for  all  kinds  of  finishing  work.  It  is  free  from  tur- 
pentine and  resin,  which  are  the  very  qualifications  which  make  the 
Southern  pine  most  valuable. 

Let  me  correct  here  a statement  of  the  Michigan  delegation  who  placed 
the  Southern  resources  at  89,000,000,000.  The  census  report  places  it  at 

232.000. 000.000.  There  is  an  immense  supply  there.  But  of  the  South- 
ern timber  for  the  last  half  century  there  has  been  shipped  to  the  North- 
ern country  the  black  walnut,  for  furniture,  the  maple,  and  the  oak. 
Vast  quantities  of  Southern  oak  and  ash  are  brought  here.  Of  the 
Southern  pine  our  receipts  here  last  season  were  something  over  10,000,000 
feet,  from  Tennessee,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama.  There  has 
recently  been  established  in  the  city  here  a yard  for  the  exclusive  sale 
of  Southern  pine  lumber  from  Brookhaven,  Miss.  But  when  you  come 
to  compare  Southern  lumber  with  Northern,  you  will  find  that  it  com- 
pares with  that  part  of  our  lumber  which  we  know  as  Norway  pine. 
That  is  w orth  about  $2  a thousand  less  than  white  pine,  and  is  unsuited 
for  all  the  finishing  uses  for  which  white  piue  is  used. 

I was  very  glad  to  see  in  the  Inter-Ocean  the  question  propounded  to 
Mr.  Bust  in  regard  to  the  census.  Some  gentleman  asked  him  what  the 
opinion  was  in  regard  to  the  census  report  on  timber.  I have  had  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  the  making  of  these  reports  of  the  North- 
west, and  I was  glad  to  see  that  Mr.  Bust  was  prepared  to  affirm  the 
practical  correctness  of  those  for  Michigan.  I wish  to  say  to  you  that 
those  for  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin  ^ere  made  by  the  most  practical 
lumbermen  of  those  States,  calling  to  their  aid  the  assistance  of  great 
numbers  of  lumbermen. 

We  consume  in  the  city  of  Chicago  anaverage  annually  of  2,000,000,000 
feet.  When  I say  “consume,”  I mean  that  the  Chicago  trade  receives 
about  2,000,000,000  feet.  This  is  distributed  through  the  Northwest. 
The  production  of  Michigan  is  not  far  from  5,000,000  a year $ the  pro- 
duction of  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin  is  perhaps  two-thirds  as  much. 
You  may  place  the  production  of  white-pine  lumber  in  the  Northwest  at 
about  8,000,000  feet.  This  is,  as  Mr.  Sargeant  says,  exclusive  of  cities 
not  having  8,000  inhabitants.  You  may  drop  out  50  per  cent,  from  the 
estimate  and  boil  the  whole  thing  down,  and  you  will  have  a demand 
for  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  United  States  of  300  feet  of  white 
pine  lumber  each  year.  The  consumption  of  white  pine  in  the  United 
States  for  the  last  year  was  about  18,700,000,000  feet.  The  consumption 
for  the  present  year,  as  I recollect  the  figures,  is  20,700,000,000  feet. 
The  aggregate  demand  for  white  pine  lumber  between  1880  and  1890, 
based  upon  the  average  increase  of  population  as  it  is  shown  to  be  in 
the  decade  from  1870  to  1880,  will  be  an  aggregate  of  210,000,000,000 
feet  of  lumber. 

Mr.  Little,  of  Montreal,  in  some  letters  which  appeared  in  connec- 
tion with  the  census,  placed  the  entire  stock  of  lumber  of  Canada  at 

10.000. 000.009.  I think  it  will  be  somewhere  from  50,000,000,000  to 

75.000. 000.000. feet.  The  acting  commissioner  of  crown  lands  for  Onta- 
rio, who  was  acting  commissioner  four  years  ago,  informed  me  this  sum- 
mer that  the  present  standing  pine  of  the  Province  of  Ontario  was  not 
far  from  35,000,000,000.  Mr.  Little,  in  his  estimates  of  the  standing 
pine  of  Ontario,  placed  it  at  about  one-half  of  the  total  production  of 
the  province,  excepting  Newfoundland  and  New  Brunswick  • so  that, 


1024 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL, 


taking  the  same  proportion  of  his  estimate  and  taking  what  I consider 
the  more  reliable  statement  of  the  crown-land  commissioner,  it  will  give 
a production  of  50,000,000,000  for  the  Province  of  Canada. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  The  idea  of  a gentleman  who  preceded  you  was  to  remove 
entirely  the  duty  upon  all  lumber,  which  would  enable  ns  to  get  white 
pine  free  of  duty,  and  possibly  at  a less  cost,  although  there  is  a very 
strong  argument  why  it  would  not  be  obtained  at  a less  cost.  If  that 
idea  is  carried  out  and  the  reduction  made,  what  would  be  the  effect 
upon  all  other  lumber'?  Would  it  not  affect  lumber  dealers  disastrously'? — 
Answer.  I am  not  prepared  to  give  an  opinion  as  to  what  the  effect 
would  be.  Any  opinion  I should  give  would  be  too  crude;  and,  in  the 
position  I occupy,  I would  prefer  to  make  my  statement  of  facts,  which 
may  enable  others  to  base  argument  upon  them. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  How  long,  at  the  present  rate  of  consumption,  do  you  think  the  white- 
pine  lumber  of  the  States  you  mention  will  last '?— A.  The  census  esti- 
mates are  81,000,000,000  for  the  production  of  the  three  principal  white- 
pine  producing  States,  which  woukl  be  about  ten  years’  supply  from  the 
time  those  estimates  *vere  made,  the  production  of  those  States  being 
not  far  from  8,000,000,000  per  year. 

There  is  another  thought  in  connection  with  that : There  has  been  a 
great  deal  said  about  the  lowness  of  these  estimates,  but  I would  like 
to  say  that  the  production  to-day  is  greater  than  the  limit  of  the  esti- 
mate twenty  years  ago.  I was  a lumberman  in  Michigan  ten  years  on 
the  south  shore  of  Lake  Erie.  At  that  time  a prophecy  was  made  that 
the  lumber  of  Michigan  would  be  exhausted  in  ten  years.  We  then  had 
a vast  unknown  country  to  the  north  of  us ; but  the  country  that  was 
known,  estimated  and  prophesied  upon,  has  been  exhausted,  aud  was 
exhausted  within  the  time  mentioned.  The  estimates  at  that  time  were 
made  upon  trees  14  and  20  inches  in  diameter;  nobody  thought  of  cut- 
ting a tree  12  inches  in  diameter.  But  the  estimates  now  are  based  upon 
trees  8 inches  in  diameter — the  babies  and  saplings.  I do  not  speak  of 
this  matter  any  farther  than  to  show  that  our  forests  are  being : denuded 
very  rapidly.  We  are  taking  the  hoop-poles  and  leaving  nothing  what- 
ever for  the  future. 

Q.  When  you  denude  a forest  of  its  natural  growth  of  trees,  what  is 
the  character  of  the  trees  which  succeed  those  that  are  cut  down  ? — A. 
In  Michigan  the  growth  is  principally  an  undergrowth  of  blackberry,  in 
which  comes  up  a poplar,  a worthless  shrub  that  never  attains  any  great 
size.  In  some  localities  scrub-oaks  grow  up,  but  not  of  commercial 
value.  Wherever  the  pine  is  cleaned  out,  that  which  is  left  perishes. 
The  pine  is  like  an  Indian,  and  cannot  bear  civilization.  In  thirty 
years’  experience  I have  never  found  a locality  where  a large  propor- 
tion of  the  smaller  timber  was  left  to  grow  that  it  did  not  die  within  a 
very  few  years,  if,  on  the  contrary,  a thinning-out  process  is  under- 
taken in  the  dense  forest,  it  will  thrive  many  years.  The  moment  that 
settlers  come  in  and  civilization  and  smoke  come  in  contact  with  those 
trees,  they  perish. 

Q.  The  tree  which  grows  when  the  original  tree  is  cut  down  in  my  coun- 
try is  the  scrub-oak;  but  let  me  suggest  that  it  does  not  come  from  con- 
tact with  civilization,  but  arises  from  the  effect  of  the  great  law  of  na- 
ture, which  requires  a rotation  of  crops.  If  you  cut  out  a scrub  oak 
some  other  tree  will  grow,  because  nature  requires  some  other  growth,. 


THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL.  ] 


LUMBER. 


1025 


aD(I  provides  the  food  for  some  other  plant. — A.  I consent.  That  is  the 
case,  undoubtedly. 

Q.  You  ship  lumber  from  here  to  the  South'? — A.  Yes;  we  have  very 
large  shipments  to  all  parts  of  the  South.  Some  of  our  lumber-dealers 
here  in  the  city  have  yards  established  in  Southern  Missouri,  Southern 
Arkansas,  and  the  Indian  Territory,  and  some,  I think,  in  Texas. 
There  comes  up  the  difference  between  yellow  pine  and  white  pine. 
The  white  pine  is  adapted  to  all  finishing  purposes.  It  can  be  used 
where  you  desire  to  paint.  Some  of  the  Southern  pine  can  be  painted ; 
but  we  do  not  recognize  it  as  a timber  that  will  retain  paint  and  make 
a handsome  finish.  Norway  pine  is  a bastard,  short-leaved  pine,  like 
the  pine  of  the  South,  only  a little  more  so;  as  much  poorer  than  the 
short-leaved  pine  of  the  South  as  that  is  poorer  than  the  white  pine. 

Q.  With  the  increase  of  population  in  the  South,  which  must  result 
from  the  railroads  being  rapidly  built  there  and  the  introduction  of  ma- 
chinery, saw  mills  will  come.  Will  not  that  cause  lumber  to  be  pro- 
duced largely  in  that  section,  and  thus  check  the  removals  of  the  vast 
quantity  you  speak  of1? — A.  That  will  depend  upon  the  course  the  rail- 
road companies  take  more  than  upon  the  government;  the  government 
has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  There  would  be  a very  much  larger  con- 
sumption of  Southern  timber  in  the  North  were  it  not  for  the  prohibitory 
tariff  of  the  railroad. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  But  you  send  Northern  timber  to  the  South  ? — A.  Yes ; but  it  is  all 
sent  by  weight.  I had  an  estimate  from  a gentleman  who  has  shipped 
a large  quantity  at  the  rate  of  2,240  pounds  to  the  ton,  whereas  they  call 
2,000  pounds  a ton.  That  makes  a great  difference  in  the  freight. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  statistics  showing  the  effect  of  putting  on  the  tariff 
of  1807  on  lumber  between  the  United  States  and  Canada  "? — A.  With- 
out giving  any  opinion,  I can  state  that  at  tire  time  the  reciprocity  treaty 
was  in  force,  from  1855  to  1866, 1 was  engaged  in  the  purchase  of  lumber 
in  Canada  for  the  Albany  market.  I bought  on  an  average  at  that  time 
ten  to  eleven  million  feet  per  year  of  what  we  called  u uppers.”  W7hen 
I went  to  Canada  in  1851  I bought  that  lumber  at  7 and  14 — 14  for  the 
best  article ; and  when  I left  there  in  1860  we  were  paying  28  and  14, 
just  double. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  was  the  effect  upon  the  prices  on  this  side  ? — A.  Of  course  the 
prices  on  this  side  increased  in  proportion  to  the  increased  price  there; 
but  I never  attributed  it  so  much  to  the  reciprocity  treaty  as  to  the 
growth  of  the  country. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  I would  ask  you,  if  you  are  an  expert  in  forestry,  if  there  is  any 
Southern  wood  which  is  a partial  substitute  for  the  white  pine "? — A. 
The  cypress  would  make  a very  good  substitute  for  pine  for  many  pur- 
poses. Poplar  or  wliitewood  is  of  very  great  value  in  everything  con- 
nected with  wagon-making — for  wagon-bodies  and  for  finishing.  1 will 
say  that  there  is  not  a shingle  made  to  day  equal  to  the  cypress  shingle; 
but  we  cannot  get  them  up  here  on  account  of  the  freight.  Poplar  is 
very  easily  worked,  and  that  is  also  one  of  the  great  advantages  of 
white  pine.  White  pine  can  be  applied  to  outside  uses  where  poplar 
and  yellow  pine  cannot  be.  What  I term  the  white  wood  is  the  tulip 

H.  Mis.  6 65 


1026 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[THADDEUS  DEAN  ET  AL. 


tree ; it  is  known  in  the  different  parts  of  the  country  by  that  cogno- 
men. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Why  is  the  freight  so  heavy  on  cypress  timber  ? — A.  The  towing 
is  the  greatest  expense.  Cypress  is  a heavy  wood.  You  have  got  to  kill 
it  and  let  it  stand  a year  before  you  can  float  it.  I have  been  in  Florida 
where  they  have  girdled  their  trees  and  let  them  stand  18  months.  It 
also  grows  where  horses  and  cattle  cannot  get  it  out.  They  have  to  wait 
for  the  rise  of  the  water  to  have  it  floated  out.  There  is  so  much  expense 
attending  it  that  this  will  preclude  it  being  brought  to  the  .North. 


Mr.  D.  R.  Holt,  of  Chicago,  of  the  firm  of  D.  R.  Holt  & Co.,  lumber 
manufacturers  of  Oconto,  Wis.,  said: 

My  mission  here,  gentlemen,  is  simply  as  a member  of  a committee  to 
report  the  action  of  the  manufacturers  who  met  the  manufacturers  from 
Saginaw  the  other  day.  W e went  over  their  report  with  them,  compared 
our  figures  with  theirs,  and  decided  that  it  was  unnecessary  for  us  to 
do  anything ; that  there  certainly  was  nothing  to  subtract  from  what 
they  said,  and  that  we  could  indorse  what  they  have  given  you.  We 
thought  that  would  be  the  wisest  way  to  make  our  report.  It  might  be 
that  in  some  instances  we  could  have  enlarged  upon  their  figures.  In 
the  case  of  our  own  establishment,  our  figures  would  be  larger  than 
theirs.  We  are  in  Wisconsin,  however,  and  they  in  Michigan.  Some 
parts  of  Wisconsin  would  work  a reduction  of  our  figures.  So  that  on 
the  whole  we  considered  it  a fair  statement  of  the  lumber  interest.  You 
have  all  the  figures  before  you,  as  I understand,  and  in  as  good  shape 
as  we  could  put  them,  or  as  we  care  to  put  them. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Your  business  is  in  Wisconsin  ? — Answer.  Our  mills  are  in 
Wisconsin,  but  we  have  a business  office  here.  I might  say  that  as  a 
rule  the  manufacturers  are  not  the  men  who  handle  this  lumber  in 
Chicago.  A good  many  manufacturers  are  dealers  here,  but  their  in- 
terests are  scattered  about,  and  we  are  not  as  compact  as  the  manufact- 
urers even  in  Chicago. 


GEORGE  W.  MURRAY.] 


BULBS,  ETC. 


1027 


GEORGE  W.  MURRAY. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9, 1882. 

Mr.  George  W.  Murray,  of  Chicago,  addressed  the  Commission  as 
follows : 

Mr.  President:  It  is  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  J.  C.  Vaughan  that  I 
appear  before  you  in  the  interest  of  all  people  in  the  United  States, 
without  any  exception;  and  what  recommendations  I have  to  make  are 
not  against  any  interest,  financial  or  manufacturing,  in  the  country,  but 
are  simply  in  favor  of  an  increased  sale  and  increased  use  of  a class  of 
material  that  tends  to  elevate  and  refine  the  people. 

I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  honorable  Commission  to  three 
lines  of  merchandise  largely  imported  by  the  house  with  which  I am 
connected,  that  of  J.  C.  Vaughan,  Chicago,  and  ask  you  to  recommend 
in  your  forthcoming  report  a large  reduction  if  not  the  entire  abolish- 
ment of  tariff  upon  them. 

1 refer  to,  first,  bulbs;  second,  French  colored  moss;  and, third,  bou- 
quet papers. 

These  are  all  used  by  florists,  and  the  bulbs  not  only  by  them,  but  by 
all  classes  interested  in  the  culture  of  flowers  and  plants  about  their 
homes. 

I need  not  state  that  these  bulbs  are  in  the  nature  or  perform  the 
office  of  seeds,  from  which  are  grown  flowering  plants.  Their  use  in 
forcing  or  hot  houses  to  supply  the  holiday  and  general  winter  trade  in 
cut  flowers,  and  for  home  and  park  adornment  throughout  the  spring 
months,  is  becoming  more  extensive  every  year.  The  trade  in  them 
has- grown  annually  of  late  about  33^  per  cent,  in  this  city,  and  our  trade 
is  small  compared  with  that  of  the  Eastern  cities. 

There  is  no  duty  upon  the  importation  of  works  of  art  produced  by 
Americans  abroad,  and  only  10  per  cent,  upon  those  of  foreigners.  In 
this  we  see  a reasonable  provision  in  favor  of  artists  of  this  country. 
But  were  it  not  true  that  Congress  wished  to  encourage  the  develop- 
ment of  native  talent,  I think  you  will  agree  with  me  in  believing  that, 
for  the  culture  and  refinement  that  fine  paintings,  sculpture,  and  other 
works  of  art  stimulate,  Congress  would  not  be  unwise  in  abolishing  duty 
thereon  entirely. 

Let  me  ask  you,  then,  to  view  this  homely  bulb  as  a work  of  art.  Ho 
one  will  dispute  that  when  the  plant  is  grown  and  the  bud  has  opened 
that  there  is  a thing  that  possesses  the  maximum  of  beauty  and  the 
element  in  art  most  sought  by  the  artist — truth  to  nature.  The  bulb  is 
a work  of  art  in  the  dark  that  ne^ds  only  the  warmth  of  the  sun  or  the 
green-house  to  make  it  visible  and  exert  its  never-failing  refining  influ- 
ence. These  are  surely  good  reasons  for  reducing  the  tariff  upon  bulbs 
from  the  present  high  rate — 30  per  cent. — 10  per  cent,  more  than  upon 
seeds  and  20  per  Cent,  more  than  upon  foreigners’  art  productions. 

Another  and  strictly  business  feature  of  the  bulb  trade  is  that  these 
bulbs,  so  largely  imported,  cannot  be  grown  in  this  country,  as  the  elder 
Thorburn,  Prince,  Parsons,  and  others,  all  noted  seedsmen,  did  testify, 
the  experience  of  the  first-named  casting  him  not  less  than  $100,000  at 
Queen’s,  Long  Island. 

If,  then,  there  is  no  industry  in  this  country  to  protect,  which  is  a fact, 
there  can  be  no  tenable  grounds  in  this  age,  when  culture  and  refine- 
ment are  so  widely  sought,  for  the  continuance  of  30  per  cent,  duty 
upon  hyacinth,  tulip,  crocus,  narcissus,  and  Lillium  caudidum  bulbs. 

The  second  matter  to  which  I wish  to  direct  your  attention  is  the  ex- 


1028 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[GEORGE  W.  MURE AY. 


travagant  tax  upon  French  moss.  There  is  no  firm  in  America  that 
manufactures  it,  and,  besides  the  moss  used  is  not  to  be  found  anywhere 
in  this  country.  Dried  flowers  are  entered  free,  while  this  moss  that  is 
used  with  them  in  decorating  and  in  floral  pieces  is  charged  half  its  value 
for  admission  There  seems  to  be  in  this  case,  as  in  the  former,  an  un- 
reasonable discrimination  against  that  which  affects  for  its  good  the 
better  side  of  our  natures. 

Thirdly,  and  lastly,  there  is  an  ad  valorem  tax  of  35  per  cent,  upon 
bouquet  papers — something  not  manufactured  in  the  United  States  at 
all,  and  this  being  the  fact  there  is  no  room  to  doubt  that  the  tariff  upon 
them  should  be  greatly  reduced.  They  are  used  to  protect  bouquets 
from  drying  and  from  soiling  the  clothes  or  furniture  with  which  they 
may  be  brought  in  contact,  as  well  for  ornament. 

“ Bulbs  cannot  be  grown  in  this  country.”  That  is  a statement  I am 
authorized  to  make.  My  father-in-law,  who  has  been  in  the  culture 
either  directly  about  his  own  home,  or  indirectly,  for  over  thirty  years, 
says  there  has  been  a total  failure  on  the  part  of  everybody  who  has  at- 
tempted it. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  How  many  thousand  dollars’  worth  do  you  import  every 
year  ? — Answer.  The  firm  with  which  I am  connected  does  not  import 
probably  to  exceed  $10,000  or  $15,000  worth  a year ; but  I am  not  speak- 
iug  in  the  interest  of  that  firm  particularly,  I am  speaking  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  common  good  of  everybody  in  the  country. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Are  you  not  mistaken  in  supposing  that  moss  is  taxed  ? Under 
what  name  is  it  taxed  ? — A.  This  colored  moss  is  taxed  50  per  cent.  It 
is  a dyed  material,  and  I speak  of  it  as  not  having  been  manufactured. 

Q.  Iceland  and  other  mosses  are  on  the  free  list;  under  what  head 
does  this  come  ? — A.  Moss  dyed  for  making  artificial  flowers,  I presume. 
There  is  some  dispute  between  the  importers  and  the  appraisers  in  the 
matter  of  duty  upon  this  particular  moss.  It  is  not  used  in  making 
flowers ; it  is  used  in  making  floral  pieces,  but  still  they  attach  this  50 
per  cent  duty.  The  income  of  our  firm,  and  probably  of  any  firm  in  the 
United  States,  will  not  be  materially  increased  by  the  reduction  of  the 
tariff;  but  the  welfare  of  the  people  at  large  will  be  improved,  and  that 
is  the  only  point  I have  to  make. 

Q.  You  say  there  is  no  bouquet  paper  made  in  this  country? — A.  That 
is  my  understanding. 

Q.  Is  there  any  reason  why  it  should  not  be? — A.  I cannot  see  any 
reason  why  it  should  not  be. 

Q.  Could  we  not  dye  that  moss  here? — A.  That  probably  could  be 
dyed  in  this  country.  I do  not  question  that. 

Q.  Then  if  the  crude  moss  is  free,  ought  not  our  own  people  to  be 
encouraged  to  dye  it? — A.  I must  confess  that  in  the  matter  of  bouquet 
papers  and  moss  I have  not  very  much  to  say;  I only  gave  a few  words 
to  them;  still  they  are,  for  the  time  being,  taxed  without  any  benefit 
to  the  people. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Would  the  reduction  benefit  the  people? — A.  It  ought  to  be  re- 
duced; but,  as  there  is  a great  deal  of  competition  in  the  business,  I 
make  no  particular  point  on  that.  In  the  matter  of  bulbs,  however,  I 
want  to  insist  that  that  is  important,  because  that  touches  a side  that 
every  educated  reasonable  man  will  sympathize  with. 


6.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL.J 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


1029 


S.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  S.  Corning  Judd,  chairman  of  a subcommittee  of  the  Iroquois 
Club,  of  Chicago  (the  subcommittee  being  composed  of  A.  T.  Seeberger, 
E.  O.  Brown,  and  S.  S.  Gregory),  made  the  following  statement: 

I desire  to  say  that  the  subcommittee  of  the  committee  of  the  Iroquois 
Club  are  here  this  afternoon  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  only  a few 
facts,  and  recalling  some  which  have  been  presented  to  the  Com- 
mission, and  of  course  with  which  they  are  familiar  in  a general  way, 
without  regard  to  any  particular  industry  or  any  particular  interest. 
The  club  is  composed,  I might  say,  of  judges,  professional  men,  mer- 
chants, and  representatives  of  various  other  businesses  in  this  city 
and  vicinity.  On  last  Tuesday  night,  at  a meeting  of  the  club,  it  was 
suggested  that,  inasmuch  as  certain  interests  might  not  be  properly 
represented  before  this  Commission,  and  inasmuch  as  the  club  has 
a very  definite  theory  with  respect  to  a protective  tariff,  a committee 
should  be  appointed  to  appear  before  you  and  submit  some  facts  which 
are  particularly  local  and  having  reference  also  to  the  local  interests  of 
which  Ghicago  is  the  great  center  in  the  West.  This  committee  was 
constituted  with  ex-Senator  Trumbull  as  chairman.  He  has  been  ab- 
sent .from  the  city,  and,  finding  himself  so  overwhelmed  with  business 
that  he  was  unable  to  attend,  he  took  it  upon  himself  to  appoint  a sub- 
committee, ot  which  I have  the  honor  to  be  the  chairman.  This  sub- 
committee have  had  very  little  time  to  gather  such  details  as  they  would 
be  glad  to  present ; but,  inasmuch  as  we  understood  that  the  Commis- 
sion would  not  remain  here  longer  than  to-day,  they  have  had  to  throw 
their  facts  together  hurriedly,  and,  such  as  they  are,  I present  them.  I 
regret  that  there  has  not  been  more  time ; but  without  further  comment, 
I will  submit  what  the  subcommittee  have  prepared  for  the  considera- 
tion of  this  Commission : 

To  the  honorable  the  Tariff  Commission : 

The  Iroquois  Club,  of  Chicago,  desire  us  in  their  name  briefly  to  lay 
before  your  body  the  views  of  the  club  on  the  subject  of  tariff  revision. 

It  is  opposed  to  the  system  and  theory  of  protective  duties,  and  be- 
lieves that  the  tariff  should  be  revised  with  reference  to  the  revenue  to 
be  derived  therefrom,  and  with  reference  to  that  only;  and  we  think  it 
peculiarly  appropriate  that  such  a representation  should  be  laid  before 
you  here  in  the  great  center  of  a vast  agricultural  population. 

Here  in  the  West,  as  in  the  East,  this  Commission  has  met  many  indi- 
viduals and  delegations  appearing  before  it  to  ask  for  new  or  higher 
protective  duties.  We  have  failed  in  following  the  report  of  these  ap- 
peals to  see  that  anything  has  been  urged  in  such  cases  as  to  the  inter- 
ests of  the  consumers  of  the  manufactured  articles  for  which  the  pro- 
tective duties  or  the  artificial  price  is  asked.  Nor  have  we  noticed  that, 
where  higher  duties  on  raw  materials  were  asked  for,  any  consideration 
was  given  by  those  who  asked  them  to  the  fact  that  no  similar  increase 
of  tariff  even  on  the  manufactured  article  could  prevent  such  increase 
of  the  raw  material  from  shutting  the  markets  of  the  world  to  the  makers 
of  the  manufactured  article. 


1030 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[S.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL. 


In  every  case,  and  it  perhaps  is  natural  that  it  should  he  so,  these  in- 
dividuals and  delegations  appear  before  this  Commission  in  the  barest 
selfishness,  without  a thought  or  care  for  any  man’s  interest  but  their 
own.  We  do  not  appear  before  you  as  the  representative  of  any  par- 
ticular interest  or  industry  but  as  citizens  of  this  great  metropolis  of 
the  West,  with  a just  pride  in  her  vast  achievements  and  present  prom- 
ises, we  ask  that  you  should  remember  in  making  your  report  that  it 
is  the  desire  of  a portion,  and  as  we  believe  a large  majority,  of  her 
people  that  all  duties  based  upon  the  protective  theory  shall  be  abol- 
ished, to  be  replaced  only  by  duties  levied  for  revenue  alone.  The  men 
who  think  thus  are  in  the  main  unorganized  and  without  the  incentive 
to  appear  before  this  body  which  combination  gives.  That  which  is 
everybody’s  business  is  nobody’s  business,  and  thus  the  consumer  asks 
for  no  hearing,  while  the  manufacturer  argues  his  case  with  persistency 
and  ingenuity. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  attempt  to  place  before  your  Commission  at 
this  time  a detailed  argument  of  an  exhaustive  and  scientific  nature  on 
commercial  freedom  generally  and  its  advantages.  With  such  arguments 
you  are  familiar,  and  will  give  them  doubtless  such  weight  as  you  may 
think  proper. 

We  desire  to  suggest  only  certain  facts  which  have  a direct  bearing 
on  the  subject  of  protective  duiies  with  relation  to  the  peculiar  interests 
of  this  section.  The  object  and  the  effect  of  protective  duties  is  to 
raise  the  price  of  the  articles  protected.  The  manufacturer  may,  in  ar- 
gument, persistently  deny  that  protective  duties  raise  the  price  of  goods, 
but  his  answer  to  a proposal  to  take  oft*  the  duty  on  the  protected  article 
is  always,  u The  removal  of  the  duty  will  enable  the  foreign  manufact- 
urer to  undersell  me.”  The  effect  of  the  increase  in  price  must  be 
disadvantageous  to  the  consumer,  unless  there  be  countervailing  advan- 
tages. Such  an  advantage  is  claimed  by  the  protectionist  to  exist  in  the 
enhanced  wages  of  labor  in  these  protected  industries. 

We  deny  that  such  result  occurs ; but,  granting  that  it  does,  we  ask 
this  Commission  to  remember,  as  bearing  upon  the  interests  of  tbe  great 
agricultural  country  of  which  Chicago  is  the  emporium,  that  allowing 
the  largest  estimates  of  persons  engaged  as  workmen  or  employes  of 
these  manufacturing  interests  of  the  United  States,  they  amount  to  but 
3,000,000  as  against  the  total  of  7,000,000  engaged  in  agricultural  pur- 
suits, 3,000,000  in  professional  and  personal  service,  and  1,500,000  in 
trade  and  transportation.  These  calculations  are  made  on  the  basis  of 
the  census  returns.  Under  this  most  liberal  estimate  of  those  employed 
in  connection  with  protected  industries,  11,500,000  workers  are  engaged 
in  entirely  unprotected  industries  against  3,000,000  who  are  employed 
in  those  which  are  protected. 

A farmer  is,  however,  told  that  protective  duties  on  manufactured 
articles  benefit  him  by  giving  a home  market  for  his  goods.  With  ref- 
erence to  this  proposition  we  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to 
the  following  facts : 

Chicago  is  the  greatest  of  grain  and  provision  markets.  In  1881  an 
aggregate  estimate  of  the  agricultural  products  shipped  from  this  city 
showed  them  to  be  of  the  value  of  $340,075,000.  The  experience  of  the 
trade  in  Chicago,  therefore,  must  be  valuable,  and  the  time  has  never 
come  when  any  combination  of  circumstances  or  of  capital  has  been 
able  to  prevent  for  any  considerable  length  of  time  the  price  of  these 
products  in  Chicago  from  following  tbe  markets  of  London  and  Liver- 
pool. In  the  London  and  Liverpool  markets  the  farmer  aud  farm  laborer, 
for  whom  we  speak,  without  the  advantage  of  any  tariff  protection 


8.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL.] 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


1031 


whatever,  enters  into  competition  with  the  most  illy-paid  labor  of  the 
world — with  the  u fellahs”  of  Egypt,  the  lowest  caste  of  India,  and  the 
lately  enfranchised  serfs  of  Russia.  He  is  obliged  to  do  this  with  the 
price  of  all  his  farm  machinery,  with  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  of 
transportation  to  the  seaboard  and  across  the  ocean  enhanced  by  pro- 
tective duties. 

We  submit  that  the  tariff  needs  in  this  instance  decisive  revision. 

We  also  ask  the  attention  of  the  Commission  on  this  question  of  a 
home  market  for  the  farmer  to  the  following  facts : In  I860  the  agri- 
cultural products  of  the  United  States  exported  were  $295,000,000,  or 
about  79  per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount  of  the  exports.  In  1870, 
$391,000,000,  or  79  per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount.  In  1880,  $080,000,000, 
or  83^  per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount.  In  1881, $730, 000, 000,  or  about  83 
per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount. 

An  increased  home  market  does  not  seem,  in  the  light  of  this  expe- 
rience in  prices  and  the  growth  of  foreign  demand,  a necessity  for  the 
farmer  worth  his  paying  25  per  cent,  additional  on  all  domestic  goods  by 
him  purchased. 

Again,  we  ask  the  consideration  of  these  statistics  from  Mr.  Spofford’s 
American  Almanac.  The  prices  obtained  by  the  unprotected  farmers 
of  the  Northwest  for  great  staples,  in  I860  and  1880,  under  a revenue 
tariff  and  a protective  tariff  respectively,  compare  as  follows: 


1860. 

1880. 

Flour, per  barrel 

Wheat do 

$0  64  to  $0  95 
4 25  to  5 50 
37  to  47 

1 35  to  1 70 

$0  48£  to  $0  61 
3 75  to  5 75 
36  to  49 

1 03  to  1 59 

Products  of  protected  industries  compare  as  follows  : 


1860. 

1880. 

Bar  iron  

Scotch  pig  iron 

Leather 

$41  00  to  $44  00 
20  00  to  27  00 
22  to  32 

$50  00  to  $85  00 
21  00  to  35  00 
23  to  31 

Salt  (Liverpool market) 

per  sack 

68  to  1 15 

1 20  to  2 50 

This  furnishes,  it  seems  to  us,  a suggestive  commentary  upon  the 
theory  of  the  benefit  to  the  farmer  from  protective  duties  on  the  home 
market  theory. 

We  ask  the  Commission  also  to  consider  these  facts.  The  nine  prin- 
cipal manufacturing  States — Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massa- 
chusetts, Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New 
Jersey — in  1850  possessed  $3,130,989,857,  or  43  per  cent,  of  our  national 
wealth.  In  1860,  the  decade  having  been  one  of  a low  tariff,  compara- 
tively speaking,  they  possessed  of  the  national  wealth  $5,591,607,424, 
which  was  only,  however,  34  per  cent,  of  the  whole.  They  had  increased 
the  sum  of  their  wealth  78  percent.  During  the  same  time  the  agricul- 
tural States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Michigan,  and  Oregon  in- 
creased their  wealth  127  per  cent. 

From  1860  to  1870,  the  decade  having  been  one  of  high  protection, 
the  former  nine  manufacturing  States  had  increased  their  wealth  from 
over  $5,000,000,000  to  almost  $15,000,000,000,  constituting  50  per  cent, 
of  our  national  wealth.  The  increase  was  173  per  cent.  In  the  same 
decade  the  agricultural  States  last  mentioned  increased  their  aggregate 
wealth  only  64  per  cent. 


1032 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


6.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL. 


Iii  the  light  of  facts  like  these  comments  upon  the  interest  of  the  ag- 
ricultural section  of  the  country  in  relation  to  the  tariff  seem  needless- 
We  believe  that,  with  protective  duties  swept  away,  the  aggregate  in. 
crease  in  wealth  would  not  only  be  as  great  but  vastly  greater,  and  it 
would  be  equitably  and  advantageously  distributed  over  our  common 
country. 

The  Commission  may  be  told  by  persons  appealing  for  protective  du- 
ties that  Chicago  has  become  a great  manufacturing  center,  and  can  no 
longer  be  considered  as  leagued  wholly  in  interest  with  the  farmers  of 
the  West.  We  hope  it  will  also  be  remembered,  at  the  same  time,  that 
these  manufactures  are  to  a very  great  extent,  such  as  the  meat  packing 
and  canning  industry,  the  boot  and  shoe  industry,  and  other  unpro- 
tected industries  which,  in  spite  of  being  forced  to  pay  tribute  to  the 
protected  interests,  have  healthily  and  steadily  grown  without  govern- 
mental or  official  interference  to  their  present  vast  proportions. 


By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  Bid  I understand  you  to  say  there  that  boots  and  shoes 
are  not  protected? — Answer.  That  is  what  it  says  here.  I did  not  pre- 
pare this  report. 

Commissioner  McMahon.  There  is  a duty  of  35  per  cent. 

The  Witness.  If  that  is  true  the  statement  ought  to  be  corrected. 

Many  protective  duties  were  imposed  at  their  present  rate  during  the 
war,  when  the  necessities  of  taxation  had  caused  the  imposition  of  similar 
internal-revenue  excise  on  the  same  articles  when  manufactured  here. 
Such  protective  duties  were  then  proper  and  legitimate  taxes,  but  the 
internal-revenue  excise  has  been  done  away  with  while  the  tariff*  duties 
remain. 

It  is  earnestly  hoped,  we  believe,  by  a majority  of  the  American  people 
and  by  a vast  majority  of  the  thinking  and  enlightened  classes  of  this 
section,  that  the  labors  of  this  Commission  will  result  in  a scientific  re- 
vision of  the  tariff*,  which  will  correct  its  present  bitter  injustice  to  the 
masses  of  the  people. 

There  is  another  phase  of  this  question  which  we  would  suggest  to 
your  honorable  body,  although  it  perhaps  may  not  be  contemplated  that 
your  report  should  embrace  any  discussion  upon  such  question. 

The  only  taxation  for  which  warrant  is  found  in  the  Constitution  is 
such  as  produces  income  for  the  government.  A tariff*,  so  far  as  it  is 
protective,  operates  to  redistribute  a portion  of  the  wealth  of  the 
country,  taking  from  the  many  to  give  to  the  few. 

It  seems  to  us  that  any  legislation  having  this  for  its  object,  however 
specious  the  plea  upon  which  it  may  be  urged,  is  beyond  the  power  of 
Congress  and  outside  of  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Justice  Miller,  deliver- 
ing the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case 
of  Loan  Association  v.  Topeka  (20  Wallace,  655),  says: 

To  lay  with  one  hand  the  power  of  the  government  on  the  property  of  the  citizen, 
and  with  the  other  to  bestow  it  upon  favored  individuals  to  aid  private  enterprises 
and  build  up  private  fortunes,  is  none  the  less  a robbery  because  it  is  done  under  the 
forms  of  law  and  is  called  taxation.  This  is  not  legislat  ion.  It  is  a decree  under  legis- 
lative forms. 

Kespectfully  submitted. 

S.  CORNING  JUDD, 
Chairman , Su hcom m ittee. 

E.  O.  BROWN. 

A.  F.  SEEBURGER. 

S.  S.  GREGORY. 


S.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL.J 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


1033 


Chicago,  September  9,  1882. 

The  statistics  above  submitted  are  largely  taken  from  Spofford’s 
American  Almanac,  and  can  be  verified. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  made  a remark  about  the  consumption  of  the  country.  I am 
a large  consumer  of  coru,  and  a large  consumer  of  flour  and  oats.  Now, 
sir,  you  have  compared  the  year  1800  with  the  year  1880  Had  you 
taken  1882  as  your  basis  of  comparison,  you  would  have  found  the  prices 
for  this  season  are  increased  not  less  than  twofold,  and  in  many  cases 
threefold. — A.  That  may  be  true. 

Q.  If  the  article  in  1880  being  lower  than  it  was  in  1800  be  a proof 
that  the  farmer  is  not  protected  but  is  injured,  why  should  not  the  price 
of  1882  prove  the  very  reverse'? — A.  Because  of  varying  circumstances 
or  conditions. 

Q.  In  other  words,  the  price  of  the  article  does  not  depend  upon  the 
tariff? — A.  Not  altogether.  As  I understand  it — although  I am  not  go- 
ing into  an  argument — the  facilities  in  the  way  of  manufactures  may 
have  a very  decided  influence.  But,  if  the  tariff  be  removed  from  the 
articles,  it  seems  to  me  it  stands  to  reason  that  the  price  would  be  that 
much  less.  But,  still,  as  I said,  I do  not  want  to  make  any  argument 
upon  that  proposition.  I am  not  here  for  that  purpose.  We  are  now 
dealing  generally  with  specific  items  in  reference  to  entire  decades. 

Q.  1890  and  1880  ought  not  to  be  a test. — A.  I am  not  a dealer  in 
grain  and  products,  and  as  to  the  details  of  prices  1 could  not  answer 
your  question,  and  could  not  give  the  causes  for  the  changes  of  p rices. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  make  a comparison  between  I860  and  1880  ? — A.  The  decades. 

Q.  Have  you  taken  into  consideration  the  greater  volume  of  money 
in  1880,  which,  of  course,  makes  all  values  higher? — A.  We  have  got 
these  facts,  and  ask  that  deductions  be  made  from  them.  I say  to  the 
Commission,  as  1 said  in  the  outset,  that  I did  not  prepare  the  paper.  As 
to  what  Mr.  Gregory  and  the  other  gentlemen  had  in  their  minds,  I do 
not  know. 

Q.  The  price  of  labor  in  Chicago  to-day  is  about  $1.50,  as  I under- 
stand, and  the  price  of  labor  abroad  is  less  than  one-half  that  amount — 
and  there  is  no  one,  I suppose,  who  will  contradict  that  assertion. 
Seventy-five  cents  would  be  a very  high  price.  Would  you  expect  that 
the  prices  of  labor  here  and  abroad  would  even  up,  under  your  ideas, 
and  get  nearer  together — the  price  abroad  going  up,  and  that  here  com- 
ing down  ? — A.  I am  not  prepared  to  say  that  without  taking  into  con- 
sideration all  the  surrounding  circumstances.  I coniess  that  that  is  a 
branch  which  I haven’t  inquired  into.  I have  been  in  politics  but  very 
little,  and  that  is  a question  bearing  upon  details. 

Q.  You  recommend  the  abolition  of  all  these  duties,  as  I understand  ? — 
A.  No,  sir ; we  recommend  such  a revision  of  the  tariff  as  shall  operate 
in  its  objects  and  effects  to  produce  revenue  or  income  to  the  govern- 
ment, and  not  operate  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  a few  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  many. 

Q.  What  specific  recommendation  do  you  make? — A.  I make  none, 
because  I have  not  had  that  under  consideration. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Is  the  club  which  you  represent  a social  club? — A.  It  is  social  and 
political  also,  it  may  be  said. 


1034 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[S.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL. 


S.  S.  Gregory,  another  member  of  the  subcommittee  of  the  Iroquois 
Club,  made  the  following  statement : 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  Are  you  secretary  of  this  club? — Answer.  No,  sir;  I am 
a committee-man. 

Q.  You  are  the  author  of  the  paper  that  Mr.  Judd  has  read  to  us  ? — 
A.  I avow  responsibility  for  all  the  figures. 

Q.  I understand  you  to  base  your  figures  upon  the  census  reports  of 
the  wealth  of  the  country,  and  nothing  else.  That  is  to  say,  that  the 
census  shows  that  the  wealth  of  the  country  in  1850  was  so  much,  and 
the  total  wealth  in  1860  was  so  much.  Now,  do  you  understand  that 
those  estimates  of  wealth  are  simply  based  upon  the  assessed  valuation 
of  property? — A.  No,  sir;  they  are  not,  clearly. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  they  are  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  explain? — A.  I am  not  familiar  with  the  details;  but  the 
bureau  of  statistics  took  the  returns  of  the  census  made  by  the  officers 
gathering  the  census  returns,  and  on  that  basis  (and  perhaps  they  have 
some  other  sources  of  information)  the  bureau  of  statistics  has  made 
the  estimate,  not  upon  the  assessed  valuation,  but  the  real  or  actual 
valuation. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  enumerators  of  the  census  have 
never  attempted  to  deal  with  the  wealth  of  the  country? — A.  No,  sir; 
I am  not.  I am  aware  that  the  census  returns  contain  what  they  call 
assessed  valuation. 

Commissioner  Porter.  I have  myself  made  estimates  of  the  wealth 
of  the  country  for  this  year,  and  I wish  to  correct  you.  There  are  no 
official  reports  except  the  census  reports,  and  they  cannot  be  based  upon 
anything  except  the  assessed  valuation.  For  instance,  here  in  Chicago 
personal  property  is  not  assessed  at  more  than  one-fifth  of  its  value, 
and  it  would  be  unsafe  to  make  any  estimate  of  the  growth  of  the  wealth 
of  the  country  from  those  returns,  unless  you  take  into  consideration  the 
great  number  of  other  elements,  which  have  been  marked  out  by  Edward 
Atkinson,  and  others  perhaps,  and  those  statements  show  the  fluctuations 
that  occur.  I make  this  statement  because  several  gentlemen  have  come 
before  the  Commission  who  have  based  their  estimates  of  the  growth 
of  the  wealth  of  the  country  on  those  returns.  It  is  a fallacy. 

The  Witness.  I would  ask  you  if  you  materially  disagree  with  that 
estimate  of  the  actual  wealth  of  the  country? 

Commissioner  Porter.  Certainly. 

The  Witness.  I concede  at  once  that  those  are  estimates,  and  are 
not  entitled  to  the  weight  that  accurate  figures  would  be,  of  course. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Let  me  inquire  whether  it  is  not  the  fact  that  in  the  older,  longer- 
settled  States  the  tax  duplicates  more  nearly,  as  a rule,  represent  the 
wealth  of  the  country  than  in  the  newer  Western  States? — A.  That  is 
a question  of  individual  judgment.  I should  say  that  that  is  true  in 
the  East  perhaps,  and  through  some  sections  of  tbe  West;  but  there 
are  communities  in  the  West  where  the  Western  element  so  strongly 
predominates  that  the  estimates  of  wealth  are  probably  too  large. 

Q.  I was  speaking  of  them  as  a general  rule.  Is  it  not  the  rule  that 
in  the  more  sparsely-settled  regions  more  property  escapes  taxation 
than  in  the  older  portions? — A.  I should  say  so  as  to  personalty,  but 
with  realty  the  contrary  is  true.  In  Chicago  persons  who  have  had 
large  amounts  of  personal  property  have  been  assessed  to  within  a very 
inconsiderable  fraction  of  its  true  value. 


8.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL.] 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


1035 


By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Personal  property  in  the  Eastern  States  is  more  liable  to  be  as- 
sessed ? — A.  More  liable  to  escape  assessment  in  great  cities  like  this, 
New  York,  and  Boston,  and  places  where  there  are  large  accumulations 
of  wealth. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  You  are  here  representing  the  agricultural  interests.  I want  you 
to  let  us  know  what  it  is  that  the  agriculturist  consumes  that  you  think 
is  taxed  too  high,  and  what  it  is  that  he  produces  that  you  think  ought 
to  be  protected. — A.  As  Mr.  Judd  says,  that  is  a question  for  careful 
consideration  by  a body  of  experts. 

Q.  How  can  we  consider  it  unless  we  get  information? — A.  I would 
mention  woolen  goods;  I think  they  are  too  high.  Woolens,  iron,  and 
other  articles  are  taxed  upon  a protective  basis.  I think  the  farmer 
and  consumer  in  the  West,  and  all  over  the  country,  will  have  very 
little  to  complain  of  when  the  only  trouble  shall  be  that  these  duties  are 
unwisely  levied,  but  upon  a right  principle.  The  impression  now  is  that 
they  are  levied  upon  a wrong  principle. 

Q.  What  is  the  duty  upon  woolens  ?— A.  I have  examined  the  matter 
very  hurriedly,  and  have  not  brought  the  accurate  figures  with  me.  If 
I remember  correctly,  there  is  both  a specific  and  ad  valorem  duty,  and 
I think  that  those  duties  should  be  reduced ; but  this  would  be  a matter 
of  adjustment  and  experiment.  It  should  be  ascertained  how  the  largest 
amount  of  revenue  could  be  produced  from  woolen  goods.  That  would 
be  a matter  of  experiment. 

Q.  What  is  it  that  is  too  high  ? — A.  I say  that  the  duty  is.  There  are 
three  classes  of  woolen  goods,  I believe. 

Q.  What  is  the  duty  that  you  complain  of? — A.  There  is  a specific 
duty  on  the  first,  and  I have  forgotten  the  exact  details.  I say  that  all 
those  duties  are  too  high,  probably. 

Q.  What  are  they  ? — A.  I have  read  them  over,  but  I can’t  carry  the 
entire  customs  act  of  this  country  in  my  head. 

Q.  I want  you  to  let  me  know  what  the  duty  is,  and  what  you  think 
it  ought  to  be,  upon  the  three  classes,  and  then  that  will  give  us  a chance 
to  do  what  you  think  is  right,  if  we  agree  with  you. — A.  I would  not 
venture  to  suggest  that  to  the  Commission ; but  if  they  should  announce 
that  they  would  adopt  that  basis,  of  course  we  could  very  readily  secure 
a committee  of  experts  to  do  it. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Notwithstanding  these  high  duties  on  woolens,  to  which  you  refer, 
did  you  ever  know  the  ordinary  woolen  cloths  worn  in  this  country  to 
be  as  cheap  as  they  are  now  ? — A.  As  a matter  of  personal  experience 
1 do  not  think  that  my  clothes  are  cheap  at  present.  That  is  the  only 
opportunity  I have  of  judging.  I am  not  a dealer  in  clothing.  I would 
say,  undoubtedly,  there  has  been  a shrinkage  in  prices  ‘since  the  war, 
owing  to  the  contraction  of  currency  and  the  reduction  to  a gold  basis  ; 
but  I am  not  aware  that  those  goods  are  specially  cheaper,  and  they 
are  not  so  cheap  as  they  are  in  Canada  and  abroad  generally;  I know 
that  incidentally,  and  I do  not  see  that  an  American  ought  to  pay  any 
more  for  his  clothes  than  an  Englishman  or  a Frenchman. 

Q.  In  your  paper  I think  you  stated,  if  I heard  it  correctly,  that  the 
Constitution  does  not  warrant  the  levying  of  duties  for  the  encourage- 
ment or  protection  of  American  manufacturers? — A.  We  suggest  that 
view;  yes. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  the  very  second  law  which  was  passed  by  the 


103G 


TARIFI  COMMISSION. 


[S.  CORKING  JUDD  ET  AL. 


first  Congress  that  met  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  (in  which 
were  members  to  the  convention  that  framed  the  Constitution)  passed 
an  act  partly  for  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  domestic  manu- 
factures?— A.  I believe  there  was  some  such  legislation  at  an  early 
stage. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  also  of  the  further  fact  that  there  has  been  no  ad- 
ministration, from  Washington  to  the  present  time,  but  has  given  its 
adherence  to  laws  looking  to  protection  of  domestic  manufactures? — 
A.  I am  well  aware  in  a general  way  of  what  you  say,  that  ail  adminis- 
trations have  concurred  in  that  construction  of  the  Constitution;  but, 
as  an  original  question,  it  occurred  to  me  that  the  remarks  of  Judge 
Miller  were  certainly  worthy  of  consideration. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Is  it  an  original  question  after  one  hundred  years  of  our  national 
life? — A.  Perhaps  it  ought  to  be  treated  as  such. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Is  it  true  that  we  know  better  what  is  meant  by  the  Constitution, 
after  one  hundred  years,  than  those  who  were  contemporaries  of  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  ? — A.  I do  not  think  that  necessarily  fol- 
lows. We  know  a great  many  things  that  were  not  known  or  dreamed 
of  one  hundred  years  ago.  The  frame-work  of  our  government  has  been 
essentially  altered  since  that  time. 

Q.  I speak  of  an  instrument  that  existed  nearly  one  hundred  years 
ago — the  Constitution — and  to  which  you  have  referred,  and  I ask 
whether  you  think  we  are  better  qualified  to  construe  that  instrument 
than  the  men  who  made  it? — A.  Personally,  I should  say  not,  of  course; 
but,  so  far  as  the  query  applies  to  the  statesmen  and  jurists  of  this  day, 
I should  say  that  they  are  equally  as  competent  to  construe  it  as  men 
of  that  age  of  equal  capacity. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  you  think  the  statesmen  of  this  day  know  better 
than  the  statesmen  of  1789? — A.  Not  necessarily ; though  it  is  a familiar 
principle  of  law  that  the  testimony  of  a legislator  as  to  the  intent  of 
the  legislature  is  never  admissible  on  the  construction  of  a statute. 

Q.  I have  not  even  claimed  that  it  is,  but  contemporary  legislation 
is  always  admissible,  I suppose,  as  indicating  its  intent. — A.  It  is  fre- 
quently considered. 

I desire  to  make  one  statement  in  reference  to  boots  and  shoes.  The 
statement  was  made  that  that  industry  is  protected  to  the  extent  of  35 
per  cent.,  I think.  I suppose  that  refers  to  the  tariff  on  manufactured 
leather  not  otherwise  specified*  I desire  to  explain  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Commission  what  we  meant  by  saying  that  the  boot  and  shoe  in- 
dustry was  not  protected;  that  the  value  of  the  goods  imported  under 
that  head  was  $018,471,  for  the  year  1881,  and  that  the  duties  on  those 
goods  amounted  to  a little  over  one-third  of  that  sum ; and  that  there  are 
plenty  of  firms  in  Chicago  alone  that  manufacture  much  more  than  all 
those  manufactures  of  leather  not  otherwise  specified  that  were  im- 
ported. So  that  it  is  a matter  of  the  utmost  indifference  to  the  boot 
and  shoe  men  whether  the  tariff  is  kept  up  or  not. 

Q.  Hoes  not  that  indicate  that  they  are  overprotected,  and  that  there 
is,  in  substance,  a prohibitory  duty  ? — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  That  is  the  ordinary  argument. — A.  That  depends.  We  have 
here  a protection  of  20  cents  upon  a bushel  of  wheat,  and  it  might  as 
well  pay  $5  a bushel  or  5 cents ; it  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  course 


8.  CORNING  JUDD  ET  AL.  ] 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


1037 


of  trade  in  the  wheat  centers  and  with  the  manner  in  which  wheat  is 
distributed  to  the  world  than  the  whistling  of  the  wind.  And  so  it  is 
with  the  protection  to  boots  and  shoes.  I believe  we  can  make  boots 
and  shoes  more  cheaply  here  than  anywhere  else. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  The  question  in  regard  to  wool  was  left  in  a rather  unsatisfactory 
condition.  I understand  you  are  representing  the  agricultural  inter- 
ests here  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I thought  you  were  speaking  for  the  farmers. — A.  We  speak  for 
this  section  of  the  country,  as  we  understand. 

Q.  Speaking  for  the  farmers,  do  you  state  that  the  present  duty  on 
wool,  in  the  opinion  of  the  farmers,  is  too  high  ? — A.  If  1 were  to  state 
my  judgment  of  the  opinion  of  the  farmers  of  this  State,  Wisconsin, 
Iowa,  and  Minnesota,  from  what  little  I know  upon  the  subject,  I should 
say  that  it  is  their  opinion  in  a general  way. 

Q.  Speaking  for  them,  you  ought  to  know  just  what  they  claim. — 
A.  No,  sir.  I do  not  claim  anything  of  the  kind.  I say  that  is  a ques- 
tion of  experiment.  I cannot  express  myself  any  differently. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  present  duty  on  wool  is  ? — A.  As  I said, 
I believe  there  are  three  classes  of  manufactured  wools  upon  which  there 
is  a duty  of  10  and  12  cents  specific,  and  some  ad  valorem  duty. 

Q.  Ten  cents  a pound  and  11  per  cent,  ad  valorem  you  think  is  too 
high  l — A.  Of  course,  as  I said,  I cannot  answer  any  such  questions. 
I say  it  is  just  so  much  too  high  as  it  tends  to  keep  out  foreign  wool, 
or  woolen  manufactures  that  could  be  more  cheaply  sold  here  than  ours. 

Q.  How  much  more  wool  is  consumed  here  than  is  raised  here  ? — A. 
I cannot  answer  that.  I cannot  furnish  these  statistics  when  I am  on 
my  feet. 


1038 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  A.  BISHOP. 


O.  A.  BISHOP. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9, 1882. 

Mr.  O.  A.  Bishop,  of  Chicago,  an  iron-worker,  representing  the 
Knights  of  Labor  Association,  gave  his  views  to  the  Commission  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mr.  President:  I have  been  chosen  to  represent  the  labor  element, 
at  least  a large  portion  of  the  organized  labor  element  in  Chicago,  to 
your  honorable  body.  Of  course  we  represent  here  the  other  side  of  the 
tariff  question.  When  1 say  u the  other  side  of  the  tariff*  question,”  I 
mean  the  side  on  which  the  laboring  men  are  interested,  and  not  the 
side  upon  which  monopolists  are  mostly  interested. 

I shall  have  but  one  or  two  recommendations  to  make;  and  to  preface 
my  remarks,  I might  state,  as  an  indication  of  the  general  feeling,  that 
when  the  motion  was  made  in  my  organization  to  prepare  for  a hearing 
before  this  Commission,  there  was  a motion  made  to  lay  it  on  the  table, 
and  the  argument  was  made  that  it  is  no  use  to  appear  before  that  Com- 
mission, for  they  have  paid  no  attention  to  our  wants  in  Congress,  and 
they  certainly  will  not  pay  any  attention  to  our  wants  here.  I argued 
that  we  were  citizens  of  this  Republic,  and  that  this  Commission  was 
our  servant,  and  that  we  had  as  much  right  to  appear  before  this  Com- 
mission as  the  greatest  manufacturer  in  the  land.  The  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table  was  voted  down,  and  I was  instructed  to  appear  before  you, 
and  I hurriedly  drew  up  these  few  remarks.  Of  course  they  are  not 
grammatically  arranged,  for  I have  never  had  but  three  months’ school- 
ing in  my  life.  I was  born  in  this  city,  and  this  paper  was  written,  I 
will  state,  at  my  work  bench.  It  covers  the  ground  according  to  our 
views.  The  statements  are  of  a general  character. 

We  also  are  pleased  that  this  Commission  has  been  appointed,  for  we 
believe  that  in  order  to  obtain  correct  legislation,  the  legislator  should 
ascertain  the  wants  of  the  people.  The  paper  which  I have  prepared 
is  as  follows: 

u Gentlemen:  I have  been  chosen  by  a labor  organization  of  this 
city  to  represent  them  before  your  honorable  body.  We  believe  that 
correct  ideas  should  precede  all  legislation,  and  we  are  pleased  that 
your  Commission  has  been  appointed. 

“And  feeling  that  false  economic  principles,  antagonistic  to  the  wel- 
fare of  the  wage-working  and  producing  classes,  would  be  urged  by  the 
great  manufacturers  and  would-be  monopolists  of  important  industries 
by  basing  their  arguments  on  the  hollow  assumption  that  to  protect 
them  by  a high  tariff*  would  be  to  protect  the  wage-worker,  i.  e.,  they 
would  be  enabled  to  pay  higher  wages — that  this  is  a base  delusion 
and  a snare  to  catch  the  votes  and  good  will  of  those  who  toil  in  facto- 
ries at  high-pressure  speed,  ten  to  twelve  hours  per  day,  and  are  paid 
just  enough  to  keep  them  at  the  forge  and  furnace  from  day  to  day,  while 
they  get  the  wages  back  in  high  rents,  &c.,  ignoring  the  great  economic 
law  of  competition  that  governs  the  wages  of  the  laborer  as  well  as  his 
product  under  our  unjust  industrial  system. 

“It  must  be  evident  to  the  average  mind  that  to  prohibit  the  product 
of  the  poorly-paid  and  landlord-ridden  worker  of  the  old  world  from 
entering  our  country,  and  not  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  the  cheap 


O.  A.  BISHOP.] 


THE  LABOR  ELEMENT. 


1039 


laborer,  is  a great  injustice  to  the  producers  of  wealth  here,  and  is 
equivalent  to  saying  to  us  that  the  masters  shall  have  free  trade  in  what 
they  want  and  no  competition  in  the  markets  for  their  goods  or  wares, 
which  they  control  by  powerful  associations  (trade  unions)  which  re- 
quire large  deposits  of  cash  as  a guarantee  that  they  will  not  undersell  or 
overpay  the  wages  agreed  upon  by  the  association,  but  they  may  im- 
port as  many  workers  as  they  choose  to  intensify  the  competition  for  a 
chance  to  work,  well  knowing  that  the  same  law  governs  in  both  cases. 
The  most  destitute  man  works  the  cheapest,  and  his  wages  will,  in  a 
measure,  be  the  standard  for  all,  and  the  more  competitors  of  this  class 
the  lower  the  wages  and  the  greater  the  profits  of  the  employers. 

“ I will  cite  one  or  two  cases  in  point.  Some  four  years  ago  the  glass- 
blowers  were  receiving  $1.50  per  box  for  making  glass,  and  a good 
journeyman  could  make  from  $175*to  $225  per  month  (none  too  much, 
considering  the  average  life  of  a glass-blower  is  only  nine  years).  They 
had  a strong  union;  every  man  and  boy  was  protected  by  it.  They 
had  a large  treasury  and  could  prevent  competition  amongst  themselves. 
But  in  an  evil  hour  their  employers  discovered  that  they  could  use  the 
steamships  which  the  workingman’s  genius  and  energy  had  perfected,  to 
whip  him  into  the  traces  of  slavish  toil.  They  saw  over  in  Belgium  a 
lot  of  idle  glass-blowers.  The  high  tariff  had  shutout  their  wares  from 
our  market,  and  the  expense  to  briug  a man  over  here  was  only  $28.  They 
immediately  sent  an  agent  over,  and  he  made  contracts  for  their  labor 
for  three  years  at  50  cents  per  box,  and  transportation  to  and  from  this 
country  at  the  expiration  of  their  term  of  service.  Three  hundred  such 
coolies  were  brought  over  and  landed  at  New  Albany,  Ind.,  and  with- 
out warning  the  American  worker  was  given  the  mean  alternative  of 
discharge  or  00  cents  per  box — a reduction  of  200  per  cent.  They  very 
indignantly  refused.  The  foreigners  were  put  at  work  in  their  places. 
The  citizens  of  New  Albany  refused  to  deal  with  or  board  them,  and 
the  masters  were  forced  to  build  a house  for  them  and  furnish  them 
whisky,  tobacco,  and  stale  bread  and  beef,  charging  to  their  account 
u on  the  truck-pay  plan.”  Thus  the  masters  gained  the  large  tariff  tax 
and  $1  per  box  reduction  in  wages. 

“That  is  how  protection  protected  the  American  laborer.  Of  course 
it  was  a good  thing  for  the  masters,  but  grievous  outrage  upon  the  in- 
dustrious American  worker  who  had  to  sacrifice  his  trade  and  seek 
other  means  of  life;  and  the  man  that  built  a house  paid  as  much  for 
his  glass  as  ever.  I could  cite  a parallel  case  at  Saint  Louis,  in  the  iron 
trade. 

uThis  being  the  case,  where  unscrupulous  employers  are  disposed  to 
take  advantage  of  it,  you  must  admit  that  it  will  work  disastrously  to 
the  wage-workers.  And  in  another  way  it  works  ill  to  us,  and  to  the 
emigrant  likewise.  In  a conversation  I. had  not  long  ago  with  a journey- 
man hatter,  he  said : “Our  hat  factories  at  home  (Birmingham,  England) 
are  all  closed  up  and  have  been  so  long  that  the  grass  has  grown  in  the 
factory  streets.  I saw  that  nearly  all  of  the  hats  sold  there  were  made 
in  the  United  States,  and,  reasoning  logically,  I came  to  the  conclusion 
that  trade  was  brisk  in  America,  and  I would  go  there.  I scraped  to- 
gether cash  enough  to  pay  my  fare  out  to  Connecticut,  where  a large 
factory  was  located,  and  applied  for  work,  ouly  to  be  told  that  they  did 
not  employ  many  men,  mostly  girls  and  boys,  and  machines;  a girl 
at  $4  per  week  could  make  more  hat-bodies  in  a day  with  a machine 
thau  could  ten  men  by  hand  a few  years  ago.  And  to  my  horror  I 
realized  my  situation;  my  seven  years’  apprenticeship  was  wasted;  my 
trade,  which  I had  made  such  a sacrifice  to  acquire,  was  lost,  and  I could 


1040 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  A.  BISHOP. 


see  but  one  way  for  us  to  get  the  trade  back  to  my  home,  and  that  was 
to  invent  more  perfect  tools  and  employ  our  little  babies  to  tend  them.’7 
This  man  is  a type  of  thousands  who  come  to  this  country  thinking 
trade  is  good,  and,  after  finding  they  can’t  get  work  at  their  trade  at 
any  price,  drift  into  other  occupations  already  overstocked,  and  thus,  by 
their  competition,  reduce  the  general  average  of  wages  of  all  classes; 
and  low  wages  means  less  consumption  and  less  production,  each  react- 
ing upon  the  other  in  turn  with  a downward  tendency,  ending  in  a 
financial  panic,  filling  the  country  with  bankrupt  merchants,  manufact- 
urers, farmers,  and  idle  wage-worker  ( i . e.)  tramps;  and  after  a period 
of  misery  and  suffering,  an  equilibrium  is  established  and  then  we  re- 
peat the  process.  And  it  is  high  time  that  statesmen  turn  their  atten- 
tion to  adjusting  the  industrial  system  of  production  and  distribution 
more  in  harmony  with  the  development  of  machinery  and  various  other 
discoveries,  instead  of  quarreling  over  the  tariff  questions  and  the 
spoils  of  office.  If  not,  I fear  the  masses  in  their  blind  condition  will 
rise  like  Sampson  of  old  and  destroy  their  temple.  And  even  now  he 
must  be  deaf  who  hears  not  the  mutterings  of  the  distant  storm. 

“But  this  will  suffice  to  show  how  shallow  are  the  claims  of  the  pro- 
tectionists in  this  age  of  wonderful  development,  when  steamships, 
railroads,  telegraphs,  and  telephones  have  brought  the  nations  of  the 
old  world  to  our  very  doors,  and  can  at  a moment’s  notice  pour  their 
idle  millions  into  our  factories  to  compete  with  us  for  the  right  to  live, 
thus  causing  strikes,  lock-outs,  riots,  and  discord  everywhere,  which, 
unless  checked  by  wise  legislation,  will  swell  into  revolution  and  an- 
archy; and  to  prevent  this  will  be  the  work  of  great,  noble,  self-sacri- 
ficing men. 

“We  believe  that  all  tariff  should  be  abolished  and  absolute  free  trade 
be  the  rule,  because  it  is  a form  of  monopoly  and  prevents  the  masses 
from  utilizing  the  resources  of  life  free  and  unrestricted,  and  will  be 
the  means  of  delaying  the  era  of  co-operative  industries,  which  must, 
in  my  humble  opinion,  be  the  next  step  in  civilization. 

“Again,  this  form  of  monopoly  works  a great  wrong  to  others  than 
factory  and  mill  operatives;  namely,  it  withholds  from  the  operative 
the  just  share  of  his  product,  and  he  is  not  able  to  exchange  with  the 
farmer  for  the  produce  of  the  land,  and  has  to  go  without  many  of  the 
necessities  and  some  of  the  luxuries;  and  the  farmer,  not  being  able  to 
readily  sell  his  produce  near  home,  seeks  a distant  market,  pays  usuri- 
ous freight  rates  and  sells  cheap,  and  in  return  pays  the  manufacturer 
his  doubly-protected  price  for  iron,  glass,  coal,  salt,  lumber,  and  cutlery, 
and  the  only  satisfaction  he  receives  when  lie  complains  is  to  be  told, 
“O/q  we  must  protect  home  industries” ; and  as  a proof  that  they  have 
been  protected  well  he  sees  that  Messrs.  Brown,  Jones,  and  Smith  have 
each  made  $100,000  this  year  without  an  hour’s  toil — more  than  one 
hundred  farmers  have  made  by  fourteen  hours’  hard  work  each  day  for 
a year — a condition  manifestly  unjust,  and  a thing  that  cannot  long 
continue  without  causing  trouble. 

“ What  we  most  desire  is  liberty.  It  has  been  the  watchword  for  ages 
in  the  past,  and  will  be  until  all  men  recognize  the  equality  of  all  men  of 
all  climes  to  the  free  use  of  the  natural  forces  of  nature,  and  his  right, 
as  the  fish  in  the  sea,  to  make  his  home  in  any  part  thereof.  And  we 
believe  to  abolish  all  forms  of  monopoly,  whether  national,  state,  cor- 
porate, or  individual,  will  be  to  take  one  long  step  toward  that  “most 
perfect  government,  in  which  an  injury  to  one  is  the  concern  of  all.” 

“ It  was  stated  yesterday  by  the  lumber  interest  that  they  had  paid  in 
wages  to  50,000  workers  $17,000,000.  Truly  a large  sum,  but  if  divided 


O.  A.  BISHOP.] 


THE  LABOR  ELEMENT. 


1041 


b.y  5G,000  it  gives  to  each  worker  the  insignificent  sum,  for  a year’s  hard 
toil,  amid  snow  and  ice  in  winter  ; and  malarial  fever  in  summer,  $304, 
with  whicli  to  clothe,  feed,  and  educate  himself  and  family,  while  the 
few  employers  cleared,  by  their  own  figures,  nearly  $4,000,000  net,  and 
still  have  $40,000,000  worth  of  mills  and  tools  on  hand.  Why  should  they 
not  wish  a continuance  of  the  monopoly  when  it  pays  so  well  ? And  your 
attention  is  called  to  the  action  of  the  Lumberman’s  Exchange  (a  trade 
union).  The  other  day  they  met  and  raised  the  price  of  all  grades  of 
lumber  $1.50  per  thousand ; which,  if  made  general  on  the  3,910,500,000, 
will  increase  the  profits  to  $8,000,000 — a very  mild  species  of  robbery.” 

I was  a few  years  ago  a high-tariff  man  ; but  after  giving  this  ques- 
tion some  study  from  the  standpoint  of  the  wage-worker,  I came  to  the 
conclusion  that  protection  failed  to  protect  me,  in  the  fact  that  1 find  my 
wages  to-day  are  no  greater  than  they  were  in  panic  times.  In  panic 
times  I was  paid  $2.50  a day,  and  that  is  all  I can  get  now.  My  house- 
rent  is  60  per  cent,  greater  to-day  than  it  was  then,  and  everything  I 
have  to  purchase  is  higher  priced  than,  then,  with  a few  exceptions.  I 
find  that  the  coal  I consumed  last  year  was  nearly  three  times  as  high 
as  what  I bought  in  the  panic  times.  I also  discovered  that  there  were 
thousands  of  men  idle  in  the  mining  towns,  and  clamoring  for  bread ; 
and  yet  a few  men  could  meet  in  their  back  office  and  put  up  the  price 
of  coal  to  $9  at  my  door.  These  questions  are  now  before  the  pe'ople — 
whether  or  not  the  nation  can  give  special  privileges  to  a few  men  to 
enrich  themselves  at  the  expense  of  the  many. 

The  labor  organization  I represent  is  a powerful  and  growing  one. 
It  is  not  a political  organization  yet.  It  has  a platform,  and  in  order 
to  carry  out  that  platform  it  must  take  political  action.  But,  I assure 
you*,  if  it  ever  does  grow  large  enough  to  take  political  action  there  will 
be  a change  made,  so  that  our  men  can  be  put  upon  a level  with  other 
men. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  Prefacing  my  question  with  the  assertion  of  belief  that  the 
man  who  does  not  work  is  not  respectable,  I ask  this : If  by  a reduction  of 
the  tariff,  or  by  the  abolition  of  the  tariff,  we  have  free  trade,  the  result  of 
which,  as  we  are  assured  by  those  who  are  in  business  throughout  the 
country,  will  be  to  close  the  manufactories  and  make  us  dependent  upon 
foreign  countries  for  all  we  consume,  do  you  think  that  the  working- 
men of  the  country  would  be  benefited  by  such  a change  as  that? — An- 
swer. I will  answer  your  question  in  this  way : As  wage- workers  it  don’t 
make  any  difference  to  us  who  gets  our  services — whether  they  are  in 
Europe,  in  New  York,  or  Albany. 

Q.  But  as  I go  through  the  manufactories  of  this  wonderful  city  and 
see  the  workingmen  employed — seeing  them  certainly  better  lodged 
than  in  any  other  part  of  the  world — and  then  contemplate  the  contin- 
gency of  these  places  being  closed,  as  many  of  them  were  several  years 
ago,  and  the  workingmen  thrown  out  of  employment — and  the  most 
pitiful  object  in  the  world  is  a man  seeking  work  and  not  being  able  to 
find  it — do  you  think  that  condition  would  be  a good  one  for  this  coun- 
try ? — A.  No,  sir;  neither  do  I think  that  the  abolition  of  the  tariff  would 
work  a condition  of  that  kind,  because  there  are  certain  economical 
laws  that  lie  at  the  base  of  this  thiug  that  regulate  it,  and  no  legisla- 
tion can  change  it.  It  is  a natural  law,  and  so  long  as  that  condition 
exists,  so  long  will  we  have  the  extremes  of  the  Vanderbilt  on  one  hand 
and  the  beggar  on  the  other. 

Q.  Do  you  think  there  is  any  natural  law  to  induce  a man  to  go  into 
H.  Mis.  6 66 


1042 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  A.  BISHOP. 


manufacturing  and  invest  liis  capital  unless  it  is  profitable  ? — A.  In  the 
first  place,  to  induce  a man  to  go  into  manufacturing  there  must  be  a 
demand  for  the  wares  he  may  be  able  to  manufacture.  Kow,  that  de- 
mand is  made  by  the  wants  of  the  millions. 

Q.  Then  you  desire  to  see  no  demand  foi  articles  of  American  manu- 
facture?— A.  I desire  to  see  a greater  demand.  If  $150  was  put  into 
my  pocket  now,  and  I was  instructed  to  buy  a piano,  there  would  be  a 
demand  for  a piano.  By  reducing  the  wages  you  reduce  the  consump- 
tion, and  if  you  reduce  the  consumption  you  reduce  the  production,  and 
that  in  turn  throws  others  out  of  employment  who  are  no  longer  con- 
sumers, and  the  tendency  is  to  panic,  as  I stated  in  my  paper.  But  re- 
verse the  operation,  and  you  set  the  mills  humming.  Give  to  each  em- 
ploye all  that  he  produces,  and  then  he  will  be  unable  to  consume  all 
that  every  other  employe  produces,  and  hence  he  will  be  constantly 
coming  in  contact  with  new  wants,  and  those  new  wants  will  have  to  be 
supplied.  To-day  the  reverse  is  the  condition. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Every  man  in  this  land  has  the  right  to  go 
where  he  pleases,  to  engage  in  whatever  business  he  chooses,  to  farm  or 
to  labor  in  any  way,  and  to  have  the  results  of  that  which  he  produces. 
He  can  get  his  lauds  free;  they  cost  him  nothing.  All  that  he  has  to 
do  is  to  work  upon  that  land,  and  he  certainly  has  a right  to  ail  the 
production  of  that  land.  He  can  work  lor  himself  if  he  has  a trade ; and 
if  he  can  sell  the  product  of  his  handicraft  there  is  certainly  nothing  to 
prevent  him  enjoying  all  that  he  produces. 

The  Witness.  Well,  sir,  I admit  that  a man  can  go  where  he  pleases 
in  this  country ; that  is,  if  he  has  got  the  wherewithal  to  go ; but  if  he  is 
situated  as  I am,  with  a family  of  eight,  and  trying  to  keep  the  family 
together,  and  get  money  enough  to  go  West  and  find  a farm,  he  will 
live  a good  many  years  before  he  will  get  out  of  the  city.  I have  not 
been  outside  of  the  city  of  Chicago  more  than  five  miles  in  three  years, 
and  I am  not  a drinking  man  myself,  and  I don’t  see  any  way  I can  get 
out  without  leaving  my  family.  To  tell  me  that  there  is  a farm  in  the 
West  for  me  is  simply  a mockery.  I can’t  go  there.  There  was  a wise 
measure  introduced  into  Congress,  three  or  four  years  ago,  that  would 
have  enabled  me  and  millions  of  others  to  go  upon  the  land  that  belongs 
to  us  j but  there  were  a few  men  there  who  were  too  wise  to  pass  it. 


t R.  BLAKESBY.] 


SORGHUM. 


1043 


R.  BLAKESBY. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  R.  Blakesby,  of  Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

Gentlemen:  I think  I sent  a paper  to  the  Commission  since  its 
organization,  which  embraces  mainly  the  heads  of  what  I would  say  if 
I were  prepared  with  a written  paper  on  the  subject.  I come  rather 
to  answer  questions  than  to  make  suggestions. 

The  sorghum  interest  of  our  country  is  a new  one.  It  is  only,  I may 
say,  about  five  years  old,  and  what  has  been  developed  has  been  against 
all  preconceived  notions  in  regard  to  it,  against  all  experience,  and 
against  the  judgment  of  our  most  scientific  men.  Notwithstanding,  it 
has  finally  found  an  indorsement  by  men  of  science,  men  of  practical 
skill,  and  has  finally  been  considerably  developed  in  our  State.  Our 
common  farmers  are  making  a very  large  amount  of  sirup,  which  is  sold 
at  about  40  cents  a gallon.  It  is  sold  by  wholesale  in  very  considerable 
quantities.  As  a matter  of  course,  we  shall  improve  upon  what  we  have 
had  so  far,  because  it  requires  some  skill  as  well  as  practical  knowledge 
and  labor  to  grow  the  cane  and  manufacture  the  sirup. 

Our  common  farmers  are  not  educated  to  the  making  of  sugar.  By 
the  open-pan  process  of  making  sugar  a very  considerable  degree  of 
heat  is  necessary — from  240°  to  245°  F.  That  degree  of  heat  destroys 
the  sugar  very  rapidly,  or  inverts  it,  as  we  term  it.  A very  large 
amount  is  virtually  converted  into  glucose.  Hence  the  common  prac- 
tice of  making  our  sirups  and  attempting  to  make  sugar  has  not  suc- 
ceeded. It  is  very  often  the  case  that  persons  enter  into  an  industry 
with  a little  confidence,  but  soon  find  themselves  at  a standstill.  Some 
of  my  neighbors  had  attempted  the  experiment  of  making  sugar,  but 
became  a little  disheartened  from  their  experience  with  insufficient  ma- 
chinery and  other  troubles,  and  I was  finally  appealed  to,  as  having 
some  confidence  in  it,  to  take  hold  of  the  venture,  and  did  so.  I have 
spent  a little  money  for  the  last  two  years  in  attempting  to  prove  the 
fact  that  sugar  can  be  made  from  sorghum  that  would  polarize  from  9 
to  15  per  cent,  of  saccharine  matter. 

Now,  while  I have  done  that,  I do  not  speak  of  it  except  to  illustrate 
the  fact.  It  has  not  been  successfully  done,  because  the  cane  was  not 
properly  and  successfully  grown.  Yet  I have  succeeded  in  making 
about  12  gallons  of  sirup  from  a ton  of  cane,  and  about  5 pounds  of 
sugar  from  a gallon  of  sirup.  It  is  altogether  against  the  skill  of  these 
persons  that  that  has  been  done ; it  is  in  the  face  of  our  better  judgment 
as  to  what  we  ought  to  have  done;  but  it  has  challenged  our  admiration 
and  our  confidence  in  its  final  success. 

It  is  necessary  that  this  industry  shall  have  the  kind  consideration 
of  the  government,  and,  if  it  has,  it  will  induce  an  investment  of  capital, 
not  only  by  those  of  us  who  know  it  best,  but  by  many  others  who  know 
something  about  the  sugar  culture  or  manufacture. 

In  a little  experiment  I made,  with  what  I regarded  as  a necessity  for 
making  the  experiment  (steam  vacuum  pan,  bone,  and  coal  filtration  for 
refining  the  sugar),  with  a poorly  grown  crop  I succeeded  in  making,  a 
year  ago,  five  pounds  of  sugar  to  the  gallon  of  sirup.  This  last  year  I 


1044 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[k.  blakesby. 


had  a very  badly  grown  crop,  and  I did  not  attempt  to  crystallize  the 
sirup.  I should  probably  have  made  more  this  year,  but  got  tired  of 
waiting.  1 had  to  keep  up  steam  in  order  to  keep  crystallizing  it,  and  I 
finally  dried  out  what  sugar  we  had.  We  had  7,000  pounds  of  sugar, 
of  which  I have  a specimen  here,  which  I would  be  glad  to  show  to  the 
Commission,  if  they  desire  to  see  it. 

The  industry  has  been  the  subject  of  but  short  experience,  and  has 
not  resulted  in  anything  like  a commercial  success.  It  still  remains  in 
the  experimental  stage,  you  may  say.  There  has  been  sugar  made  by 
the  farmer,  but  only  a pound  or  two  to  the  gallon,  and  it  has  not  been 
made  as  it  should  be.  The  success  so  far  does  not  justify  anybody  to 
expect  anything  but  sirup.  Last  year  in  our  State  we  had  7,700  acres 
of  cane.  This  year  there  are  between  8,000  and  9,000  acres.  The  cane, 
properly  ground,  ought  to  run  on  an  average  125  gallons  of  sirup  to  the 
acre.  That  is,  as  a matter  of  course,  as  the  farmers  make  it  in  open 
pans  or  in  Cook’s  evaporator,  a poor  yield  compared  with  what  it  ought 
to  be.  The  sirup  that  I made  and  sent  to  the  market  I got  30  cents  a 
gallon  for.  It  is  exactly  the  counterpart  of  what  used  to  be  called  the 
sugar-house  syrups  which  we  bought  in  Saint  Louis ; I am  very  well 
acquainted  with  the  process  of  making  that.  The  only  trouble  is  that' 
it  is  a new  thing,  and  people  are  all  afraid  that  there  is  something  wrong 
about  it.  It  requires  no  chemicals  in  its  manufacture,  but  only  the 
necessary  skill  and  experience.  My  friends  rather  doubted  my  ability 
to  make  sugar  from  cornstalks,  as  they  termed  it. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  Do  you  give  the  yield  of  125  gallons  to  the  acre  as  an  aver- 
age ? — Answer.  That  should  be  an  average  of  good  cane  properly  grown. 
It  may  be  grown  more  successfully,  and  more  could  be  produced.  It  is 
rather  an  unpleasant  thing  to  introduce  to  the  attention  of  a commission 
like  this,  because  it  is  only  an  experiment.  It  has  only  been  experi- 
mented upon  for  a few  years,  and,  I may  say  almost,  that  I am  the  only 
one  who  has  succeeded  in  making  sugar  in  my  State  from  sorghum.  I 
am  the  only  one  who  has  had  a vacuum  pan  in  which  to  make  it.  Large 
quantities  of  sorghum  are  made  up  into  sirup  in  Kansas,  Illinois,’  Wis- 
consin, and  Minnesota ; but  I do  not  know  of  anybody  who  has  made 
merchantable  sugar  in  any  quantity  except  ourselves. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  From  your  experience,  what  amount  per  acre  can  be  produced? — 
A.  I will  give  you  the  limited  amount  of  cane  that  grows  per  acre:  we 
call  it  ten  tons  of  cane  to  the  acre.  That  ought  to  produce  120  gallons 
of  sirup,  weighing  about  12  pounds  to  the  gallon,  and  from  12  pounds 
of  sirup  we  ought  to  get  5 pounds  of  sugar,  if  it  is  good  cane  and  has 
been  properly  worked,  leaving  7 pounds  of  sirup  to  be  sold  by  whole- 
sale at  about  50  cents  a gallon.  That  involves,  as  a matter  of  course, 
a little  more  machinery  and  a little  more  care  m manipulation  than  is 
commonly  used  in  Louisiana.  Louisiana  people  simply  go  through  their 
process  without  a vacuum  pan,  and  almost  all  of  them,  if  I recollect, 
without  the  bone.  But,  K 1 am  rightly  informed,  hardly  any  of  them 
get  sugar  that  will  rate  as  high  as  this.  I sent  a specimen  of  this  sugar 
to  the  Agricultural  Department  and  asked  them  to  return  me  a chemical 
analysis  of  it.  They  returned  me  a certified  analysis  that  this  sugar 
polarized  96  per  cent.  That  is  about  as  good  as  most  any  sugar  we  get 
nowadays,  except  granulated  sugar.  If  I understand,  the  usual  pro- 
duct is  about  85  per  cent.;  I may  be  a little  below  the  mark. 


R.  BLAKESBY.] 


SORGHUM. 


1045 


Q.  What  is  the  best  variety  of  cane? — A.  We  grow  the  thick-grow- 
ing cane,  the  Early  Amber,  because  our  season  is  short.  I regret  ex- 
ceedingly that  the  report  of  the  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  has  not 
been  printed,  because  it  was  the  united  opinion  of  the  entire  Academy 
that  this  stands  next  to  the  ribbon  cane  of  Louisiana  as  a sugar  pro- 
ducer; but  on  account  of  a little  difference  between  the  Commissioner 
and  a committee  of  members  of  the  Academy,  it  has  not  yet  been  printed. 
That  is  the  opinion  of  men  of  the  highest  science  in  the  country,  and 
men  who  have  given  this  subject  some  attention.  Dr.  Moore,  an  emi- 
nent chemist,  laughed  at  us  at  first,  but  he  has  had  to  acknowledge  that 
it  is  a sugar-producing  plant.  The  doctor  questioned  whether  we  could 
make  it  for  commercial  purposes,  but  he  has  become  convinced  now  that 
we  can  do  it  commercially,  and  he  is,  I believe,  one  of  the  best  author- 
ities we  have  in  the  United  States  on  sugar. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  What  is  the  relative  cost  of  this  sugar — for  instance,  that  which 
polarizes  so  highly — compared  with  that  made  from  sugar  cane  % — A. 
That  is  one  of  those  things  I could  not  possibly  answer,  for  this  reason: 
WTe  have  been  making  expensive  experiments.  Still,  I regard  it  as 
practicable  to  make  it  a success.  I think  it  is  ample  to  insure  that  that 
industry  shall  be  developed  as  the  people  acquire  experience  and  skill; 
it  is  not  everybody  who  can  make  it;  and  when  it  is  once  developed  it 
will  require  its  present  protection  to  sustain  it. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Do  you  regard  the  present  protection  essential? — A.  Oh,  yes.  I 
do  not  think  it  would  be  judicious  to  remove  it.  To  make  it  a commer- 
cial success  the  person  must  grow  the  cane  himself.  He  must  be  on  the 
plantation.  With  500  acres  of  land,  the  necessary  apparatus  to  grind 
it  and  evaporate  it,  it  can  be  made  successful. 

Commissioner  Porter.  There  have  been  a great  many  experiments 
in  the  last  few  years  among  farmers,  and  they  may  have  produced  a 
low  grade  of  sugar ; I know  in  Minnesota  and  even  in  Iowa  and  other 
States  they  have  been  experimenting,  and  I suppose  the  farmers  can 
produce  a lower  grade  of  sugar  than  this. 

The  Witness.  In  the  opeu-pan  evaporation,  when  it  is  boiled  down  to 
about  12  pounds  weight,  it  involves  from  242°  to  245°  of  heat,  as  I said  in 
the  early  part  of  my  remarks.  Anything  above  240°  destroys  the  sugar, 
and  the  last  five  minutes  that  we  boil  destroys  more  sugar  than  is  left. 
When  our  cane  has  been  gathered  properly,  and  we  get  a good  man  to 
boil  it,  he  may  get  all  the  sugar  in  the  sirup,  a pound  to  two  pounds  to 
the  gallon,  but  not  often.  But  with  the  vacuum-pan  process  we  ought 
to  get  whatever  sugar  there  is,  because  we  don’t  destroy  anything  by 
our  work.  In  our  vacuum-pan  process,  after  the  sugar  is  reduced  to 
about  25°  saccharometer  test — it  has  a large  quantity  of  water  at  that 
time — we  then  pass  it  through  the  bone  and  coal.  It  then  goes  to  the 
vacuum  pan,  and  in  that  way  never  gets  over  about  140°  of  heat,  and 
still  that  reduces  the  sirup. 

Q.  Is  the  sugar  being  made  by  persons  for  their  own  use  in  the  West 
at  present  ? — A.  The  open-pan  process  defeats  the  making  of  sugar, 
simply  because  it  requires  such  a high  degree  of  heat,  which  inverts 
and  makes  glucose  of  it  instead  of  sugar.  Every  particle  of  glucose 
will  defeat  another  particle  of  sugar  and  cause  it  to  fail  to  crystallize. 
If  one-half  of  it  is  glucose  it  will  not  crystallize  at  all. 

Q.  That  is  your  explanation  of  its  failure  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 


1046 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[R.  blakesby. 


By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Have  you  tlie  proper  machinery? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  far  is  your  place  from  Saint  Paul  ? — A.  Forty  miles,  T sup- 
pose. I thiuk,  perhaps,  we  have  some  authority  for  saying  that  the  cli- 
mate of  Minnesota  develops  saccharine  matter  more  successfully  than 
many  other  localities  further  south.  It  is  my  impression  that  it  does. 
I believe  our  cane  product^will  polarize  higher  .than  those  of  Illinois, 
Iowa,  or  Missouri.  Still,  I have  not  been'hble  to  test  that  successfully, 
for  the  reason  that  I have  not  been  able  to  get  their  canes  in  season. 

Q.  I understood  you  to  say  that  this  season  there  would  be  between 
8,000  and  9,000  acres  of  this  sorghum  cultivated  in  Minnesota,  and  the 
reason  why  the  most  of  this  is  not  converted  into  sugar  is  from  defects 
in  machinery,  and  not  from  defects  in  the  cane? — A.  From  defects  in 
the  machinery  mainly — machinery  and  skill.  The  process  which  they 
use  is  not  adapted  to  making  sugar. 

Q.  Will  these  8,000  or  9,000  acres  be  converted  into  sirup? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  and  it  is  all  sold  to  the  merchants.  For  instance,  my  neighbors 
make,  by  what  is  called  Cook’s  evaporator,  sometimes  as  much  as  50 
barrels  of  sirup.  Our  principal  wholesale  men  in  Saint  Paul  buy  that 
sirup  clean,  40  or  50  barrels  at  a time,  and  they  have  always  sold  it  to 
their  customers. 

Q.  What  does  the  Cook  evaporator  cost? — A.  From  $200  to  $500, 
according  to  the  size.  There  are  different  sizes.  Perhaps  some  may 
cost  less  than  that. 

Q.  To  your  knowledge,  has  any  one  failed  to  produce  sirup  out  of 
sorghum? — A.  Ko;  there  is  no  question  about  that.  The  only  question 
is  about  the  quality  of  it,  and  that  depends  largely  upon  the  skill  of  the 
man  who  handles  it,  and  upon  the  machinery. 

Q.  Are  you  satisfied,  after  three  years’  experience  in  the  manufact- 
ure, that  enough  sugar  can  be  made  for  home  consumption  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  I have  no  doubt  of  it.  I have  expressed  that  opinion  to  every  one 
in  conventions  at  home  repeatedly.  We  have  established  that  beyond 
question,  I tl£nk. 

Q.  Do  you  think,  if  the  Western  peoiffe  would  plant  this  sorghum 
and  prepare  the  right  kind  of  machinery  for  converting  it  into  , sugar, 
that  it  can  be  done  as  profitably  as  to  raise  wheat  and  sell  it  and  then 
take  the  money  and  buy  sugar? — A.  To  grow  an  acre  of  this  cane  will 
cost  as  much  as  to  grow  an  acre  of  corn.  You  are  familiar  with  that. 

Q.  Ko  morel — A.  Ko  more;  probably  hardly  as  much  altogether.  It 
ought  to  be  ground  and  worked  by  steam.  Fuel  to  some  extent  ought 
to  be  the  ground  cane.  I am  convinced  that  I can  raise  fuel  enough 
from  the  cane  to  work  it,  thus  avoiding  expense  for  fuel. 

As  to  the  manipulation  and  the  interest  on  investment  of  capital,  I 
am  sure  that  there  is  no  question;  it  is  going  to  make  sugar,  not  only 
for  ourselves,  but  for  our  neighbors  and  almost  anybody.  I want  you 
all  to  understand  that  this  is  a commercial  article,  and  1 now  show  you 
some  that  was  taken  out  of  a quantity  that  I sold  at  9 cents  a pound, 
without  furnishing  the  cask  to  put  it  in. 

Q.  What  would  Louisiana  sugar  of  about  the  same  quality  cost? — 
A.  About  10  cents.  I could  have  sold  100,000  pounds,  if  I had  had  it, 
just  as  well  as  what  1 did  sell. 

Q.  Are  you  sufficiently  satisfied  with  your  own  success  in  its  manu- 
facture ? — A.  At  this  time  it  is  entirely  impracticable  to  work  my  fac- 
tory. There  was  a great  deal  of  enthusiasm  among  my  neighbors,  and 
they  were  all  going  to  grow  cane  and  support  this  institution,  but  they 


R.  1JLAKESBY.] 


SORGHUM 


1047 


got  scared  a little  at  first,  and  I found  difficulty  in  getting  them  to  grow 
it  and  bring  it  in.  The  factory  is  in  a town,  and  it  was  brought  to  me 
last  year  some  4 or  5 miles  by  fifty  different  persons.  I wanted  somebody 
to  grow  me  200  acres  of  this  cane,,  but  1 could  not  get  it  done,  and  so 
I said,  “ Gentlemen,  1 think  I must  close  up  this  establishment  this 
year  and  let  it  stand,  as  I can’t  get  the  cane  here.”  I succeeded,  you 
understand,  after  an  experiment  by  other  parties  who  had  lost  confi- 
dence, and,  against  that  experience  and  want  of  confidence  on  the 
part  of  others,  we  did  succeed  in  making  some  sugar,  very  successfully, 
as  I thought. 

Q.  What  sort  of  machinery  do  you  use  in  making  that  sugar? — A. 
It  is  virtually  the  plant  that  was  gotten  up  by  the  farmers  in  the  first 
place.  A very  considerable  amount  of  money  was  spent — I don’t  know 
how  much — and  they  got  in  debt  and  then  told  me,  “If  you  will  take 
this  off  our  hands  we  will  give  you  what  we  have  spent.”  It  has  cost 
me  about  $18,000. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  It  must  be  very  costly. 

The  Witness.  Well,  it  has  cost  too  much  money  because  it  came  from 
different  localities  and  at  an  expense  which  would  probably  attend  an 
effort  to  put  up  machinery  complete  and  clean.  It  is  capable  of  work- 
ing about  200  acres.  It  is  perhaps  not  so  complete  as  if  a person  skilled 
in  this  industry  was  to  start  out  to  make  a plant  to  work  the  cane  in 
time  to  come. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  this  sugar  is  actually  being  sold? 
— A.  I only  mean  that  it  has  been  manufactured  commercially. 

Q.  There  is  none  of  it  for  sale? — A.  No;  it  has  all  been  sold  and 
eaten.  There  was  only  7,000  pounds  made.  It  was  simply  an  experi- 
ment. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  end  of  it?— A.  We  did  not  make  enough  to  be 
talked  about.  The  institution  will  be  moved  from  where  it  is  now  to 
somewhere  else ; it  is  only  waiting. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  If  I understand  you,  your  present  plant  has  the  capacity  of  about 
2,000  tons  of  cane  a year  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  pounds  of  sugar  would  that  make?— A.  About  600 
pounds  of  sugar  to  the  acre,  according  to  our  experience ; but  I do  not 
think  that  is  as  successful  as  it  ought  to  be.  If  we  get  men  to  work  it 
who  understand  the  business,  there  will  be  no  trouble  about  it. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  I have  seen  some  statements  emanating  from  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  in  regard  to  making  sugar  from  corn.  Have  you  had  any 
experience  in  that  direction  ? — A.  No,  sir ; the  time  that  corn  will  bear 
working  is  so  short  in  Minnesota  that  it  would  hardly  be  worth  the 
effort.  I think  probably  the  statements  that  have  been  made  are  cor- 
rect, but  it  is  hardly  a practical  industry.  This  cane  may  be  worked 
with  us,  according  to  the  ordinary  season,  for  about  forty-five  to  fifty 
days. 


1048 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[MARSHALL  FIELD. 


MARSHALL  FIELD. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  Marshall  Field,  of  the  firm  of  Marshall  Field  & Co.,  importers 
of  dry  goods,  Chicago,  submitted  the  following  statement: 

Gentlemen  : I take  pleasure  in  submitting  to  you  some  general  views 
on  the  tariff  question,  together  with  some  more  specific  ideas  relating  to 
the  business  in  which  I am  engaged. 

I am  for  a liberal  tariff,  as  I believe  in  encouraging  home  manufact- 
ures and  home  labor  in  every  reasonable  way.  I am  convinced,  how- 
ever, that  the  present  tariff  is  too  high,  not  only  for  the  good  of  the 
people,  but  for  the  good  of  the  manufacturer.  It  should  be  reduced 
and  thoroughly  revised  and  simplified.  As  it  stands  it  is  unreasonable 
and  unscientific,  and  is  constantly  defeating  the  very  objects  for  which 
it  has  been  framed. 

To  illustrate  my  meaning : With  a lower  duty  on  articles  of  luxury, 
such  as  silks,  velvets,  ribbons,  laces,  kid  gloves,  fine  shawls,  and  similar 
merchandise,  not  only  would  the  government  receive  a greater  revenue, 
but  the  American  manufacturer  would  receive  a better  protection,  as  it 
would  largely  tend  to  prevent  undervaluation  and  smuggling,  and  place 
the  import  business  in  this  class  of  goods  where  it  has  never  been — 
on  an  honest  basis.  To-day  it  is  almost  entirely  in  the  hands  of  French- 
men and  Germans,  mostly  aliens,  and  agents  of  foreign  principals,  and 
men  who  have  no  interest  whatever  in  this  country,  save  to  make  their 
fortunes  in  it,  and  then  return  to  make  their  residence  in  Europe.  An 
American  merchant  cannot  go  to  the  foreign  markets  and  buy  these 
goods  for  importation  at  the  ruling  foreign  prices  except  at  a ruinous 
loss.  They  are  delivered  in  the  United  States  to  the  agents  I have  men- 
tioned only  in  prices  in  American  money,  which  is  done  to  avoid  estab- 
lishing a foreign  market  value.  This  is  a business  very  hard  to  detect, 
and  the  American  Government,  with  all  the  forces  at  its  command,  in 
the  shape  of  consuls  and  special  agents,  has  been  unable  to  break  it  up. 
The  temptation  to  undervaluation  is  of  course  the  enormous  duty,  which 
insures  a correspondingly  large  gain.  I have  spoken  of  a line  of  goods 
in  which  I have  had  personal  experience.  Doubtless  the  same  state  of 
affair*  exists  in  other  branches  of  trade. 

. I believe  there  should  be  a large  reduction  in  the  duty  on  all  raw 
materials.  I would  not  tax  raw  wool  more  than  15  per  cent.  This  would 
make  35  to  40  per  cent,  a reasonable  tax  on  manufactured  woolen  goods, 
such  as  carpets.  I could  not  recommend  a duty  of  over  25  per  cent,  on 
all  manufactures  of  cotton  and  linen,  nor  over  35  to  40  per  cent,  on 
any  manufactures  of  wool.  Silks,  velvets,  ribbons,  and  laces  manufact- 
ured from  pure  silk  should  pay  about  35  per  cent. ; and  on  piece  silks 
and  satins  I recommend  a specific  duty  by  the  pound  weight  that  would 
yield  an  average  rate  of  35  to  40  per  cent.  1 also  recommend  a specific 
duty  by  the  dozeu  pairs  on  kid  gloves,  and  1 suggest  $3  per  dozen  as  a 
fair  rate,  that  would  amply  protect  the  cheap  grades  manufactured  in 
this  country,  but  would  be  reasonable  on  the  finer  grades,  which  we  do 
not  make  at  all. 

I am  of  opinion  that  the  duty  should  be  entirely  abolished  on  all  pack- 
ing  charges,  shipping  charges,  brokerages,  aud  commissions.  In  other 


MARSHALL  FIELD.] 


DRY  GOODS. 


1 049 


words,  I believe  that  the  dutiable  value  should  be  the  wholesale  price  of 
the  goods  at  the  actual  market  i u which  they  are  purchased.  The  compul- 
sory addition  of  these  petty  charges  yields  no  considerable  revenue,  and 
entails  incessant  annoyance  on  the  importer.  For  the  same  reason  I 
recommend  the  abolition  of  all  fees  in  connection  with  the  payment  of 
duties,  and  the  privilege  of  making  a general  warehouse  bond,  instead 
of  an  individual  bond  on  every  consignment  that  is  warehoused. 

I recommend  the  entire  abolition  of  all  mixed  duties.  Let  the  rate  on 
an  article  be  either  specific  or  ad  valorem,  but  do  not  mix  them.  The 
present  classification  of  silks,  cottons,  and  wools  is  remarkably  involved. 
It  should  be  simplified. 

In  conclusion,  I think  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  all  raw  materials 
should  be  absolutely  free,  and  that  still  further  reductions  on  manufactured 
articles  than  those  I have  indicated,  should  be  made,  and  these  views 
are  in  no  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  manufacturer,  but  directly  the  oppo- 
site. 

Our  tariff  restricts  American  manufacturers  almost  entirely  to  the 
home  market.  With  our  cheap  lands  and  cheap  food,  a steadily  decreas- 
ing tariff  would  enable  us  to  compete  successfully  with  England  for  the 
trade  of  other  countries,  where  she  now  has  practically  supreme  coutrol, 
and  where  she  will  have  as  long  as  our  present  tariff  laws  are  main- 
tained. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  Would  it  meet  your  views  if  a uniform  rate  were  made 
as  charges  and  commissions? — Answer.  No;  I should  recommend  abol- 
ishing it  entirely. 

Q.  Would  it  not  meet  your  views  to  have  a uniform  rate  for  both 
charges  and  commissions,  and  let  that  rate  be  universal  ? Would  not 
that  simplify  matters  to  some  extent  ?• — A.  That  would  be  an  improvement 
over  the  present  system,  but  I do  not  think  the  government  needs  rev- 
enue enough  to  make  it  pay  at  all.  It  is  a great  deal  of  annoyance  and 
bother  with  very  little  revenue  derived  from  it. 

Q.  There  is  a certain  expense  in  transporting  goods  from  the  sea- 
board, as  well,  as  the  inspection,  &c.,  and  you  know  better  than  I do  that 
it  would  amount  to  a certain  percentage.  If  that  percentage  was  fixed 
bylaw,  would  it  not  be  better? — A.  Now  there  are  no  expenses  other 
than  the  freight  and  office  expeuses,  if  the  business  has  been  conducted 
properly.  I would  recommend  its  abolition  entirely. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  practicable,  instead  of  taking  the  consular  invoice 
for  the  valuation,  to  have  a home  valuation,  say,  made  in  New  York? 
— A.  No  sir;  I do  not  think  it  is. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  cause  to  complain  of  these  valuations  in  different 
ports  of  entry,  for  instance,  with  the  valuation  of  silks,  or  any  item  of 
• foreign  dry  goods? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  find  that  the  appraisement  is  uniform  generally? — A.  So 
far  as  our  knowledge  goes,  yes,  sir.  I cannot  illustrate  it  better  than  to 
say  this:  that  we  have  our  offices  in  good  shape  in  Manchester,  England, 
and  in  Paris,  and  we  buy  nothing  except  for  money;  we  have  no  bankers’ 
credits  or  anything  of  the  kind.  We  have  twenty-six  departments,  one 
department  of  silks  and  velvets,  known  as  department  4.  Our  parties 
who  manufacture  silks  and  velvets  hold  between  $400,000  and  $500,000. 
Out  of  that  $10,940  comes  through  our  own  office  in  England,  and  not 
a dollar  of  it  from  France  or  Germany.  All  of  the  balance,  or  nearly 


1050 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[MARSHALL  FIELD. 


half  a million  dollars,  comes  through  these  sources  I speak  of.  Many 
of  these  goods  were  ordered  six  months,  and  they  are  either  here  or  over 
there,  but  billed  to  us  in  American  money  and  delivered  in  New  York 
to  their  agent,  and  their  agent  delivers  them  to  us  in  New  York. 

Q.  They  do  their  own  importing,  then;  they  invoice  to  themselves? — 
A.  Yes;  substantially. 

Q.  Do  they  invoice  at  the  prices  you  agree  to  pay  them? — A.  We 
know  nothing  about  that ; we  pay  in  American  money. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Is  it  not,  with  the  means  which  the  government  has  at  its  command 
for  making  investigations  through  special  agents,  and  other  inquiries, 
almost  impossible  to  prove  undervaluation? — A.  Yes.  The  proof  of  the 
whole  thing  is  the  statement  I make  to  you  now  about  our  own  affairs, 
that  I cannot  purchase,  and  for  live  years  we  haven’t  purchased,  silks 
abroad,  unless  some  special  patterns. 

Q.  As  the  head  of  one  of  the  largest  dry  goods  firms  in  your  State, 
will  you  please  tell  us  whether  you  are  the  agent  for  any  particular 
manufacturers  in  this  country  or  elsewhere  ? — A.  W e are  not  the  agents 
of  any  manufacturer  of  silks;  we  are  for  one  line  only  ; that  is  kid  gloves. 

Q Can  any  other  firm  purchase  kid  gloves  in  this  section  of  the 
country  of  that  manufacture  besides  yourself? — A.  No,  sir;  we  are 
interested  in  the  fabric,  you  might  say. 

Q.  Is  not  that  a common  practice  throughout  the  civilized  world  ? — 
A.  Yes ; I don’t  deny  that. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  that  you  can  recommend  for  this  assumed  valu- 
ation (for  it  is  not  a true  one,  and  you  agree  with  me  in  that)  other  than 
the  imposition  of  a specific  duty? — A.  No;  I believe  that  is  the  real 
remedy. 

Q.  We  have  had  it  repeatedly  testified  before  us  that  there  is  an 
enormous  undervaluation.  I will  say,  in  addition,  that  we  have  also 
had  testimony  that  about  one-third  of  the  invoices  passing  through  the 
New  York  custom-house,  in  certain  kinds  of  goods,  are  advanced  from 
time  to  time.  Have  you,  in  your  business  experience  as  an  importer, 
known  of  excessive  undervaluation  ? — A.  I cannot  say  that  I have  that 
I can  prove. 

Q.  Would  you  assume  it  to  be  a fact  that  because  you  can  go  into  a 
store  or  shop  and  buy  an  article  more  cheaply  of  a man  who  is  agent  of 
that  article,  and  therefore  who  alone  can  sell  it,  than  a similar  article 
can  be  purchased  elsewhere  therefore  he  is  selling  to  you  at  a loss  or 
that  he  is  dishonest? — A.  It  may  be  conclusive  that  he  invoiced  them 
below  the  market  value.  I believe  it  thoroughly,  if  it  continues  from 
year  to  year. 

Q.  The  same  kind  of  goods  and  the  same  value  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  there  any  other  means,  than  by  comparison  with  other  goods, 
of  determining  the  value? — A.  No,  sir;  with  reference  to  the  question 
of  kid  glove.^  that  Commissioner  McMahon  speaks  of,  we  are  the  agents 
for  one  kina.  They  are  all  stamped  on  the  other  side.  They  are  the 
three-button  goods,  which  are  invoiced  at  57  francs,  and  nothing  but 
what  is  stamped  with  the  manufacturer’s  name  do  we  sell.  The  largest 
importer  in  this  county,  agent  for  another  glove,  gets  out  a certain 
quantity  with  the  name  of  the  manufacturer  and  calls  them  “ firsts,” 
and  pays  the  same  we  do,  57  francs,  but  he  gets  out  the  great  majority 
of  those  goods  unstamped  and  calls  them  “ seconds”  and  “thirds.”  When 
they  come  into  this  Country  they  are  restamped,  but  I have  never  heard 
of  any  “thirds”  being  sold  in  this  country.  There  are  “ seconds”  sold. 


DRY  GOODS. 


MARSHALL  FIELD.] 


1051 


I think  a duty  of  so  much  per  dozen  might  stop  that  business,  and  that 
it  would  be  a great  protection  to  the  American  manufacturer. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  difference  in  the  invoice  price  of  these  u seconds” 
and “ thirds”  ? — A.  The  “ firsts”  are  invoiced  at  57  francs,  the  u seconds” 
at  43  francs;  I cannot  say  what  the  “thirds”  are  invoiced  at,  but  I 
believe  over  37  francs.  I would  not  state  that  positively,  however. 

Q.  Sojnehow  none  of  them  seem  to  be  below  “ seconds.” — A.  After 
they  get  here  they  improve  in  quality  very  much. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  The  effect  of  the  sea  air,  I suppose? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  We  have  had  recommended  an  extension  of  the  ten  days  under  the 
immediate  transportation  act  to  thirty.  Do  you  favor  that  ? — A.  Most 
decidedly. 

Q.  Why  ? — A.  Because  it  gives  a chance  to  save  expense.  It  does 
not  favor  us  personally ; but  I think  it  ought  to  be  done.  If  the  im- 
porter is  short  of  an  invoice,  or  the  goocls  are  shipped  before  the  in- 
voice, it  makes  a good  deal  of  bother.  I see  no  reason  why  the  interior 
ports  should  not  have  the  same  consideration  that  sea-ports  have.  But 
for  myself  I do  not  care,  although  I think  for  the  good  of  the  many  it 
should  be  changed. 

Q.  He  also  recommended  that  the  ten-day  limit  for  the  publication  of 
notice  of  liquidation  be  extended  to  thirty.  Do  you  favor  that  ? — A.  I 
should  think  so.  I do  not  see  any  objection  to  it. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  any  case  where  goods  imported  to  Chicago 
under  the  immediate  transportation  act  were  reshipped  to  New  York 
and  sold  at  a profit  ? — A..  No,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I understand  that  your  house  is  the  largest  dry-goods  establish- 
ment in  the  country  outside  of  New  York.  Am  I right  iu  that  ? — A.  I 
presume  you  are,  and  there  is  only  one  in  New  York  that  is  ahead. 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  although  you  have  a regularly  or- 
ganized house,  both  in  England  and  in  France,  and  although  your  house 
is  in  the  markets  of  England,  France,  and  Germany,  where  you  can 
personally  select  and  buy  goods,  after  you  select  and  buy  them  and  pay 
for  them,  then  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  import  them. — A.  On  the  class 
of  goods  I speak  of,  we  can  bring  them  here  if  we  pay  for  them.  This 
season  we  have  had  no  trouble  that  I know  of  in  regard  to  cashmeres. 
There  has  been  great  trouble  in  French  goods,  and  when  real  laces  were 
worn  a few  years  ago.  They  have  been  out  of  fashion  a few  years,  but 
they  are  coming  back  again,  and  I expect  to  hear  the  same  story  again. 
Anything  that  pays  60  per  cent,  duty,  even  the  fine  character  of  goods, 
is  subject  to  the  same  trouble  most  of  the  time. 

Q.  You  recommend  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem  duties? — A.  Yes; 
but  I recommend  a lower  tariff. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  practicable  to  have  specific  duties,  on  silks,  say  ? — 
A.  Yes;  and  make  it  per  pound,  too — duty  by  weight,  and  then  the 
people  would  get  better  value  for  their  money. 

Q.  At  your  leisure,  as  soon  as  possible,  will  you  make  a recommenda- 
tion of  changes  from  ad  valorem  to  specific  duty,  and  designate  the  line 
of  goods  that  you  are  acquainted  with? — A.  Now,  you  strike  a very 
difficult  thing,  and  a thing  that  requires  a great  deal  of  time. 


1052 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[MARSHALL  FIELD. 


Q.  But  you  are  the  man  who  has  the  experience. — A.  I should  not 
want  anything  else  to  do  for  about  the  next  six  months  to  go  into  that. 

Q.  That  is  true;  but  from  the  trouble  you  have  told  us  there  is  in  your 
business,  is  there  anything  of  more  importance  to  yon,  and  men  like  you, 
than  that  ? — A.  I grant  that  that  is  true.  It  is  of  vast  importance  to  us, 
to  manufacturers,  and  to  the  whole  country. 

Q.  Then  I think  we  are  right  in  requesting  that  you  help  us  ? — A.  1 
should  not  like  to  promise.  I will  assist  anybody  as  far  as  I can;  but 
as  to  taking  the  responsibility  of  anything  of  the  sort,  I could  not  do  it. 
There  is  no  end  to  it,  as  you  all  know,  if  you  get  started. 


A.  H.  REEVES.] 


GOLD  LEAF. 


1053 


A.  H.  REEVES. 

Chicago,  III.,  September  9,  1882. 

Mr.  A.  H.  Reeyes,  of  Chicago,  gold-leaf  manufacturer,  addressed  the 
Commission  as  follows : 

I speak  in  the  interest  of  increased  protection  on  gold  leaf.  The  duty 
is  not  sufficient  to  protect  our  employes.  We  have  reduced  the  wages 
within  the  past  four  months  about  $2  a week,  so  that  our  employes  can 
scarcely  get  a livelihood  out  of  it,  and  it  is  now  right  down  to  the  cost 
of  importation.  1 understand  the  case  has  been  presented  to  you  in 
the  Eastern  cities,  but  we  also  wish  to  have  Chicago  represented.  We 
are  young  men  from  the  Eastern  cities,  have  some  100  or  125  employes, 
and  it  is  very  difficult  for  them  to  make  a living  in  the  gold  and  silver 
leaf  business. 

It  was  intimated  to  me  that  one  manufacturer  in  Philadelphia  objected 
to  an  increase  of  duty,  because  it  would  iucite  people  to  smuggle.  I 
think  the  argument  is  very  weak.  We  are  speaking  simply  in  the  in- 
terest of  toiling  men  and  women.  Our  employes  are  about  equally 
divided  between  male  and  female  help. 

The  present  duty  is  $1.50  per  jmckage  of  500  leaves,  3§  inches  square. 
The  purity  of  the  commodity  is  23  carats  fine.  It  cannot  be  adulter- 
ated either  for  or  against,  so  that,  as  far  as  quality  is  concerned,  one 
country  has  no  benefit  over  another  whatever,  either  in  quantity  or  in 
the  size  of  the  leaves.  It  is  just  a matter  of  labor,  no  matter  how  much 
is  produced.  It  is  simply  as  between  European  labor  and  American 
labor.  On  the  schedule  it  is  marked  at  $1.50  per  jjackage.  We  would 
like  it  increased  50  cents  a package,  equivalent  to  about  9 or  10  per  cent. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  What  proportion  of  the  price  of  gold  leaf  is  represented  by 
the  labor? — Answer.  Nearly  40  per  cent.  In  England  they  are  work- 
ing for  about  45  or  50  per  cent,  of  what  they  are  here;  and  in  Germany 
about  65  per  cent,  cheaper. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  When  you  say  65  per  cent.,  do  you  mean  the  price  of  labor  here  is 
65  per  cent,  below,  or  35  per  cent,  below  ? 

Answer.  [By  Mr.  H.  Horn.]  The  price  of  labor  there  is  35  cents  on 
the  dollar  of  what  we  pay  here.  We  cannot  get  a genteel  boy  to  go 
into  our  employ;  there  is  not  sufficient  incentive.  I do  not  consider  it 
fair  on  my  part  to  ask  a boy  to  learn  the  trade. 

Q.  I understand  that  you  followed  the  same  business  in  Germany? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  A.  H.  Reeyes.  They  can  place  the  material  cheaper  in  New 
York  with  the  duty  on  than  we  can  produce  it.  To  meet  that,  our  em- 
ployes, the  gold-beaters,  have  been  reduced  for  the  last  six  months  in 
their  wages  from  $2  to  $3  a week.  There  has  been  a large  advance  in 
the  prices  of  what  they  consume  and  what  they  wear,  as  well  as  in  the 
rentals  of  houses  they  live  in. 


1054 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A  H.  reeves. 


Mr.  lleeves  then  submitted  the  following  paper: 

Chicago,  September  9,  1882. 

To  the  honorable  Tariff  Commission  : 

Gentlemen  : The  undersigned,  manufacturers  of  gold  and  silver  leaf  of  the  city  of 
Chicago,  respectfully  ask  the  members  of  this  Commission  to  advocate  an  advance  of 
the  duty  on  gold  leaf  of  50  cents  per  package  of  500  leaves,  and  in  regard  to  silver 
leaf  we  would  suggest  to  make  no  alteratiou,  hut  leave  the  duty  as  it  is. 

We  recommend  this  advance  of  duty  for  the  following  reasons:  In  the  production 
of  gold  leaf  the  labor  represents  33  per  cent,  of  the  marked  sale  price,  and  in  silver 
leaf  50  per  cent.,  and  as  labor  is  in  England  50  per  cent,  lower  and  in  Germany  about 
65  per  cent,  lower  than  in  the  United  States,  we  need  this  tariff  to  enable  us  to  pay 
our  workmen  living  wages. 

Very  respectfully, 


A.  H.  PEEVES. 
H.  HORN. 
JULIUS  HESS. 


JOHN  W.  HINTON.  ] 


BARLEY,  FLAX,  ETC. 


1055 


JOHN  W.  HINTON. 


Milwaukee,  Wis.,  September  11, 1882. 

John  W.  Hinton,  of  Milwaukee,  appeared  before  the  Commission 
and  stated  as  follows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen:  You  are  in  a city  as  much  de- 
pendent upon  a judicious  tariff  as  any  city  in  the  Union,  from  the  fact 
that  our  geographical  position  precludes  the  possibility  of  our  ever  be- 
coming a mercantile  or  (in  the  common  acceptance  of  the  term)  a com- 
mercial city  of  any  magnitude.  Scarcely  any  better  evidence  of  that 
can  be  given  than  by  referring  to  a gentleman  no  longer  living,  but 
whose  name  will  go  down  to  posterity  highly  honored  and  gratefully 
cherished  in  connection  with  the  great  industries  of  the  Northwest — 
iron  and  lumber — a man  second  to  none  that  this  or  any  other  country 
ever  produced.  Mr.  E.  B.  Ward,  of  Michigan,  was  the  founder  of  what 
we  call  here  the  Bay  View  Iron  Works,  to  which  you  gentlemen  have 
been  invited  to  make  a trip  some  time  during  the  day.  At  his  unfor- 
tunate death  we  had  just  a taste  of  the  rich  feast  in  store  for  us  by  the 
prospective  developments  of  other  manufactures,  had  he  lived  to  carry 
them  out. 

It  does  not  become  me  to  say  anything  about  iron.  You  will  have 
that  matter  presented  to  you  by  men  who  know  all  about  it.  But  I 
mention  this  simply  to  show  that  here  we  are  largely  dependent  upon 
a judicious  tariff. 

THE  BARLEY  QUESTION  AND  THE  FARMERS. 

Lately  the  question  has  arisen  among  our  farmers  as  to  the  peculiar 
relations  between  the  duty  upon  barley  and  the  duty  upon  barley  malt, 
and  I find  that  it  is  taking  such  a hold  on  the  farmers  in  a number  of 
places  in  this  State  suitable  for  the  growth  of  b,arley  that  they  have 
already  prepared  petitions  to  be  sent  to  their  members  of  Congress,  and 
in  one  part  of  the  State,  where  there  is  a large  Republican  majority, 
they  have  concluded  to  run  a Democratic  member  because  he  has 
thoroughly  taken  hold  of  the  barley  question,  which  is  a serious  matter 
for  those  farmers. 

Now,  while  in  no  sense  speaking  for  the  brewers  of  Milwaukee,  who 
are  perfectly  competent  to  speak  for  themselves,  it  is  perhaps  well 
enough  to  remind  you  that  they  paid  last  year  over  $800,000  to  the  gov- 
ernment as  duty  upon  beer  which  they  sold.  They  have  been  some- 
what plain,  as  1 am  told,  in  their  expressions  in  favor  of  a lower  duty 
upon  barley,  and  they  have  had  to  some  extent  the  support  of  several 
of  our  papers,  very  wrongfully,  under  the  impression  that  Wisconsin 
could  not  raise  good  barley.  They  claimed  that  barley  should  come  in 
from  Canada  free,  and  the  brewers  claim  that  if  they  could  get  it  free 
beer  would  be  much  cheaper.  I give  you  this  fact  as  oue  very  promi- 
nent, and  one  that  is  being  discussed  to  a great  extent  among  the 
farmers  of  Wisconsin  at  this  time.  I doubt  whether  any  person  repre- 
senting the  agricultural  interests  solely  will  appear  before  you  in  this 
citjr,  and  so  I have  taken  the  liberty  of  stating  those  facts  to  you. 


105G 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  \V.  HINTON. 


THE  FLAX  AND  JUTE  QUESTION. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  another  thing  in  which  Milwaukee  is  par- 
ticularly interested.  Within  the  last  three  months — I will  say  four 
months  to  be  positively  sure — there  have  been  several  gentlemen  visit- 
ing Milwaukee.  They  were  much  delighted  with  its  locality  and  per- 
fectly satisfied  with  the  peaceable,  quiet  character  of  its  laborers  gen- 
erally. Perhaps  almost  two-thirds  of  this  city  is  German.  They  are  a 
very  peaceable,  industrious,  and  provident  class  of  people.  Those  gen- 
tlemen came  here  for  the  purpose,  if  possible,  of  utilizing  the  immense 
amount  of  flax  straw  which  is  annually  burned  as  perfectly  useless.  I 
think  in  Racine,  which  is  the  second  city  in  population  in  the  State,  and 
the  first  in  manufactures,  if  we  omit  the  iron  works  which  are  on  the  out- 
side of  Milwaukee,  there  is  quite  an  amount  of  flax  straw  used,  but  only 
for  stuffing  mattresses  and  cushions  for  railroad-car  seats,  and  I think  I 
am  right  in  stating  that  Racine  is  the  only  place  in  this  State  where  it  is 
utilized  to  any  extent.  We  all  know  that  every  year  there  are  150,000 
to  160,000,  and  in  some  years  200,000,  tons  of  flax  straw  burned  in  Iowa 
alone.  Now,  these  gentlemen  came  and  conversed  with  a great  many 
farmers  and  others.  They  state  that  if  there  was  a higher  duty  upon 
jute,  then  this  great  product  of  flax  straw  could  be  utilized,  and  would 
be  the  means  of  establishing  manufactures  in  the  Northwest  for  the 
making  of  the  coarser  kinds  of  bagging,  suitable  for  cotton  bales,  bags 
for  roots,  and  the  like.  In  conversing  the  other  day  with  a gentleman 
here,  who  runs  the  only  bag  factory  that  we  have  in  the  city,  he  told 
me  that  the  great  difficulty  he  has  to  contend  with  is  that  every  now 
and  then  he  comes  very  near  committing  perjury  and  stands  in  some  fear 
of  an  officer  appearing  to  arrest  him  because  he  has  to  swear  that  the 
bags  are  made  of  burlaps  that  have  paid  duty.  He  has  to  make  affida- 
vit to  what  is  termed  a drawback  certificate,  and,  as  he  said,  he  thought 
it  was  a kind  of  grab  game  to  get  a little  money  back  out  of  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States.  The  proprietor  and  foreman  of  flour  and  bag 
factories  have  to  severally  swear  “that  the  flour  bags  described  in  the 
within  entry  were  manufactured  at  (blank)  wholly  from  burlaps  of  the 
growth  and  production  of  a foreign  country,  imported,  and  on  which 
the  duties  have  been  paid,  as  in  said  entry  stated,  to  the  best  of  our 
knowledge  and  belief.”  He  told  me  that  those  affidavits  were  made 
without  absolute  certainty  as  to  the  truthfulness  in  every  particular. 
The  flour  and  other  manufacturers  should  have  the  right  to  buy  their 
bags  here,  made  out  of  material  raised  here  by  free  labor,  instead  of  by 
the  Hindoos,  who  work  for  from  7 to  12  cents  a day.  That  gentleman 
said  to  me  that  nothing  would  benefit  the  business  more  than  for  others 
to  come  here  to  Milwaukee  and  to  establish  similar  factories,  but  at 
present  they  have  to  import  all  the  material  to  make  export  bags  from, 
which  necessitates  the  carrying  of  an  unusual  quantity  of  stock,  while 
at  the  seaboard  the  foreign  manufacturer  carries  the  stock  in  bond, 
and  allows  the  bag  manufacturers  to  draw  the  material  as  required  for 
daily  use. 

GLASS  FACTORIES. 

There  is  another  little  thing.  We  have  down  in  Bay  View  three  glass 
factories.  Two  have  been  consolidated  into  one  lately.  The  complaint 
from  one  gentleman  who  recently  sold  out  there  was  this  : That  the  duty 
upon  the  bottles — I am  only  giving  you  his  statement — was  virtually 
higher  than  upon  soda  ash,  which  is  the  principal  material  of  any  value 
entering  into  the  manufacture  of  glass,  and  he  gave  that  as  one  reason 


JOHN  W.  HINTON.] 


BARLEY,  FLAX,  ETC. 


1057 


why  lie  sold  his  works.  Upon  further  inquiry  I found  that  they  had 
about  120,000  to,  I think,  150,000  gross  of  beer  bottles  left  on  hand, 
which  they  could  not  sell  except  at  a dead  loss,  owing  to  the  terrible 
competition  of  glass  bottles  made  in  Germany.  The  beer-bottling  busi- 
ness in  this  city  is  marvelous.  You  will  see  sometimes  four  or  five  cars 
loaded  with  nothing  but  packages  of  bottled  beer.  It  goes  to  Texas,  to 
Mexico,  to  Cuba  and  the  other  West  India  Islands,  and  I do  not  know 
where  it  does  not  go.  Of  course  they  use  an  immense  number  of  bot- 
tles, and  if  the  duty  was  higher  upon  soda  ash  it  would  serve  to  en- 
courage the  manufacture  of  soda  ash  in  this  country,  for  I believe  there 
is  none  made  here.  Or  if  it  was  taken  oft*  entirely  and  a higher  duty 
placed  upon  bottles  there  would  be  some  show  here  at  least.  (You  will 
observe  that  I confine  my  remarks  to  local  matters  entirely.)  It  cer- 
tainly would  induce  many  more  bottle  factories  to  start  here,  or  would 
surely  make  the  present  establishments  more  profitable. 

There  is  still  one  other  little  thing  which  is  somewhat  peculiar  and  may 
be  of  interest.  I have  within  the  last  four  months  incidentally  gone 
around  to  over  thirty  drug  stores,  and  have  obtained  positive  proof  that 
the  retail  price  of  quinine  has  not  varied  one  cent  for  ten  years. 

MILWAUKEE  AS  A MANUFACTURING  CITY. 

I do  not  wish  to  detain  you  with  any  lengthy  harangue,  but  as  I said 
at  first,  you  will  find  no  city  more  dependent  upon  a judicious  tariff  than 
Milwaukee.  We  have  labor  here  unlimited  and  of  the  most  peaceable 
and  provident  character.  We  have  a few  large  factories  here  of  differ- 
ent kinds;  for  instance,  the  willow  works.  Wages  here  have  remained 
steady,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  cigar  strike  we  have  rarely  had 
any  trouble.  We  had  a sort  of  a half-way  strike  down  at  Bay  View, 
but  the  men  went  into  it  reluctantly  and  only  in  obedience  to  the  de- 
mands of  an  association  to  which  they  were  attached.  They  have  great 
confidence  in  the  president  of  that  company,  whom  some  of  you  gentle- 
men may  know,  because  he  asserted  at  the  great  meeting  of  the  iron 
aud  steel  manufacturers  of  1878  that  the  true  aim  of  the  tariff  was  not 
to  benefit  the  manufacturers  alone,  but  that  it  was  to  share  its  benefits 
with  the  quarriers  of  stone,  the  miners  of  coal,  and  the  diggers  of  iron 
ore,  and  all  who  labored;  that  it  was  to  be  like  the  dew  of  heaven,  to 
fall  on  and  bless  every  one  that  labored.  For  this  reason  we  have  got 
down  there  a very  peaceable,  quiet,  well  disposed  neighborhood,  where 
1,700  men  are  employed  in  the  iron  works  alone,  and  often  $90,000  paid 
out  monthly  for  labor.  After  a residence  of  over  thirty-nine  years  in 
Wisconsin,  most  of  the  time  in  Milwaukee,  I can  assure  you  that  you 
can  find  no  other  city  in  the  United  States  where  for  seven  successive 
election  days  not  a solitary  riot  has  occurred,  and  in  four  of  them  not  a 
single  man  has  been  arrested  for  disorderly  conduct.  Our  people  are  of 
that  character  who  live  by  their  labor.  There  are  more  working  men  in 
Milwaukee  owning  their  own  homes  proportionately  to  the  population 
than  in  any  other  city  in  the  world. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Question.  Is  this  country  well  suited  to  the  production  of  barley? — 
Answer.  I only  judge,  as  I said,  from  what  I have  heard  from  the  brew- 
ers and  farmers.  As  I understand  it,  the  brewers  very  much  prefer 
barley  that  has  not  been  discolored  by  exjmsure  to  the  air.  All  of  the 
barley,  or  nearly  all,  laised  in  this  State  is  sold  here.  If  the  barley  is 
discolored  by  exposure  to  the  air  it  discolors  the  beer  and  affects  its 
H.  Mis.  G G7 


1058 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  W.  HINTON. 


sale.  I think  that  is  the  only  objection  to  the  barley  grown  in  this 
country. 

Q.  Then  you  would  suggest  that  barley  be  protected  ? — A.  Yes.  sir  ; 
decidedly,  and  I am  sure  that  I am  uttering  the  voice  of  every  farmer 
in  Wisconsin.  I have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  this  great  agricultural  region  of  the  Northwest 
could  raise  as  much  barley  as  would  be  needed  in  this  country  ? — A. 
There  is  no  question  about  it. 

Q.  We  have  had  it  stated  before  us  that  perhaps  your  barley  is  of 
an  inferior  quality  to  the  Canadian  barley.  I have  my  own  views  upon 
that  subject;  but  I wanted  to  know  whether  you  can  grow  it  in  suffi- 
cient quantity  ? — A.  I do  not  wish  to  take  up  your  time,  but  I will  tell 
you  what  was  told  me  by  a gentleman  ; I would  not  like  to  disclose  his 
name.  He  told  me  that  with  labor  so  much  cheaper  in  Canada  the 
facilities  were  such  that  it  is  only  quite  recently  that  they  had  started 
a malt  establishment  here  and  in  Chicago.  There  is  an  aversion  on  the 
part  of  the  American  farmers  to  raise  barley.  It  is  unpleasant  to  han- 
dle. The  Canadian  farmers  do  not  seem  to  be  so  thin-skinned,  and 
they  handle  it  to  better  advantage.  The  Scotchmen  in  this  country 
who  have  been  familiar  with  the  raising  of  it  seem  to  understand  it  bet- 
ter. But  this  gentleman  told  me  that  whenever  he  could  get  Wiscon- 
sin barley  that  was  clear  and  not  discolored  by  exposure  to  the  air  he 
would  as  soon  have  it  as  any  barley  ever  raised. 

Q.  It  only  requires  a little  more  care  in  handling  ? — A.  That  is  what 
he  says. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Is  this  discoloration  owing  to  any  difference  in  the  climate  of  Can- 
ada and  that  of  this  section,  or  to  the  manipulation  of  the  crop  ? — A.  I 
really  don’t  know. 

Q.  Is  it  handled  more  promptly  there? — A.  I have  heard  that  ex- 
plained in  this  way:  The  Canadian  farmer,  owing  to  the  claim  that  is 
made  that  the  Canadian  barley  is  better  than  the  American  barley,  and 
to  insure  a market  in  the  United  States,  has  paid  more  attention  to 
raising  it  and  harvesting  it  quickly.  Nowt,  this  gentleman,  to  whom  I 
have  referred,  stated  that  if  the  barley  in  this  State  was  harvested  with 
the  same  care  that  it  is  in  Canada  (that  is,  giving  it  the  preference  over 
other  grains,  because  it  is  liable  to  discoloration  from  exposure),  he 
thought  the  barley  raised  here  equally  as  good.  I do  not  know  that  of 
my  own  knowledge. 

MILWAUKEE  AS  A WHEAT  MARKET. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  is  the  position  of  Milwaukee  as  a center  for  the  distribution 
of  wheat,  or  what  has  it  been,  compared  with  other  cities  here  or 
abroad  ? — A.  Milwaukee  for  several  years  was  the  greatest  wheat  mar- 
ket in  the  world,  very  largely  surpassing  even  Odessa  ; but  within  a few 
years  Chicago  seems  to  have  taken  a good  deal  of  it  from  us.  And  dur- 
ing the  time  that  Milwaukee  was  that  great  and  all-absorbing  wheat 
market — I say  this  of  my  own  knowledge — it  was  next  to  impossible  to 
get  anybody  to  turn  his  attention  to  manufactures  in  this  city.  And 
I think  I am  stating  a fact  well  known  to  other  gentlemen  in  Milwau- 
kee, that  as  the  wheat  market  has  declined  manufacturing  has  in- 
creased. 

Q.  I have  heard  the  statement  made,  I do  not  know  where,  that  great 


JOHN  W.  HINTON.] 


BAELEY,  FLAX,  ETC. 


1059 


as  Milwaukee  was  as  a wheat  market,  the  manufactures  of  Milwaukee 
were  more  important  or  contributed  more  to  the  growth  and  support  of 
the  city  than  the  total  wheat  trade? — A.  That  is  unquestionably  so, 
from  the  fact  that  a mere  handful  of  men  are  engaged  in  wheat,  while 
large  numbers  are  engaged  in  manufactures.  The  president  of  the 
Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  Saint  Paul  Railroad,  whom  we  hear  spoken  of 
as  the  richest  single  banker  in  the  Union,  is  largely  interested  in  Mil- 
waukee. He  has  built  two  very  elegant  buildings,  which  you  will  see 
bye  and  bye;  and  I heard  from  his  own  lips  that  when  the  presidency 
of  that  road  was  tendered  to  him  he  would  accept  it  upon  no  other  condi 
tion  than  that  Milwaukee  should  not  be  asked  for  a single  cent,  nor  should 
the  road  do  anything  to  injure  Milwaukee,  and  through  his  individual 
efforts,  as  1 understand,  it  is  that  those  huge  railway  works  in  the  Me- 
nomonee Valley,  employing  perhaps,  all  told,  1,400  or  1,500  men,  have  been 
erected.  So  that,  in  speaking  of  whether  the  wheat  business  has  bene- 
fited Milwaukee  as  much  as  manufacturing,  you  have  to  divide  that 
question.  Very  much  of  what  I have  just  stated  was  due  to  the  per- 
sonal efforts  of  Mr.  Mitchell  to  benefit  the  city  in  which  he  lives,  and  you 
are  perhaps  aware  that  he  was  prominent  as  a signer  of  the  remon- 
strance against  the  reduction  of  the  duty  on  steel  rails,  and  if  my  mem- 
ory is  right,  I think  every  railroad  in  the  United  States,  except  those 
more  or  less  influenced  by  British  capital,  was  also  against  it.  It  takes 

72.000  to  74,000  cars  to  draw  the  material  to  the  Bay  View  works  and 
to  draw  the  manufactured  product  from  them  every  year.  The  trinity 
of  these  works  together,  in  South  Chicago,  North  Chicago,  and  at  Bay 
View,  require  about  410,000  cars  to  draw  the  material  to  the  mills  and 
to  draw  the  manufactured  articles  from  them. 

Q.  In  other  words,  railroads  are  more  benefited  by  the  business  which 
the  manufacturers  give  them  than  they  could  be  by  having  the  duty 
taken  off  steel  rails,  &c? — A.  Unquestionably,  from  the  fact  that  those 

410.000  cars  could  empty  Iowa  and  Minnesota  in  a little  while  of  their 
agricultural  products,  if  kept  running.  Iron  and  steel  and  other  indus- 
trial works  are  kept  running  the  year  round,  while  grain  is  only  moved 
in  a part  of  the  season. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  You  say  you  have  lived  here  how  long  ? — A.  I have  been  in  the 
United  States  nearly  forty-five  years,  and  I have  lived  in  this  State 
thirty -nine  .years  last  June. 

Q.  Of  course  you  are  familiar  with  the  growth  of  the  State  and  its 
character.  I have  been  very  much  impressed  with  what  I have  seen  in 
these  lakeside  cities  of  the  Northwest,  and  with  the  flourishing  appear- 
ance of  the  farms  on  the  route  we  have  come.  From  your  knowledge  of 
this  country  and  its  products,  do  you  attribute  any  considerable  degree 
of  the  prosperity  of  this  region  to  the  present  tariff  law? — A.  Yes, sir, 
1 do,  without  any  hesitation  whatever. 

Q.  In  what  degree  ? — A.  I cannot  specify  the  degree.  Racine,  as  I 
said,  is  the  second  city  in  population  in  the  State  and  the  first  in  man- 
ufactures, if  we  exclude  the  iron  manufactories  upon  our  southern  limits. 
Now,  the  two  villages  of  Kenosha  and  Racine  grew  for  years  not  at  all. 
They  were  emphatically  dead  until  manufactures  started.  There  is  one 
manufactory  there  that  pays  from  $2,500  to  $3,000  per  year  for  postage 
stamps  alone,  and  has  between  700  and  800  agencies  established  all  over 
the  States  (J.  I.  Case  & Co.).  They  have  the  largest  thrashing-machine 
works  in  the  world,  employing  700  persons.  There  are  other  large  man- 
ufactories there.  The  inhabitants  of  those  places  are  all  consumers  and 


1060 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  W.  HINTON. 


not  producers.  Yon  can  see  the  mechanics  leaving  off  work  a little 
earlier  on  Saturday,  and  you  see  their  wives  wheeling  the  babies  around 
in  the  best  baby-carriages  that  are  made.  They  have  the  idea,  and  they 
live  up  to  it,  that  a mechanic’s  child  has  a right  to  ride  in  as  good  a car- 
riage as  any  other  man’s  child.  They  are  great  consumers  of  bread,  po- 
tatoes, vegetables,  meat,  and  everything  else  the  farmers  raise.  They 
are  great  consumers  of  the  best  of  everything.  At  Milwaukee  we  have 
about  135,000  inhabitants  ; that  is,  I suppose,  as  near  as  it  can  begot  at, 
and  they  are  non-producers,  but  are  all  consumers  of  food. 

Q.  Your  idea  is  that  the  agricultural  interest  is  benefited  by  the  es- 
tablishment of  manufactures  1? — A.  Unquestionably. 

Q.  You  have  such  easy  access  to  Canada,  would  it  not  be  a great  ad- 
vantage to  have  the  barriers  broken  down  in  order  to  get  the  products 
of  Canada  at  a cheaper  rate  than  now?— A.  No,  sir;  not  a bit  of  it. 
With  the  tariff*  off,  Canada  can  feed  all  the  Eastern  manufacturing 
States.  In  1881  Canada  sent  us  $1,200,000  worth  of  eggs  alone.  There 
is  no  tariff  on  eggs,  it  is  true,  but  from  the  fact  that  other  things  have 
a tariff*  on  them,  our  trade  here  is  very  large.  We  ship  to  the  East  an 
immense  amount  of  flour,  potatoes,  meat,  and  all  other  agricultural  pro- 
ducts. 

Q.  From  what  you  say,  you  do  not  believe  that  we  should  put  our- 
selves entirely  within  the  control  of  any  foreign  power  in  regard  to  our 
trade  ? — A.  No,  sir ; I believe  America  was  made  for  the  Americans. 
That  was  the  idea  I had  when  I came  to  this  country,  and  I cling  to  it 
yet. 

I thank  you,  gentlemen,  for  the  opportunity  of  placing  before  you  a 
few  ideas  as  to  how  Milwaukee  and  Wisconsin  are  benefited  by  the  tariff*. 


CUSTOMS  LAWS. 


1061 


A.  W.  HALL. 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  September  11,  1882. 

Mr.  A.  W.  Hall,  collector  of  the  port  of  Milwaukee,  made  the  follow- 
ing statement: 

I did  not  come  before  you  for  the  purpose  of  making  any  suggestions, 
but  merely  called  to  state  what  is  being  done  here  in  Milwaukee.  Of 
course,  if  1 were  to  suggest  anything,  my  suggestions,  as  collector  of  this 
port,  would  be  iu  the  line  of  a practical  enforcement  of  the  tariff  laws. 

The  only  points  that  occur  to  me  without  any  previous  thought  on 
the  subject  are  with  reference  to  a simplification  of  the  laws  as  they  now 
exist,  so  far  as  their  practical  enforcement  is  concerned.  For  instance, 
the  question  of  mixed  goods  should  have  consideration.  These  matters 
have  all  been  thoroughly  considered  and  discussed  many  a time,  I pre- 
sume, before  the  Commission.  The  questions  of  component  materials, 
chief  value,  &c.,  whether  goods  are  of  silk,  cotton,  or  worsted,  or  partly 
of  glass,  ought  to  be  considered,  and  also  whether  some  simplification  of 
the  present  law  cannot  be  devised.  That  is  about  the  only  thought  that 
occurs  to  me  now. 

The  question  of  extending  the  time  for  immediate  transportation  from 
the  east  to  the  west  might,  perhaps,  be  worthy  of  thought,  and  it  has 
been  suggested,  I see,  that  the  ten-day  limit  be  extended  to  thirty.  So 
far  as  we  are  concerned  here,  we  have  had  no  practical  difficulty,  and 
there  have  been  no  complaints  here.  The  ten  days,  so  far  as  I kuow, 
have  been  all  that  our  importers  here  have  been  disposed  to  require. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  We  have  had  quite  general  testimony  from  customs  experts 
and  from  importers  that  the  addition  of  charges  and  commissions  is  a 
source  of  annoyance  to  both  the  government  and  the  merchant.  What  is 
your  experience  ? — Answer.  That  is  our  experience  here.  It  has  been  a 
great  deal  of  annoyance,  and  a great  many  times  merchants  have  been 
unable  to  say,  because  they  do  not  know,  what  the  charges  are  from  the 
place  of  purchase  to  the  place  of  shipment,  and  the  law,  as  it  stands,  en- 
tails quite  a severe  penalty  if  those  charges  are  not  embraced  in  the 
entry.  Very  often,  unwittingly,  importers  are  led  into  incurring  penal- 
ties by  some  entirely  unintentional  oversight.  I should  think  the  law 
might  be  changed  iu  that  respect.  The  revenue  derived  from  duty  on 
those  charges  is  very  slight,  and  it  costs  more  to  collect  it  than  it  is 
worth.  I should  be  in  favor  of  abolishing  the  whole  thing.  Let  a man 
pay  on  wliat  his  goods  cost  him,  and  do  away  with  all  fictitious  costs 
and  charges. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  complaints  on  the  part  of  the  merchants  here 
that  their  failure  to  protest  or  appeal  in  time  has  been  owing  to  igno- 
rance of  the  date  of  notice  of  liquidation  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  recommend,  then,  that  the  time  for  protest  be  limited 
to  a certain  date  from  the  receipt  of  notice  of  liquidation  by  the  im- 
porter, as  in  the  case  of  advanced  value,  for  instance1?  There  the  mer- 
chant has  twenty -four  hours  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  notice  to  make 
appraisement.  Would  you  recommend  a corresponding  notice  from  the 
date  of  receipt  of  notice  of  liquidation "? — A.  Yes,  I would.  The  date  of 


1062 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A.  W.  HALL. 


notice  of  liquidation  is  supposed  to  be  the  date  that  the  notice  is  posted 
in  the  custom-house. 

Q.  I mean  to  say  the  date  of  receipt  of  notice  making  it  obligatory  on 
the  collector  to  issue  notice  of  liquid atiou  to  the  importer,  just  as  lie  is 
now  obliged  to  issue  notice  of  advanced  value  to  the  importer  ? — A.  Yes  ; 
I think  that  liquidation  should  be  an  actual  notice  brought  home  directly 
to  the  importer,  instead  of  it  being,  as  it  now  is,  a notice  posted  up  in 
the  custom-house.  I think  it  should  be  mailed  to  him. 

Q.  We  have  had  it  recommended  to  us  that,  in  consequence  of  the 
varied  decisions  of  the  Treasury  Department  and  the  mass  of  work  cast 
upon  it  from  the  different  sections  of  the  country,  at  a place  where  they 
cannot  be  practically  familiar  with  merchandise,  instead  of  the  appeal 
being  taken  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  an  appeal  be  had  to  a 
board  or  court  of  experts  to  be  located,  say,  at  New  York  City,  and  that 
their  decision  as  to  classification  be  final  and  conclusive.  What  is  your 
judgment  of  such  a suggestion  as  that? 

The  Witness.  Without  any  appeal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
whatever  ? 

Commissioner  McMahon.  Yes;  that  is  to  say,  that  if  the  protest  shall 
be  lodged  within,  say,  ten  days,  after  the  date  of  the  receipt  of  the  notice 
by  the  importer  of  the  liquidation,  the  collector  shall  entertain  and  act 
upon  that  protest.  Of  course,  if  he  acts  favorably  to  the  importer, 
that  is  the  end  of  it;  if  adversely,  however,  then  the  importer  shall 
appeal  to  this  board  of  experts. 

A.  I think  that  would  be  a good  idea.  I had  not  thought  of  that 
before. 

Q.  What  is  your  idea  of  doing  away  with  all  the  petty  fees? — A.  I 
should  be  decidedly  in  favor  of  that. 

Q.  What  is  your  idea  in  regard  to  allowing  a man  to  give  a general 
bond,  either  store  bond  or  wharf  bond  or  warehousing  bond,  up  to  the 
amount  in  which  his  sureties  justify,  without  subjecting  him  to  the 
giving  of  separate  bonds  for  every  separate  importation  ? — A.  I should 
think  it  would  be  perfectly  safe.  I should  think  it  would  be  sufficient 
to  have  one  general  bond  to  cover  all  transactions. 

Q.  Do  you  see  any  objection  to  doing  away  altogether  with  consular 
certificates  upon  goods  which  are  free  of  duty,  or  which  are  subject  to 
specific  duties  only  ? — A.  None  at  all.  I cannot  see  any  necessity  of 
consular  certificates  in  such  cases. 

Q.  Whether  for  immediate  transportation  or  not  ? — A.  No.  Where  it 
is  a question  of  value,  that  is  the  only  case  in  which  I can  see  any  reason 
for  consular  certificates. 

Q.  Can  you  suggest  any  better  method  than  that  now  made  lawful 
for  reappraisement?  It  has  been  said  that  complaint  has  been  made 
by  importers  that  the  merchant  appraiser,  being  appointed  by  the  col- 
lector, and  assuming  the  duties  of  general  appraiser  (and  the  merchant 
appraiser  being  often  a manufacturer),  the  importer  has  not  a fair  chance. 
Can  you  suggest  any  fairer  method  of  conducting  the  appraisement  ? — 
A.  No;  we  have  very  few  reappraisemeuts  here;  but  in  theory  I can- 
not see  any  improvement  on  that.  So  far  as  the  practice  goes,  I know 
very  little  about  it. 

Q.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  collector  appoint  one  merchant,  the 
importer  select  another,  and  those  two  select  a third,  and  that  the  three 
should  decide  the  matter. — A.  That  might  do. 

By  Commissioner  Ampler  : 

Q.  On  this  question  of  charges  and  the  inconvenience  of  adjustment, 


A.  \V.  HALL.] 


CUSTOMS  LAWS. 


1063 


&e.,  to  which  you  have  referred,  could  not  that  he  readily  remedied  by 
adopting  a given  rate  to  cover  charges"? 

The  Witness.  A.  uniform  rate  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Yes. 

The  Witness.  In  the  way  of  a percentage  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Yes. 

The  Witness.  Possibly. 

Q.  At  present,  for  instance,  the  commissions  are  substantially  settled 
that  way ; that  is,  it  is  not  less  than  2 and  I suppose  it  is  never  more. — 
A.  Oh,  yes;  it  is  frequently  more. 

Q.  Suppose  you  should  adopt  some  given  percentage  to  cover  the  in- 
land freights  and  general  charges  that  are  now  made,  would  not  that 
relieve  the  difficulty  you  complain  of  in  the  adjustment  and  distribution 
of  the  charges  ? — A.  If  it  would  be  possible  to  do  it,  but  I cannot  see 
that  it  is  practicable.  It  would  have  to  depend  upon  the  distance,  would 
it  not,  that  the  goods  are  carried  inlaud  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Of  course  it  would  have  to  be  to  some  ex- 
tent arbitrary,  but  could  not  a rate  be  fixed  that  would  be  substantially 
equitable  1 

The  Witness.  So  much  per  mile? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Oh,  no  ; so  much  as  a general  percentage  to 
cover  all  duties  and  charges,  including  commissions  and  everything 
else. 

The  Witness.  In  that  case  your  charges  would  be  the  same  for  10 
miles  that  they  would  be  for  100  miles. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Certainly,  and  you  have  to  adopt  an  average 
rate*.  Your  proposition,  as  I understand  your  answer  to  Mr.  McMahon, 
is  to  do  away  with  the  charges  entirely  as  a subject-matter  of  duty. 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  that  event,  as  a matter  of  course,  you  would  give  an  advantage 
to  the  farther  importer;  that  is,  taking  the  present  system  as  a stand- 
ard. Now,  ascertaining  some  equitable  percentage  that  would  cover  the 
average  of  those  charges,  there  would  be  no  inconvenience  in  the  use  of 
that  plan  in  the  custom-house,  would  there  ? — A.  None  at  all,  practically. 

Q.  So  that  it  would  relieve  the  difficulty  you  have  suggested"? — A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Your  only  objection  would  be  that  it  might  perhaps  operate  in- 
equitably because  of  the  difference  in  the  charges  for  inland  freights "? 
— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  give  us  anything  like  an  idea  as  to  what  the  range 
of  difference  in  those  charges  would  be  in  collections  at  this  port  ? — A. 
No,  I am  not. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  are  in  favor  of  abolishing  these 
charges  and  commissions,  and  you  gave  as  a reason  that  it  was  incon- 
venient, and  cost  more  than  the  amount  collected. — A.  It  was  fees  I 
I spoke  of  that  cost  more  to  collect  than  they  came  to. 

Q.  My  idea  is  that  the  force  of  the  custom-house  collects  the  duties, 
and  that  these  commissions  and  charges  for  transportation  are  added  to 
the  price  of  the  goods  and  to  the  duties  laid  upon  the  price  of  the  goods  ? 
— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  there  any  particular  sum  paid  for  the  collecting  of  the  duty 
upon  the  2£  per  cent,  and  the  charges  ? — A.  Not  for  that  particular  ob- 
ject, no;  but  it  requires,  of  course,  more  clerical  help  in  the  custom- 
house. 


1064 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[A.  W.  HALL. 


Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  diminish  the  number  of  employes  in  the 
custom-house  ? — A.  I think  so. 

Q.  If  the  commissions  are  2J  per  cent,  and  the  charges  equal  that, 
making  5 per  cent.,  would  not  that  amount  to  5 per  cent,  of  the  whole 
duties  collected  under  the  tariff1? — A.  Oh,  no. 

Q.  Why  not  ? — A.  It  would  amount  to  5 per  cent,  on  the  goods  which 
pay  ad  valorem  duty. 

Q.  Or  a compound  duty ; it  would  either  be  an  ad  valorem  duty  or 
a compound? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  what  proportion  do  they  bear  to  the  dutiable  goods  imported 
into  the  United  States  ? — A.  I don’t  know. 

Q.  You  are  the  collector;  what  is  it  here? — A.  I should  think  it  was 
fully  one-half. 

Q.  And  that  would  reduce  it  to  per  cent,  upon  the  amount  of  rev- 
enue derived  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  About  what  sum  would  that  be? — A.  I am  not  prepared  to  say. 

Q.  What  is  the  sum  that  it  costs  the  government  to  collect  the  duties 
on  imports  ? What  is  the  whole  revenue  raised  at  present  ? — A.  I think 
it  is  about  3 per  cent. 

Q.  If  it  was  2J  upon  half  of  it,  it  would  amount  to  a considerable  sum, 
I presume;  there  are  1,200  officers  in  the  custom-house  in  Yew  York ? — 
A.  I don’t  know  that  any  statement  has  ever  been  made.  I haven’t 
seen  any. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  The  additional  expense  of  collecting  a fixed  rate  of  charges  and  com- 
missions would  be  nothing  ? — A.  Nothing. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  The  practical  difficulty,  as  I understand  you,  is  in  the  distribution  of 
the  charges,  which  vary? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  vary  through  the  different 
portions  of  an  invoice. 

Q.  The  addition  of  the  commissions  is  a simple  matter ; it  is  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  charges  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  As  I understand,  that  would  be  entirely  relieved  by  fixing  the 
percentage? — A.  Oh,  yes ; if  it  could  be  certain,  it  would  be  a great  re- 
lief and  would  be  a practical  help  to  the  custom-house  officers. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  And  a certainty  to  the  importer  as  well  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  any  experience  here  in  the  seizure  of  goods? — A.  Some- 
what. 

Q.  Have  you  been  able  to  convict  anybody  of  wilful  intent  to  defraud 
since  the  passage  of  the  anti-moiety  act  of  June,  1874  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Would  you  recommend  the  abolition  of  that  section  ? — A.  I would, 
most  decidedly. 

Q.  Would  you  recommend  a recurrence  to  the  old  practice  of  giving 
the  informer  a certain  percentage  ? — A.  I think  I would. 

Q.  Provided  the  law  remains  as  it  is — that  the  duty  shall  attach  to 
the  actual  charges — would  you  recommend  the  abolition  of  that  section 
in  the  anti-moiety  act  which  provides  for  the  duplication  of  the  omitted 
charges,  or  would  you  let  it  remain  as  it  is  ? Have  you  had  any  cases  in 
which  you  do  not  double,  and  other  cases  in  which  you  do  double  under 
the  ruling  of  the  Attorney-General  ? — A.  Yes;  we  have  had.  I do  not 


a.  w.  HALL.1  CUSTOMS  LAWS.  3065 

think  I would  be  in  favor  of  retaining  that.  I think  I would  recom- 
mend the  abolition  of  that  100  per  cent,  penalty. 

Q.  Suppose  the  law  remains  as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  taking  of  an  ap- 
peal to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  would  you  recommend  that  it  be 
made  a matter  of  law  rather  than  regulation  that  the  collector  be  obliged 
to  decide  upon  a protest? — A.  Yes,  I would. 

Q.  The  Supreme  Court  hasdecided  that  a withdrawal  is  a liquidation  ; 
have  you  experienced  any  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  proper  rate  of 
duty  under  protest,  in  consequence  of  that  decision? — A.  No;  1 have 
had  no  experience. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q,.  Have  you  had  to  reappraise  many  invoices  of  goods,  or  do  you 
generally  find  the  consular  invoices  correct? — A.  We  have  quite  fre- 
quently made  advances  on  consular  invoices. 

Q.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  sending  samples  to,  or  getting  informa- 
tion from,  the  larger  custom-houses,  say  New  York  and  Boston,  in  re- 
gard to  values,  and  also  in  regard  to  fabrics  ? — A.  No,  sir;  in  regard  to 
fabrics  we  usually  get  samples  from  the  consuls.  Under  the  present 
law  they  send  samples  with  the  invoices. 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  to  the  Commission  that  goods  have  been  im- 
ported into  the  western  ports  (not  Milwaukee)  and  then  reshipped  for 
sale  to  New  York.  Have  you  beard  of  any  such  cases? — A.  No;  I have 
never  heard  of  any  such  case  here. 

Q.  The  idea  would  be  that  the  the  consular  invoices  are  more  readily 
accepted  in  some  western  ports  at  prices  much  lower  than  they  would 
be  in  Boston,  New  York,  or  Philadelphia. 

The  Witness.  What  class  of  goods  ? 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I think  the  items  were  cloth  goods  and  kid 
gloves. 

A.  We  have  very  few  importations  of  kid  gloves  at  this  port. 

Q.  Is  business  increasing  under  the  immediate-transportation  act  ? — 
A.  It  is;  there  was  about  20  per  cent,  more  last  year  than  the  previous 
year. 

Q.  Are  any  of  your  importers  in  Milwaukee  agents,  so  far  as  you 
know,  for  houses  abroad  ? 

A.  No,  I do  not  know  of  any. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I will  suggest  to  the  collector  that,  in  look- 
ing over  the  law,  if  he  can  suggest  any  changes,  he  advise  us. 

The  Witness.  I shall  be  very  glad  to  do  so. 


1066 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[D.  W.  BLANCHARD. 


D.  W.  BLANCHABD. 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  September  11,  1882. 

D.  W.  Blanchard,  president  of  the  Box  Biver  Iron  Company,  resid- 
ing in  Milwaukee,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

I want  to  say  a word  in  reference  to  what  Mr.  Hinton  has  stated  about 
barley.  There  are  a number  of  farmers  who  live  near  me  who  have 
brought  in  barley  to  the  beer  makers  in  Milwaukee.  A few  days  ago 
one  of  them  told  me  that  he  had  about  500  bushels  of  barley  on  his 
farm,  a sample  of  which  he  had  brought  in  to  one  of  the  brewers  here, 
who  looked  at  it  and  said  to  him,  “Mr.  Brown,  you  did  not  raise  such 
barley  as  that,  did  you?”  Mr.  Brown  replied,  “Yes,  I have  got  it  at 
home  put  up  safe.”  The  brewer  said  to  him,  “Then  don’t  you  go  any- 
where else  with  your  barley,  but  bring  it  to  me.  It  is  the  best  barley 
I have  ever  seen  in  Wisconsin  or  anywhere  else.  I want  the  whole  of 
it.” 

I would  like  to  mention  also  that  I am  interested  in  the  manufacture 
of  pig  iron,  and  have  been  for  twelve  years,  at  Napier,  Wis.,  although 
it  is  not  very  profitable  at  present.  We  should  feel  very  bad,  however, 
if  the  tariff  should  be  touched.  We  think  it  ought  to  remain  as  it  is. 
One  gentleman  was  telling  me  about  manufacturing  iron  in  the  Southern 
States.  Perhaps -they  do  not  need  the  tariff  there  so  much  as  we  do  in 
the  North.  We  still  want  it  kept  on.  Within  a circle  of  ten  miles  radius 
we  have  four  furnaces,  which  are  all  in  full  blast  at  the  present  time. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Are  you  making  pig  iron  ? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  in  favor  of  retaining  the  present  duty  on  pig  iron  ? — A.  I 
am  entirely  so,  and  I think  the  majority  of  all  our  people  are,  up  that 
way.  1 think  it  would  bring  the  poor  people  in  this  part  of  the  country 
to  pretty  short  quarters  if  that  was  taken  off. 

Q.  What  coal  do  you  use? — A.  We  are  using  charcoal.  All  the  fur- 
naces up  in  that  section  use  charcoal.  In  the  Lake  Superior  region  they 
use  charcoal.  I think  it  would  be  very  detrimental  to  this  part  of  the 
country  if  the  tariff  should  be  taken  off. 


M.  A.  FULTON.] 


1067 


WOOL,  IRON,  AND  STEEL. 


M.  A.  FULTON. 

Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  September  13, 1882. 

Mr.  M.  A.  Fulton,  of  Hudson,  Wis.,  late  a country  merchant,  made 
the  following  statement: 

If  I correctly  understand  the  situation,  it  is  for  the  interest  of  the 
wool-growers  of  the  United  States  (and  especially  of  such  of  them  as 
have  comparatively  small  flocks  of  sheep  in  connection  with  other  farm- 
ing) to  have  the  duty  on  foreign  wools  entirely  removed. 

As  to  the  relative  prices  I may  possibly  be  mistaken,  but,  as  I under- 
stand, the  wool-growers  between  the  Alleghenies  and  the  Missouri  do  not 
receive  higher  prices  at  Cincinnati,  Chicago,  and  Saint  Louis  than  are 
paid  at  Sydney,  Port  Philip,  Cape  Town,  and  Auckland. 

The  prices  at  Boston  and  New  York  for  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania  wools 
do  not  seem  to  be  higher  than  the  prices  at  London  and  Montreal  for 
the  same  grades  of  wool. 

The  duty  on  flannels,  blankets,  cassimeres,  and  all  fabrics  of  wool,  or 
partly  of  wool  and  partly  of  cotton,  and  weighing  over  four  ounces  to 
the  square  yard,  ought,  in  my  opinion,  to  be  greatly  reduced,  say  down 
to  10  per  cent.  It  ought  not  to  be  true  that  in  Canada,  England,  Bel- 
gium, or  France  as  much  of  heavy  woolen  fabrics  of  like  quality  can  be 
purchased  for  $10  as  in  the  United  States  for  $14  to  $15.  I do  not  of 
my  own  knowledge  know  that  such  a difference  in  prices  exists,  but 
have  been  so  informed.  Possibly  the  recent  tariff  legislation  of  Canada 
has  had  the  effect  to  raise  the  price  of  woolen  fabrics  in  that  country. 

A good  way,  perhaps  the  best,  to  determine  the  difference  as  between, 
say,  Saint  Paul  and  Montreal  would  be  for  this  Commission  to  ascertain 
from  the  wholesale  dealers  in  each  of  the  two  cities,  by  comparison,  the 
cost  prices  to  them  of  like  qualities  and  weights  of  cassimeres,  blankets, 
and  flannels. 

THE  TARIFF  AS  IT  AFFECTS  FOREIGN  COMMERCE. 

Without  foreign  commerce  the  American  producer  of  corn,  wheat, 
cotton,  butter,  beef,  and  petroleum  would  have  almost  as  good  as  no 
market  at  all.  Those  commodities,  when  exported,  mainly  find  their 
markets  in  the  ports  of  the  north  of  Europe,  where  they  meet  and 
compete  with  the  products  of  In’dia,  Egypt,  Australia,  Russia,  and 
Canada. 

Vessels  which  sail  from  this  country  laden  with  American  products  quite 
frequently  come  back  in  ballast,  thus  compelling  the  American  producer 
to  pay  double  freights,  or,  in  other  words,  to  pay  the  expense  both  ways  of 
the  trips  across  the  ocean.  Sometimes  the  vessels  are  laden  on  their 
return  from  Europe  with  some  such  commodity  as  salt,  bleaching  powder, 
&c.,  which,  it  is  alleged,  is  then  frequently  sold  by  the  vessel  agents  at 
cost,  without  charge  for  ocean  freights,  and  sometimes  for  less  than 
cost. 

The  case  seems  to  be  somewhat  nearly  reversed  in  the  case  of 
American  trade  with  Brazil  and  other  South  American  states,  with 
China,  Japan,  and  the  Philippine  Islands,  with  the  West  India  Islands 
and  East  Indies  and  the  Mediterranean  ports.  The  United  States  buy 


1068 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[M.  A.  FULTON. 


yearly  vast  quantities  of  the  products  of  these  countries,  and  we  have 
to  pay  them,  it  is  said,  about  a hundred  millions  of  dollars  in  specie 
each  year,  the  vessels  engaged  in  that  trade  carrying  back  from  this 
country  comparatively  little  either  of  raAv  product  or  manufactured 
goods,  England,  Germany,  France,  Belgium,  and  Holland  supplying 
them  with  goods  at  less  prices  than  the  United  States.  The  same 
vessels  which  bring  the  products  of  South  America  to  this  country  quite 
frequently  take  cargoes  of  grain  or  cotton  from  this  country  to  Europe, 
and  from  thence  are  loaded  for  South  America.  Our  very  high  tariff 
excludes  the  competition  of  foreign  goods  to  so  great  an  extent  as  to 
have  a tendency  to  make  American  manufacturers  careless  and  neg- 
ligent. 

It  is  a serious  question  whether  they  are  keeping  up  with  the  im- 
provements of  the  last  decades,  and  whether  they  are  not  making  poor 
goods;  just  as  rich  physicians  and  merchants  in  any  county  would  be 
tempted  to  render  poor  service  and  charge  high  prices  if  they  had 
succeeded  in  obtaining  a law  that  any  physician  or  merchant  in  another 
county  should  pay  a tariff  of  75  cents  on  each  dollar  earned  from 
business  with  the  people  of  the  county  occupied  by  the  rich  physicians 
and  merchants. 

THE  TARIFF  ON  IRON  AND  STEEL  RAILS. 

I have  heard  the  statement  made  that  the  duty  on  iron  and  steel  rail- 
way bars  added  nearly  $2,000  to  the  cost  of  each  mile  of  railway  con- 
structed in  the  United  States.  Keeping  in  view  the  annual  interest 
and  the  addition  caused  by  the  tariff'  to  the  cost  of  renewals,  they  to- 
gether must  be  equivalent  to  a yearly  tax  of  about  $300  a mile,  to  be 
paid  by  the  people  who  patronize  the  railway's. 

The  people  of  the  upper  valleys  of  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  have 
a rich  soil,  have  had  bountiful  harvests,  and  in  recent  years  have  been 
feeding  the  partly  famine-stricken  continent  of  Europe,  and  they  can 
just  now  bear  heavy  taxation ; but  the  apparent  return  of  an  era  of 
good  crops  in  Europe  and  probable  diminished  export  demand,  and  Tower 
prices  for  American  grain  and  meats,  make  it  a pertinent  question  as 
to  whether  the  tariff  on  iron  and  steel  ought  not  to  be  reduced.  My 
judgment  is  that  such  reduction  should  be  made. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Question.  You  start,  I believe,  with  the  proposition  that  it  would  be 
to  the  interest  of  wool-growers  to  remove  the  tariff  on  wool.  Are  you  a 
wool-grower  ? — Answer.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  represent  wool-growers? — A.  No,  sir;  I only  judge  from 
the  prices. 

Q.  You  are  not  speaking  by  authority  of  the  wool-growers? — A.  No, 
sir. 

Q You  stated  further  that  the  price  of  wool  in  Australia  and  the 
Philippine  Islands  was  about  as  high  as  here. — A.  I stated  that  I un- 
derstood it  was  as  high  in  those  countries  as  in  Cincinnati,  Saint  Louis, 
and  Chicago. 

Q.  How  did  you  obtain  that  information  ? — A.  In  various  ways.  I 
have  to  judge  from  quotations  in  pounds,  shillings,  and  pence  com- 
pared with  our  quotations.  I confess  I did  not  see  quotations  from 
those  colonies,  but  I saw  the  London  quotations.  Almost  every  week 
some  New  York  paper  has  a wool  sale  from  London. 

Q.  Those  wools  are  brought  to  this  country? — A.  To  a certain  extent. 


M.  A.  FULTON.] 


WOOL,  IKON,  AND  STEEL. 


1060 


Q.  Explain  how  they  are  brought  here  if  they  are  sold  as  high  in 
those  countries  as  here? — A.  I suppose  for  carpets  and  some  of  those 
things.  I do  not  understand  those  things. 

Q.  The  liner  wools  I speak  of. — A.  I confess  that  I do  not  understand 
how  they  do  it,  but  I only  state  what  I know  to  be  the  fact. 

Q.  I was  trying  to  get  at  your  sources  of  information. — A.  I happen 
to  have  clipped  out  of  different  papers  the  quotations  in  London  and 
New  York.  You,  being  posted  in  the  business,  can  tell  better  than  I 
can;  but  as  near  as  I can  judge  the  quotations  for  colonial  wools  in 
London  to-day  are  fully  as  high,  if  not  higher,  than  they  are  in  Boston 
and  New  York  for  those  cheap  grades  of  wools. 

Q.  Possibly  I do  not  understand  what  you  mean  by  colonial  wools. — 
A.  Australian  and  Cape  Colony  wools;  they  are  not  fine  wools. 

Q.  Australian  wools  are  not  fine  wools? — A.  Not  very  many  of  them. 
As  I understand  the  question,  there  are  a great  many  poor  and  cheap 
wools  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand,  as  well  as  some  good  wools.  It  is 
a good  deal  as  it  is  in  this  country ; they  have  various  grades  of  wool 
and  they  are  largely  exported  to  England.  I wish  to  be  understood  as 
saying  that  those  wools  sell  in  England  for  a series  of  years  at  as  high 
or  higher  prices,  according  to  quality,  than  the  same  grades  of  wool 
bring  right  here  in  the  United  States. 

Q,.  You  are  doubtless  familiar  with  the  classification  of  wools  under 
our  present  tariff.  What  class  do  you  refer  to,  second  or  third  ? — A. 
To  the  various  qualities  as  they  come  off  the  sheeps7  backs. 

Q.  As  they  are  classified  under  the  tariff? — A.  I do  not  know  any- 
thing about  the  tariff;  I never  looked  at  it. 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  you  do  not  know  anything  about  the 
tariff? — A.  Not  definitely.  I have  a sort  of  a general  idea  that  a great 
many  farmers  think  the  wool  tariff  protects  them,  but  I am  of  the  opin- 
ion that  it  does  not  protect  them  at  all.  As  I understand  it,  they  do  not 
get  any  better  prices  at  our  seaboard  markets  than  in  Montreal  or  London, 
right  along.  I do  not  know  that  to  be  true,  but  I believe  it  to  be. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Do  you  think  they  could  get  better  prices  by  admitting  Canadian, 
South  American,  and  Australian  wools  free? — A.  I do  not  know  whether 
they  would  or  not,  but  500  men  want  to  buy  woolen  blankets  to  where 
there  is  one  wool-grower.  I think  it  would  not  affect  the  price. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I am  not  certain  that  I understand  you  or  that  we  understand  each 
other,  as  to  the  class  of  wools  you  referred  to.  What  is  the  tariff  paid 
on  the  colonial  wools  you  referred  to? — A.  I do  not  know  what  tariff 
our  government  charges  upon  them. 

Q.  Still,  you  think  it  charges  too  much? — A.  I think  it  ought  to  go 
off  absolutely  and  clean.  If  this  country  is  going  to  be  a manufactur- 
ing country,  we  do  not  want  a tax  upon  such  raw  material  as  that,  any- 
how; and  I think,  too,  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  the  wool-grower 
to  have  it  taken  off. 

Q.  Please  explain  why. — A.  Because  wools  now,  with  the  tariff  to 
protect  them,  as  I say,  do  not  bring  any  more  in  Boston  or  New  York 
than  in  London  or  Montreal.  That  does  not  make  it  absolutely  certain 
that  with  ihe  tariff  off  it  would  reduce  prices,  but  I think  it  is  pretty 
clear  that  it  would.  Besides,  the  ordinary  small  farmer  has,  perhaps, 
from  ten  to  thirty  or  forty  sheep,  and  this  high  tariff  on  wools  and 
woolen  goods  costs  him,  perhaps,  more  than  his  whole  fleece  from  his 
flock  brings. 


1070 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[M.  A.  FUI-TON. 


Q.  Do  you  mean  by  that  that  you  do  not  believe  that  the  tariff  on 
wool  adds  to  the  price  of  wool  in  this  country? — A.  I think  it  does  not. 

Q.  What  disadvantage  is  it,  then  ? — A.  It  is  a disadvantage  to  this 
extent:  that  so  far  as  those  foreign  wools  would  enter  into  the  manufact- 
ure of  any  of  our  woolen  fabrics,  it  might  possibly  enable  them  to  be 
manufactured  cheaper.  Of  course,  I confess  that  I may  be  in  error, 
but  I state  it  as  a fact  that  I have  been  watching  for  years  and  I do  not 
understand  the  prices  of  wools  in  this  country. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  What  interest  do  you  represent? — A.  None  at  all. 

Q.  Are  you  not  in  wool  manufactures? — A.  No,  sir.  I own  some 
farms  and  I am  largely  mixed  up  in  business  with  an  almost  exclusively 
farming  population.  I live  in  a country  village  with  some  small  manu- 
facturing industries,  and  generally  those  people  would  like  to  get  things 
in  as  fair  a shape  as  they  can;  they  do  not  feel  like  playing  smash  with 
anybody,  but  they  think  the  government  is  getting  too  much  money, 
and  they  would  like  to  have  the  tariff  reduced. 


W.  H.  DOYLE.]  J 


BOOKS. 


1071 


W.  H.  DOYLE. 

Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  September  13, 1882. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Doyle,  with  Hoxsie  & Jagger,  wholesale  merchants  of 
Saint  Paul,  made  the  following  statement : 

Books  are  first  mentioned  in  the  United  States  Statutes  at  Large  as 
subject  to  a duty  in  the  general  tariff  act  of  1842,  vol.  5,  page  557.  The 
provision  in  the  tariff  of  1780,  that  “all  articles  imported  not  herein 
enumerated  shall  pay  a duty  of  5 per  cent,  ad  valorem,”  would  of  course 
apply  to  books,  but  this  cannot  be  considered  a protective  duty.  Evi- 
dently the  Congress  of  1789  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  book  industry 
did  not  need  much  fostering  to  aid  its  gradual  development. 

Amid  all  the  changes  which  the  tariff  underwent  from  1789  to  1842, 
the  great  iu crease  of  duties  in  the  strong  protective  tariff  of  1810,  amid  the 
struggles  of  a large  family  of  infant  industries  to  see  which  could  get  the 
most  protection,  the  necessity  of  the  American  book  trade  having  pro- 
tection does  not  seem  to  have  been  recognized.  This  fact  is  significant. 
It  proves  one  of  two  things : either  that  our  publishers  prior  to  1842 
did  not  ask  for  protection,  or,  if  they  did,  Congress  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  give  it. 

In  1810  Albert  Gallatin,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  made  a report  in 
which  he  stated  that  about  a dozen  different  industries  were  firmly  es- 
tablished, and  among  those  were  the  manufacture  of  printing  types  and 
the  book  industry.  " 

In  the  tariff  act  of  1842  the  duty  on  books  printed  in  the  English 
language  was  fixed  at  30  cents  a pound ; on  books  in  foreign  languages, 
except  Latin  and  Greek,  5 cents  per  volume — Latin  and  Greek  books 
15  cents  a pound.  To  the  proviso  in  this  section  of  the  tariff  I wish  to 
call  particular  attention.  It  is  as  follows  : 

That  whenever  the  importer  shall  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  collector  when 
the  goods  are  entered  that  any  such  book  has  been  printed  and  published  abroad  more 
than  one  year,  and  not  republished  in  this  country,  or  has  been  printed  and  published 
abroad  more  than  live  years  before  such  importation,  then  and  in  such  cases  said  books 
shall  be  admitted  at  one-half  the  above  rates  of  duty. 

Congress  here  apparently  recognized  the  self-evident  fact  that  a duty 
on  books  not  republished  in  this  country  is  no  protection  to  the  Amer- 
ican publisher. 

In  the  revenue  tariff  of  1846  the  duty  on  books  was  reduced  to  10 
per  cent,  ad  valorem.  In  the  act  of  May  1, 1861,  it  was  fixed  at  15  per 
cent,  ad  valorem.  In  1864,  during  the  darkest  period  of  the  civil  war, 
when  the  government  was  trying  to  obtain  money  by  every  means  in  its 
power,  the  duty  on  books  was  raised  to  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the 
present  rate  of  duty. 

In  1871  the  value  of  books  published  in  the  United  States  was  esti- 
mated at  $40,000,000.  I have  no  data  of  the  value  of  books  published 
iu  England  the  same  year,  but  in  1876  it  was  estimated  at  $4,270,000. 
In  1876  we  imported  books  from  England  to  the  value  of  $940,000,  and 
exported  to  England  $93,000  worth  of  books.  I leel  confident  in  stat- 
ing that,  if  we  had  any  way  of  verifying  it,  we  would  find  that  fully  two- 
thirds  of  the  books  we  import  are  not  republished  in  the  United  States. 

With  Canada  and  other  British  possessions  we  have  a large  export 
trade  in  books. 

The  book  industry  from  its  very  nature  is  one  which  cannot  be  bene 


1072 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  H.  DOYLE. 


fited  very  much  by  a protective  tariff.  No  matter  how  high  the  duty 
is  on  a foreign  book,  unless  this  book  is  republished  in  the  United  States 
there  is  no  protection  afforded  by  that  duty.  It  can  be  said  that  a high 
duty  encourages  the  republication  of  foreign  books.  Perhaps  if  does  in 
a very  few  cases,  but  the  principal  element  which  determines  an  Ameri- 
can publisher  whether  or  not  to  republish  a foreign  book  is  the  reputa- 
tion of  its  author  in  the  United  States,  and  the  circulation  it  would  prob- 
ably have. 

A protective  tariff  on  books  is  asked  for  on  the  ground  that  books 
are  produced  in  Europe  cheaper  than  in  this  country.  As  few  books  are 
printed  here  in  any  language  but  the  English,  I will  only  consider  the 
relative  cost  of  books  in  England  and  the  United  States.  I admit  that 
England  ought  to  be  able  to  produce  books  possibly  a little  cheaper  than 
we  can ; but  I deny  that  the  price  of  books  in  England  is  lower  or  even 
as  low  as  in  the  United  States.  The  reason  is  that  the  English  pub- 
lishers, aware  that  the  price  of  a book  depends  largely  on  the  number 
of  copies  printed,  charge  enormously  high  prices  because  they  do  not 
expect  a large  circulation,  or  because  they  prefer  to  sell  a small  num- 
ber of  copies  of  a book  at  high  prices  rather  than  a large  number  at  low 
prices.  They  object  to  bringing  out  cheap  editions,  beeanse  it  would  in- 
jure their  interest  in  the  more  costly  edition. 

On  the  other  hand,  American  publishers  long  ago  found  that  there 
are  three  classes  of  book-buyers  in  the  United  States:  those  who  buy 
books  for  the  sake  of  the  binding;  those  who  buy  books  to  read  them, 
and  only  want  a binding  of  ordinary  durability  ; and,  lastly,  those  who 
also  buy  books  to  read  them,  but  whose  financial  condition  makes  it 
necessary  for  them  to  buy  as  cheaply  as  they  can.  A book  that  will 
find  readers  in  these  three  classes  will  be  published  in  three  editions, 
varying  in  prices. 

The  character  and  tastes  of  the  people  are  what  determines  the  suc- 
cess of  the  book  industry  in  any  country.  The  only  trie  way  to  foster 
and  encourage  the  book  industry  of  this  or  any  other  country  is  to  fos- 
ter and  encourage  the  cause  of  education.  This  is  the  best  protection 
which  any  government  can  give  the  book  industry.  This  our  general 
government  has  done,  and  so  have  all  the  States.  Justin  proportion  as 
education  is  diffused  the  love  of  knowledge  and  the  love  of  books  in- 
crease. The  school  teachers  of  the  United  States  do  more  to  encourage 
our  book  industry  than  our  protective  tariff.  Those  interested  in  the 
book  trade,  instead  of  asking  for  protection,  ought  rather  ask  that  no 
impediments  be  offered  to  the  progress  of  popular  education,  as  it  is  this 
which  creates  the  demand  for  books. 

I do  not  appear  here  as  the  representative  of  any  particular  interest, 
unless  it  be  the  interest  of  those  who  believe  that  there  should  not  be  an 
import  duty  on  anything  which  aids  the  general  diffusion  of  useful  knowl- 
edge, and  who  ask  that  all  strictly  moral  books  be  put  on  the  free  list. 
The  general  diffusion  of  useful  knowledge  is  one  of  the  most  important 
means  to  increase  the  prosperity  of  the  nation  and  to  prevent  pauperism 
and  crime.  I believe  it  is  to  the  interest  of  every  citizen  that  the  price  of 
books  shall  be  as  low  as  possible,  in  order  that  they  may  be  within  the 
reach  of  the  most  destitute.  It  has  been  well  said  that  the  books  are  the 
friends  of  the  friendless,  and  that  the  library  is  the  home  of  the  homeless. 
For  the  knowledge  that  comes  from  true  books  I claim  no  more  than  it 
is  fairly  entitled  to.  I am  aware  that  genius  and  learning  are  often 
found  in  the  lowest  places.  I claim  only  this,  that,  other  things  being 
equal,  the  man  who  has  the  largest  amount  of  resources  has  the  least 
temptation. 


W.  H.  DOYLE.] 


BOOKS. 


1073 


If  the  history  of  the  protective  tariff  of  our  country  is  studied,  it  will 
be  seen  that  it  owes  its  origin  to  a desire  to  encourage  our  industries.  It 
will  also  be  found  that  as  learning  increases  new  industries  are  added. 
It  is  one  of  the  inevitable  consequences  which  results  from  the  enact- 
ment of  a protective  tariff  that  it  generally  comes  to  pass  that  the  tariff 
will  be  so  enlarged  as  to  take  in  nearly  everything.  Industries  which 
would  need  protection,  and  which  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  are  not  bene- 
fited thereby,  nevertheless  ask  for  it,  if,  for  no  other  reason,  that  it  confers 
additional  honor  and  dignity  to  have  it  put  under  the  protection  of  Con- 
gress. The  manufacturer  hears  his  protected  neighbors  talking  about 
their  infant  industries,  and  also  hears  the  cry  how  kind  and  considerate 
Congress  is  towards  them,  and  suddenly  he  discovers  that  his  is  an  in- 
fant industry,  and  forthwith  he  rushes  off  to  Washington  and  implores 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  to  give  his  poor  little  infant  some 
protection,  or  otherwise  it  will  perish. 

Competition  always  has  been,  and  always  will  be,  disagreeable  to  those 
who  are  affected  by  it;  and  whether  that  competition  is  great  or  small 
the  aversion  seems  to  be  the  same.  This  seems  to  be  the  reason  why 
the  American  book  trade  asks  ptotection  against  foreign  goods.  It  has 
almost  come  to  the  pass  in  the  United  States  that  every  industry  but 
the  agricultural  seems  to  have  a vested  right  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  a 
protective  tariff.  Some  of  our  manufacturers  are  getting  so  that  they 
don’t  ask  it  as  a privilege,  but  demand  it  as  a right,  claiming  that  they 
are  public  benefactors  and  that  instead  of  our  grumbling  on  account  of 
their  being  protected,  we  ought  rather  to  thank  them  for  sacrificing 
themselves  to  the  public  good  by  engaging  in  industries  which  are  so 
unprofitable  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  must  contribute  to 
their  support  through  the  instrumentality  of  a protective  tariff. 

I understand  that  one  publisher  has  appeared  before  you,  but  he  does 
not  ask  an  increase  of  duty.  He  simply  asks  you  to  recommend  that 
the  present  duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  be  allowed  to  remain,  and 
he  and  his  fellow  publishers  will  struggle  along  with  their  poverty  and 
try  to  compete  with  the  pauper  labor  of  England.  We  are  told  that  it 
is  necessary  to  pay  a duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  books  in  order  that  our 
owrn  authors  may  be  encouraged ; that  it  is  better  for  us  t o develop  the 
book  industry  and  thus  do  away  with  the  necessity  of  importing  books. 
Would  it  not  have  been  better  for  the  people  of  the  United  States  if 
Congress  had  prohibited  the  works  of  Shakespeare  and  Bacon  from  be- 
ing imported,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  be  better  that  they  should 
not  have  these  works,  in  order  that  they  might  be  encouraged  to  pro- 
duce similar  poets  and  philosophers  ? 

It  seems  to  me  that  so  far  as  the  protection  is  concerned,  American 
books  and  newspapers  stand  on  the  same  footing.  If  it  were  a duty  to 
protect  American  newspapers,  and  a citizens  of  Saint  Paul  were  to  ask 
for  its  removal,  he  would  be  informed  that  our  newspapers  could  not 
possibly  exist  without  protection ; that  citizens  of  Saint  Paul  would  sub- 
scribe for  English  papers  because  they  are  cheaper;  that  they  would 
advertise  in  them  because  the  rates  would  be  lower;  that  they  would 
keep  themselves  posted  on  Saint  Paul. markets  through  English  sources ; 
and  our  great  daily  would  have  to  cease  for  want  of  patronage,  because 
it  could  not  compete  with  English  newspapers. 

There  are  plenty  of  other  articles  that  can  be  taxed  with  more  bene- 
ficial effect  on  the  country.  Good  literature,  at  least,  ought  to  be  al- 
lowed to  enter  our  country  free.  Of  course  the  general  government  has. 
the  power  to  put  a high  duty  on  literature;  it  also  has  the  power  ta 
impose  internal -revenue  taxes  on  schools,  educational  institutions,,  and 
H.  Mis.  G G8 


1074 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fW.  H.  DOYLE. 


on  American  printed  books ; it  lias  the  power  to  require  booksellers  to 
pay  a high  license,  and  it  has  the  power  to  make  the  diffusion  of  knowl- 
edge as  difficult  as  possible,  and  the  money  derived  from  these  sources 
could  be  used  to  build  jails  and  penitentiaries. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Commission,  I feel  as  if  I could  talk  a week  about 
these  internal  taxes  on  books,,  and  still  have  something  to  say,  but  I 
have  taxed  your  patience  long  enough.  I simply  desired  to  call  your 
attention  to  it  in  order  that  you  may  give  it  that  consideration  which 
its  importance  deserves.  I think  you  will  find  the  question  the  least 
complex  of  any  that  has  been  presented  so  far. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Question.  You  seem  to  have  studied  the  tariff  on  books.  I find  upon 
the  free  list  now,  according  to  Heyl’s  Digest — 

All  books  which  shall  have  been  printed  more  than  twenty  years ; books,  maps,  and 
charts  imported  by  authority  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  or  for  the  use  of  the 
Library  of  Congress.  * * * Books,  maps,  and  charts  specially  imported,  not  more 

than  two  copies  in  any  one  invoice,  in  good  faith,  for  the  use  of  any  society  incorpo- 
rated or  established  for  philosophical,  literary,  or  religious  purposes,  or  for  the  encour- 
agement of  the  tine  arts,  or  for  the  use  or  by  the  order  of  any  college,  academy,  school, 
or  seminary  of  learning  in  the  United  States ; books,  professional,  of  persons  arriving 
in  the  United  States;  books,  household  effects,  or  libraries,  or  parts  of  libraries  in  the 
use  of  persons  or  families  from  foreign  countries,  if  used  abroad  by  them  not  less  than 
one  year,  and  not  intended  for  any  other  person  or  persons,  or  for  sale. 

I understand  that  your  proposition  is  to  put  all  books  on  the  free 
list? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I am  fully  aware  of  those  provisions  you  have 
read. 

Q.  If  you  propose  to  put  all  books  on  the  free  list,  that  would  include 
every  publication  in  Europe? — A.  It  would. 

Q.  Including  the  works  of  Huxley,  Darwin,  and  Herbert  Spencer  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  that  kind  of  literature  ought  to  be  encouraged 
in  the  United  States  by  putting  it  on  the  free  list  ? — A.  I do.  I would 
state  further  that  if  Congress  would  only  provide  for  books  in  private 
libraries,  then  I would  not  object ; they  provide  for  every  other  kind  of 
library  but  the  private  library. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  the  works  of  Huxley,  Darwin,  and  Herbert 
Spencer  can  be  bought  here  at  probably  one-twentieth  of  their  cost  in 
Europe  ? — A.  I know  they  are  published  by  D.  Appleton  & Co. 

Q.  Reprints,  I mean? — A.  Yes;  they  are  reprints.  I think  the  prices 
of  D.  Appletbn  & Co.  for  reprints  are  as  low  as  possible — lower  than  in 
England.  But  the  question  is  about  those  books  that  are  not  repub- 
lished in  this  country.  How  are  you  going  to  get  them  cheap  ? If 
every  English  publisher  would  publish  every  book  that  is  wanted  in 
this  country,  we  would  not  grumble  about  the  tariff.  It  may  be  urged 
on  this  Commission  that  if  you  put  books  on  the  free  list,  you  should 
also  put  paper  on  the  free  list.  1 have  the  statement  of  Senator  War- 
ner Miller,  of  New  York,  to  the  effect  that,  owing  to  the  success  of  the 
paper  industry  in  this  country,  the  price  of  print  paper  is  almost,  not 
quite,  as  low  in  the  United  States  as  in  England.  I have  a copy  of  his 
speech  here,  and  can  show  it  to  you  if  you  desire. 


J.  B.  6AVB0RN.] 


INDUSTRIES  OF  MINNESOTA. 


1075 


J.  B.  SAKBORK 

Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  September  13,  1882. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Sanborn,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Saint 
Paul,  made  the  following  statement : 

I was  not  deputed  to  make  any  statement  before  the  Commission,  and 
certainly  have  no  desire  to  represent  any  particular  interest  in  the 
country.  I have  furnished  to  the  president  of  the  Commission  the  re- 
port of  our  commissioner  of  statistics  for  the  State,  which  will  show  the 
character  and  the  extent  of  our  productions,  and  the  industry  in  which 
our  population  is  engaged ; also,  the  report  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
of  Saint  Paul,  which  shows  the  character  and  extent  of  our  manufact- 
ures in  this  city  and  the  character  and  extent  of  the  business  of  the 
city,  and  indicates  in  some  measure  the  present  population  and  growth 
of  the  city. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  improper  for  me  to  state  in  a general  way  what  you 
will  all  conclude  upon  looking  over  these  statistics  and  gaining  a knowl- 
edge of  our  industries  and  business — that,  perhaps,  no  people  in  the 
country  are  less  benefited  directly  by  the  practical  effects  of  the  tariff  than 
the  citizens  of  Minnesota.  But  it  is  so  difficult  for  a government  like 
ours  to  determine  what  the  interests  of  one  State  are,  taken  in  eonnec- 
tiop  with  others,  that,  of  course,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  determine 
the  true  policy  to  be  adopted  by  the  government.  The  question  is  what 
are  the  great  interests  of  all  the  States  when  considered  together  ? Of 
course,  every  year  our  manufactures  become  greater,  and  our  industries 
are  growing  up,  which,  if  the  present  policy  of  the  government  is  contin- 
ued, will  require  the  continuance  of  protection.  I think  there  is  no  healthy 
public  sentiment  in  this  State  in  favor  of  prostrating  those  great  indus- 
tries which  have  been  fostered,  and  which  have  grown  up  under  the 
protective  care  of  the  government,  but  the  general  belief  is  that  the 
present  tariff  is  higher  than  is  necessary  to  furnish  sufficient  revenue 
to  defray  all  the  expenses  of  the  government,  and  higher  than  is  neces- 
sary to  afford  adequate  protection  to  those  industries  which  have  been 
fostered  and  have  grown  up  under  the  present  system  and  under  the 
protecting  care  of  the  United  States. 

The  times  are  most  prosperous,  and  no  one,  I imagine,  could  favor 
and  sustain  a radical  measure  which  would  chapge  all  this.  Of  course, 
the  greatest  wisdom  is  required  to  prolong  this  period  of  prosperity  that 
we  are  now  in,  which  is,  perhaps,  prosperous  beyond  precedent  in  the 
history  of  the  country. 

I did  not  contemplate  making  any  remarks  to  the  Commission,  but 
simply  desired  to  call  your  attention  to  what  I deemed  to  be  our  true 
interests,  so  that  they  may  have  the  proper  weight  with  you  in  making 
up  the  great  balance  which  is  to  govern  the  Commission  in  making  its 
recommendation  to  Congress,  as  to  what  the  interest  of  all  the  States 
requires. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  I did  not  get  exactly  the  full  force  of  your  recommendation. 
As  I understand  it,  your  opinion  is  that  the  sentiment  of  the  people  of 
this  section  would  be  against  any  very  radical  change? — Answer. 
Against  any  changes  so  radical  as  to  prostrate  existing  industries. 


1076 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fj.  B.  S 4.NBOKN. 


Q.  At  the  same  time  you  believe  that  the  tariff  generally  on  all  arti- 
cles is  too  high,  and  the  people  of  this  section  would  be  in  favor  of  a re- 
duction?— A.  That  is,  speaking  generally;  I would  not  say  all  articles 
and  be  literally  construed.  There  may  be  articles  where  possibly  the 
duty  is  too  low,  even  now.  Of  course,  I have  not  given  that  considera- 
tion to  the  great  number  of  articles  ; I believe  there  are  1,300  or  1,400 
on  the  list.  Of  course,  there  may  be  articles  not  sufficiently  taxed ; but, 
generally  speaking,  more  revenue  is  raised  than  is  necessary,  and  more 
protection  is  given  to  certain  industries  than  those  industries  require 
at  this  time.  That  is  the  precise  position. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  many  persons  are  employed  in  your  city  in  manufactures? — 
A.  Eight  thousand  last  year ; this  year  probably  10,000. 

Q.  What  is  your  population? — A.  Our  population  is  estimated  by 
the  most  conservative  at  65,000,  and  by  the  men  who  have  prepared 
the  directory  at  75,000.  We  have  30,000  names  in  our  directory,  and 
estimating  the  population  at  2J  for  each  name  would  give  us  a popula- 
tion of  75,000.  The  growth  of  the  city  for  the  last  two  years  is  unprece- 
dented in  this  country.  It  has  been  very  rapid.  The  banks  of  the  city 
this  year  will  sell  about  $80,000,000  exchange. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  are  your  principal  manufactures  ? — A.  Agricultural  imple- 
ments is  one  of  the  largest  industries;  also,  boots  and  shoes,  clothing, 
and  almost  all  articles.  On  page  10  of  the  report  of  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  is  a table  showing  how  the  list  is  made  up. 

The  following  is  the  statement  above  referred  to : 


Statement  of  the  manufactures  of  Saint  Paul  for  the  year  ending  December  31,  1881. 


Kinds  of  business. 


Agricultural  implements 

Awnings  and  tents  

Blacksmith  and  wheel wrighting 

Bookbinding 

Boots  and  shoes 

Boxes 

Bread  and  bakery  products 

Brewers  and  maitsters 

Brick  and  tile  making 

Brooms  and  brashes 

Carpet- weaving  (rag) 

Carriages  and  wagons 

Cigars  

Clothing,  men’s  

Clothing,  women’s 

Coffee,  spices,  and  baking-powder 

Confectionery 

Cooperage  

Dentistry,  mechanical 

Drugs  and  medicines 

Dyeing  and  cleaning 

Florists  

Flour  and  grist  milling 

Foundry  and  machine  shops 

Furniture  and  upholstery 

Furs,  dressed 

Iron,  architectural 

Jewelry  and  watch  making 

Laundry  ing  I 

Lithographing,  stereotyping,  and  electro-  j 
t-VPing ' I 


2 

2 

30 

5 

56 

6 
20 
12 

5 
4 
4 

13 

32 

56 

70 

3 
10 

6 

16 

11 

4 


17 

5 

2 

19 

13 


*1 

31 

1 

7 

1 


2 

*1 


1 


5 


3 I 


03 

<0 

rS 

Increase  over 
1880. 

1 

Value  of 
products. 

Increase 
over  1880. 

375 

50 

$800,  000 

$200,  000 

31 

7 

93, 000 

50,  500 

178 

40 

90,  665 

21,  665 

71 

19 

71,  546 

20,  400 

479 

70 

813,  450 

127, 000 

47 

9 

63,  200 

14,  700 

98 

8 

202,  600 

67,  500 

139 

20 

638,  498 

140,  261 

122  , 

63 

80,  400 

26,  200 

31  i 

5 

46,  550 

5,  550 

6 

1,  500  ! 

300 

197 

26  1 

354,500 

62,  500 

221 

73 

408,918  | 

83,  737 

718 

151 

992,  902 

206,  675 

114 

40 

157,  000 

54,  000 

96 

23  | 

417,  000 

153,  000 

71  • 

14 

169,  500 

91,  300 

39 

2 

38,  000 

3,  000 

22 

5 

41,  350 

2,  935 

45 

5 

161,400 

44,  700 

8 

7,  300 

1,  850 

23 

3 

24, 000 

4,000 

64 

5 

1,  006,  906 

379,  200 

258 

87 

417,  800 

118,  800 

155 

43 

427,  000 

11, 100 

35 

46,  200 

2,  000 

58 

12 

97,  500 

26,  500 

46 

2 

55,  800 

9,  360 

152 

51 

59,  264 

16,  984 

52 

6 1 

68,  359 

1,  850 

7 I 

Decrease. 


J.  15.  SANBORN.  1 


INDUSTRIES  OF  MINNESOTA. 


1077 


Statement  of  the  manufactures  of  Saint  Paul,  $'C. — Continued. 


Kinds  of  business. 

Number  of  es- 
tablishments. 

Increase  over 
1880. 

Number  of  em- 
ployes. 

o 

® © 
ai  vs 
a oo 

© .-1 
t- 

o 

P 

Value  of 
products. 

Increase 
over  1880. 

4 

1 

14 

4 

$14,  000 
33,  050 

$1,  500 
4,000 
11,  650 
721,  050 

8 

1 

22 

2 

Marble  and  stone  cutting 

12 

1 

106 

10 

107,  000 
2,  315,  777 
83,  000 
22,  458 
315,  300 
50,  450 
367,  320 
130,  300 
847,  850 
951,  376 
196,  440 
257,  500 
1,  261,  900 
35,  000 

Masonry  contracting  and  building 

69 

12 

1,  880 
67 

693 

Millinery  and  lace  goods 

9 

2 

13 

. 17, 000 

5,  979 

Mineral  waters  

5 

23 

2 

Paintin0-  and  papering  

28 

5 

202 

43 

71,  700 

Photographing 

9 

29 

1 

9,  425 

Plastering  and  stucco  work 

21 

3 

247 

62 

108,  000 
54,  000 
212,  012 
119,  546 

Plumbing,  steam  and  gas  fitting 

10 

1 

119 

32 

Printing  and  publishing  

23 

4 

640 

126 

Railway  repairs  and  car-builders 

4 

500 

Saddlery  and  harness 

12 

1 

103 

23 

36,  050 
108,  500 
176,  300 
10,  000 

Sash,  doors,  and  planed  lumber 

10 

3 

245 

138 

Slaughtering,  meat-packing 

51 

10 

207 

36 

Shirts  

5 

1 

55 

10 

Stair-building 

3 

15 

11,  800 

2,  500 
56,  800 
24,  700 

Steel,  iron,  brass,  and  boiler  works 

8 

1 

112 

40 

247, 606 
120,  377 
850,  923 

Tin,  copper,  and  sheet  iron 

20 

2 

109 

31 

Unclassified* 

30 

3 

291 

54 

144,  458 

Total 

792 

125 

8,  937 

2, 159 

16,  071,  535 

3,  859,  387 

* “Unclassified”  includes  taxidermist,  gas-light  company,  optician,  linseed-oil  company,  artificial 
limbs,  soap  company,  terra  cotta  works,  abattoir,  metal  and  ivory  turner,  repair  shop,  hoopskirts  and 
corsets,  fireworks,  boat  builders,  fish  packing,  mustard  factory,  organ  builder,  insect-powder  manu- 
factory, hair-work,  regalia,  show  cases,  type  foundry,  steam-power  furnishers,  can  factory,  sewer -pipe 
manufactory,  wire- works,  brush-makers,  gent’s  furnishing,  toys,  trunks,  and  valises. 


Q.  Does  it  state  the  amount  of  capital  invested? — A.  I do  not  think 
it  is  stated  there.  The  amount  of  capital  is  very  large.  I should 
hardly  dare  trust  my  own  judgment,  not  being  a manufacturer,  as  to 
the  amount.  I think  this  year  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in  man- 
ufacturing will  be  nearly  $4,000,000  over  last  year,  and  last  year  it  was 
$4,000,000  over  the  preceding  year.  The  principal  articles  produced  in 
this  State  are  lumber  and  wool.  I imagine  that  the  parties  interested 
in  those  productions  would  be  opposed  to  any  reduction  in  the  tariff  on 
either  wool  or  lumber;  but  I represent  neither  interest.  They  no  doubt 
will  appear  before  you  at  Minneapolis — the  lumber  interest  particularly. 
Minneapolis  is  the  great  city  for  manufacturing  lumber. 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  that  the  other  industries  (agricultural  im- 
plements, boots  and  shoes)  favor  any  reduction ? — A.  They  do  not  take 
interest  enough  in  it  to  appear  before  the  Commission.  There  is  a 
belief,  whether  intelligent  or  not,  that  the  iron  they  use  is  protected 
beyond  what  is  necessary.  Whether  that  is  an  intelligent  conclusion 
I do  not  know. 

Q.  Do  you  state  that  as  your  belief  or  as  the  belief  of  others  ? — A. 
I do  not  think  I have  talked  with  the  manufacturers.  I should  not 
want  to  state  that  it  is  the  view  of  those  who  use.  the  iron  and  put  it 
into  the  machinery ; but  I think  it  is  the  view  of  those  who  buy  the 
machinery  and  use  it. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  What  class  of  agricultural  implements  are  manufactured  here  ? — 
A.  Plows,  separators  (thrashers  we  call  them  here),  mowers,  and  reapers. 

Q.  Is  it  a matter  of  great  convenience  to  the  farmers  of  this  country 
to  have  their  agricultural  implements  made  at  their  very  doors?-— A.  A 


1078 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  SANBORN'. 


great  convenience,  and  a vast  saving.  It  is  impossible  to  carry  on  ag- 
riculture as  it  is  carried  on  now  without  this  machinery. 

Q.  And  without  it  being  here  in  their  very  midst? — A.  Yes,  sir.  A 
man  with  two  or  three  boys  now  will  do  more  than  40  men  would  have 
been  able  to  do  on  a farm  in  New  England  thirty  years  ago;  will  har- 
vest more  and  get  it  to  market  than  ten  times  that  number. 

Q.  Then  it  is  your  opinion  that  the  agriculture  of  the  country  has 
been  benefited  by  the  manufactures? — A.  Vastly — the  agriculture  of 
this  section  at  least;  how  it  has  affected  New  England  I cannot  speak 
advisedly. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  I should  like  to  ask  how  far  you  are  here  from  the  Canadian 
border? — A.  I cannot  give  the  precise  number  of  miles;  by  the  Mani- 
toba Bailroad  to  Pembina  I should  say  approximately  about  205  or  207 
miles. 

Q.  Please  state  the  nature  of  your  trade  with  the  British  possessions 
north. — A.  The  goods  that  go  into  that  country  very  largely  go  through 
in  bond  from  Canada  or  from  the  British  possessions  somewhere,  and 
the  traffic  that  comes  from  there  is  mostly,  at  this  time,  wheat.  There 
has  been  such  a large  population  going  into  that  country  that  nearly 
everything  that  is  produced  there  is  required  for  home  consumption. 
I do  not  think  that  the  amount  of  wheat  that  has  come  out  of  that 
country  up  to  this  time  would  amount  to  much — would  hardly  reach  the 
millions,  perhaps.  Yet  that  is  the  trade  that  will  be  carried  on,  and  it 
will  be  in  the  purchase  of  agricultural  productions  and  the  furnishing 
of  such  supplies  as  we  can  furnish  cheaper  than  they  can  be  elsewhere. 
I have  no  doubt  we  do  furnish  them  their  agricultural  machinery  at 
this  time.  Clothing,  I have  no  doubt,  is  very  much  cheaper  there  than 
on  this  side  of  the  line,  on  account  of  tbe  tariff.  People  can  go  there 
and  buy  clothing  to  advantage,  and  ship  it  from  Canada  through  the 
United  States  in  bond. 

I am  reminded  by  one  of  our  citizens,  Mr.  Humphrey,  that  there  is  one 
subject  that  is  agitating  the  people  here  a little,  and  that  is  the  drawback 
upon  wheat  imported  from  the  British  possessions,  which  has  been  al- 
lowed by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  a general  law.  Our  farmers 
have  found  a great  deal  of  fault  with  it,  and  it  has  raised  quite  a storm 
in  the  State  against  the  whole  tariff  system.  The  farmers  claim  that  if 
there  is  to  be  protection,  they  ought  to  be  protected  to  that  extent,  and 
say  that  the  tariff  should  stand  as  it  is  now ; that  the  drawback  should 
not  be  allowed ; that  they  should  not  be  allowed  to  sell  us  wheat  and 
have  it  manufactured  in  competition  with  the  wheat  in  Minnesota.  Of 
course  our  millers  take  the  opposite  view.  There  has  been  considera- 
ble feeling  in  the  State.  But  there  are  two  sides  to  the  question.  The 
farmers  claim  that  they  should  be  protected  and  that  that  law  should 
be  enforced  literally,  while  the  millers  are  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  What  amount  of  wheat  lias  been  imported? — A.  I cannot  give  the 
statistics.  I spoke  of  it  as  being  considerable,  basing  my  statement  on 
the  statement  of  Colonel  Gray,  president  of  the  Duluth  Elevator  Com- 
pany, in  which  he  stated  that  he  did  not  think  there  had  been  exceed- 
ing 300,000  or  400,000  bushels  that  had  gone  through  it  up  to  this  time. 
It  is  unquestionably  the  feeling  of  the  English  statesmen  that  they  can 
raise  wheat  in  that  country  in  competition  to  the  United  States,  and 
use  what  they  want,  and  thereby  save  the  purchasing  of  that  produc- 


J.  H.  SAXBORN.J 


INDUSTRIES  OF  MINNESOTA. 


1079 


tion  from  the  people  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a point  deserving  of 
consideration  by  the  Commission,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  all  our  pro- 
ducers are  feeling  a very  decided  conviction  that  the  tariff  should  stand 
upon  wheat. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  How  would  they  be  fixed  in  regard  to  freighting  it  to  the  seaboard 
by  the  new  Pacific  road? — A.  It  would  be  as  cheap,  or  cheaper,  when 
their  line  reaches  the  mouth  of  Pigeon  River  or  the  navigable  waters  of 
Lake  Superior,  which  would  enable  the  wheat  of  all  those  northern  re- 
gions to  reach  all  parts  of  the  globe  without  breaking  bulk.  They  can 
transport  in  the  same  bottoms  from  Lake  Superior  to  Liverpool  or  Lon- 
don, or  any  portion  of  the  globe,  if  necessary.  There  will  be  only  200 
or  300  miles  of  railroad  transportation  necessary. 

Q.  What  is  the  impression  here  in  regard  to  the  wheat-producing 
country  in  the  North  British  possessions  !■ — A.  The  impression  here  is 
that  it  is  vast. 

A.  As  great  as  that  of  Minnesota  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; I think  so.  I think 
the  impression  is  here  that  they  can  raise  more  wheat,  perhaps  not  bet- 
ter or  more  per  acre ; but  there  is  a vast  area  capable  of  producing 
wheat. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  protection  afforded  to  the  manufactures  of  agri- 
cultural implements  enhances  the  prices  of  those  manufactures? — A. 
That  is  going  pretty  deeply  into  the  tariff  question,  and  I should  prefer 
not  to  answer.  1 understand  something  about  the  tariff  question,  and 
I know  that  it  is  very  complicated.  You  can  hardly  select  one  item  and 
ask  a question  upon  that  and  have  it  answered  intelligently. 

Q.  Have  you  any  reason  to  believe  that  the  agriculturists  of  this 
country  desire  the  protective  duty  upon  agricultural  implements  to  con- 
tinue ? — A.  I must  answer  that  question  in  this  way.  I do  not  think 
that  those  who  use  the  agricultural  implements  feel  themselves  compe- 
tent to  judge  as  to  whether  or  not  the  abolition  of  protection  would  re- 
duce the  cost  of  the  production.  They  are  governed  solely,  of  course, 
by  self-interest.  u Charity  begins  at  home,”  and  that  is  the  first  law  of 
nature.  If  they  believed  that  they  could  procure  the  im  piemen  ts  cheaper 
if  the  tariff  was  removed,  they  would  favor  its  removal,  unless  they  saw 
that,  taking  the  whole  question  into  consideration,  it  would  be  to  their 
disadvantage. 

Q.  You  said  there  was  a general  sentiment  in  the  country  in  favor  of 
retaining  this  protection ; not,  perhaps,  to  so  great  an  extent  as  it  now 
exists,  but  to  a considerable  extent. — A.  I did  not  mean  to  be  so  under- 
stood. 

Q.  I want  to  know  if  that  sentiment  exists  among  the  agricultural 
classes,  or  do  you  derive  it  from  the  manufacturing  classes? — A.  I in- 
tended to  speak  for  all  classes,  so  far  as  I know  what  their  sentiment  is. 

Q.  Then  my  question  recurs : Have  you  any  well-founded  reason  to 
believe  that  the  agriculturists  desire  the  continuance  of  protective  du- 
ties ? — A.  If  I answer  the  question  categorically,  I shall  say  u no.” 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  any  of  the  farmers  object  to  it? — A.  I have 
heard  the  expression  from  all  classes  that  the  duty  is  higher  than  the 
conditions  of  these  times  require,  in  their  belief;  that  what  they  pur- 
chase for  consumption  they  should  get  cheaper,  and  what  they  have  to 


1080 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  SANBORN. 


sell,  of  course,  they  want  to  get  the  highest  price  they  can  in  a foreign 
market,  as  a rule.  The  foreign  market  controls  the  price  of  production 
very  largely,  and  anythingthat  disturbs  the  general  industries  will  pro- 
duce prostration,  which  is  against  the  interest  of  all  classes.  All  intel- 
ligent men  concede  that  the  tariff  question  is  a very  complicated  one, 
and  considerate  men  express  themselves  very  cautiously  in  regard  to  it. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  tact  that  the  largest  proportion  of  these  implements 
is  covered  by  letters-patent  ? — A.  There  are  none  that  I know  of  in 
which  there  are  not  patent  rights  for  some  portion  of  the  machinery. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  these  prices  which  the  public  complain  of  re- 
sult more  from  the  protection  afforded  by  the  patent  law  than  from  the 
tariff  law  ? — A.  Of  course  they  think  they  are  affected  by  both ; and 
then  there  is  another  item  that  enters  into  the  account  very  largely, 
and  that  is  that  the  agricultural  people  buy  upon  credit  of  six  to  eight 
months,  and  that  increases  the  prices.  The  high  prices  of  agricultural 
machinery  are  brought  about  by  three  or  four  things;  one  is  the  patents 
on  various  portions  of  the  machinery  ; no  doubt  the  protective  tariff  is 
another  element,  and  they  all  combine  to  make  these  implements  very 
costly. 


ALFItED  WEIGHT.] 


PERFUMERY. 


1081 


ALFRED  WRIGHT. 

Saint  Raul,  Minn.,  September  13, 1882. 

Mr.  Alfred  Wright,  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  manufacturer  of  per- 
fumery, addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

Mr.  President:  I happened  to  be  passing  through  Saint  Paul  this 
morning  on  my  way  to  Chicago,  and  having  failed  to  meet  the  Commis- 
sion in  Rochester,  I wish  to  make  my  statement  here. 

I am  a manufacturer  of  perfumery  and  an  importer  of  materials  used 
in  its  manufacture,  and  I simply  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mission to  the  fact  that  we  are  paying  more  duty  on  raw  materials  than 
the  manufactured  goods  pay.  For  instance,  there  are  many  articles 
classed  in  the  tariff  as  pomades;  I do  not  know  that  the  number  is  spe- 
cific in  any  way,  but  the  odors  of  flowers,  notably  roses,  jasmines, 
and  the  orange  flowers  are  obtained  and  preserved  by  macerating  the 
petals  in  spirits,  and  that  process  is  repeated  until  the  pomade  becomes 
of  sufficient  strength  for  manufacture,  as  No.  24  or  30.  There  are  always 
numbers  used,  but  they  are  used  mostly  in  cosmetics,  &c.  They  are 
then  filled  in  cans.  In  my  own  case  I import  them  in  ten-kilogram  cans, 
but  the  trade  generally  in  this  country  is  supplied  by  five-kilogram 
cans.  I take  the  flowers  and  macerate  them  in  spirits  and  afterward 
dissolve  oil  in  the  spirits,  and  it  is  ready  for  the  combination  in  the  vari- 
ous odors  that  go  to  make  up  any  handkerchief  extract.  On  this  we  pay 
50  per  cent.  We  also  pay  a duty  equal  to  one-half  of  the  commission, 
which  is  rated  at  2J  per  cent.  Two  and  a half  per  cent,  is  what  we  are 
usually  taxed,  but  we  pay  no  commission,  and  I know  of  several  manu- 
facturers who  do  not  pay  any.  That  brings  it  up  to  about  51^  per  cent. 

There  is  also  another  element;  that  is,  our  medium  for  cologne  is  de- 
odorized alcohol.  Upon  that  we  pay  an  excise  indirectly.  Our  com- 
petitors, the  French  manufacturers,  have  an  allowance  made  of  about 
8 per  cent,  for  evaporation,  while  we  have  no  allowances  for  that. 
In  the  English  market  the  goods  of  the  London  manufacturers,  who 
are  to  a considerable  extent  our  competitors,  are  all  manufactured  in 
bond ; they  receive  the  raw  material  or  spirits  free  of  all  duty.  In 
London  they  have  to  pay  an  excise  on  spirits  and  some  duty  on  some 
essential  oils.  On  essential  oils  we  pay  a duty.  I have  a considerable 
reputation  for  manufacturing  handkerchief  extracts.  We  have  to  pay 
very  much  higher  prices  for  materials  than  are  paid  in  London. 

I should  not  have  taken  up  your  time  except  for  the  possibility  that 
other  manufacturers  want  the  duty  retained  on  their  goods,  and  we 
want  it  retained  on  ours.  But  if  you  make  any  reduction  I want  you 
to  understand  that  the  duty  should  be  taken  off  the  raw  materials  that 
are  not  produced  in  this  country.  Those  materials  cannot  be  manufact- 


1082 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ALFRED  WRIGHT. 


ured  here  until  a whole  generation  of  women  and  children  are  edu- 
cated to  pick  flowers  for  the  meager  compensation  they  receive  in  the 
south  of  France. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Will  you  make  a list  of  the  pomades  that  are  not  made 
here? — Answer.  There  are  no  pomades  made  in  this  country,  and  I 
should  have  added  that  those  pomades  I speak  of  are  not  used  for  the 
hair. 

Q.  What  I understand  by  pomade  is  the  oil  used  for  carrying  the  scent. 
— A.  Yes.  The  oil  of  jasmine  cannot  be  distilled ; pretty  much  all  our 
oils  pay  50  per  cent. 


ABEAM  8 HEWITT.] 


IRON  AND  STEEL. 


1083 


ABRAM  S.  HEWITT. 

Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  September  13,  1882. 

Hon.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  of  New  York  city,  being  in  Saint  Paul  on 
private  business,  and  having  been  requested  by  the  Commission  to 
address  them  as  an  expert  in  the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel,  spoke 
as  follows : 

Mr.  President,  I suppose  that  if  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  did  not  need  a revenue  for  its  support,  the  question  of  framing  a 
tariff  would  never  have  come  up.  I suppose  it  originated  in  the  neces- 
sity of  the  government  for  revenue.  I suppose  the  question  of  protec- 
tion is  absolutely  incidental.  A tax  for  revenue  undoubtedly  adds  to  the 
price  of  the  article  which  is  imported,  and  is  so  far  unquestionably  a 
protection  to  any  industry  that  may  grow  up  in  that  line  of  business, 
whatever  it  may  be.  Hence  it  is  impossible  to  consider  the  question  of 
tariff,  even  from  the  revenue  point  of  view,  without  considering  the 
effect  of  the  tariff  upon  the  industries  of  the  country,  and,  whether  we 
like  it  or  not,  incidental  protection  must  result  from  a tariff  for  reve- 
nue. You  are  therefore  brought  always  to  consider  the  question  of 
protection  and  the  effect  of  the  duty  upon  each  class  of  products  upon 
which  you  impose  a duty.  When  you  do  that,  you  are  brought  to  con- 
sider the  question  at  what  point  you  will  begin  to  protect ; in  other 
words,  whether  the  duty  you  propose  is  protective  or  obstructive ; 
whether  it  is  protective  or  destructive.  For  instauce,  you  may  arrange 
your  duties  upon  raw  materials  in  such  a way  that  it  will  be  absolutely 
impossible  to  carry  on  the  business  of  manipulating  the  raw  materials 
and  producing  useful  forms.  That  is  protective  to  the  raw  material 
and  destructive  to  the  manufactured  article.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a 
revenue  duty,  because  the  raw  material  may  come  in  for  some  uses  and 
would  pay  a revenue  to  the  government. 

Iu  selecting  a basis  for  revenue  I suppose  an  intelligent  Commis- 
sioner or  statesman  is  bound  to  consider  the  effect  of  the  duty  imposed. 
If  he  finds  that  the  duty  on  the  manufactured  product  is  less  than  on  the 
raw  material,  he  will  undoubtedly  raise  it  on  the  manufactured  product. 
Particularly  should  he  be  careful,  and  should  the  Commission  be  careful, 
iu  considering  the  question  of  imposing  upon  raw  materials  duties  that 
are  not  protective,  that  is  to  say,  not  needed  for  protection.  That  brings 
me  to  the  question  of  iron  ore. 

Iron  ore  is  an  earth.  There  is  no  labor  involved  except  in  digging  it 
out.  Our  competitors  are  three  thousand  miles  away.  The  Ireight  on 
iron  ore  is  greater  than  the  whole  cost  of  digging  it  out  in  this  country 
and  putting  it  upon  cars  or  boats.  I state  this  deliberately,  for  I have 
heard  it  said  that  iron  ore  came  here  in  ballast.  I want  to  say  that  100 
tons  or  500  tons  possibly  may  have  come  in  ballast  at  some  time  or 
other,  but  it  is  not  true  absolutely  that  it  comes  here  in  ballast.  It 
comes  as  a cargo,  and  generally  as  an  exclusive  cargo,  ships  being 
chartered  for  the  exclusive  purpose  of  bringing  it.  And  in  my  experi- 
ence I have  never  known  a charter-party  under  15  shillings  per  ton  from 
Africa  or  Spain;  that  is,  about  $3.50.  If  there  is  competition  anywhere 
it  must  be  on  the  coast;  in  other  words,  those  on  the  coast  are  the  ones 
who  ought  to  complain.  Those  in  the  interior  are  protected  by  the  addi- 
tional freight.  I am  a miner  of  iron  ore  in  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 


1084 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ABRAM  S.  HEWITT 


New  York,  Michigan,  Tennessee,  and  Alabama.  I believe  that  state- 
ment covers  the  States  in  which  I am  interested  in  mining  iron  ore.  I 
am  told  that  the  Lake  Superior  men  ask  for  a duty  upon  iron  ore.  The 
freight  upon  iron  ore  from  the  coast  to  Chicago  and  Cleveland  (which 
are  the  great  markets  for  Lake  Superior  ore,  though  some  of  it  is  car- 
ried to  Pittsburgh) — the  freight  alone  is  greater  than  the  cost  of  mining 
iron  ore  at  Lake  Superior,  and  the  freight  thence  to  Chicago.  Of  course 
I cannot  understand  that  protection  is  needed  in  any  such  case ; and  in 
New  Jersey,  where  I am  a miner  of  magnetic  ores  on  a large  scale,  and 
in  Pennsylvania,  there  is  not  a pound  of  ore — and  I mine  at  least  100,000 
tons  a year — that  is  not  put  on  the  cars  for  less  money  than  the  freight 
from  Africa  and  Spain  to  New  York.  The  duty  that  is  put  upon  these 
ores  is  necessarily  added  to  the  price  to  the  consumer.  These  foreign 
ores  come  into  this  country  because  they  are  necessary  for  the  purpose 
of  mixing  with  our  ores.  Their  cost,  therefore,  goes  into  the  cost  of  the 
article  and  is  paid  by  the  consumer.  The  government  gets  a revenue 
which  it  does  not  need.  You  would  not  be  here  to-day  except  lor  the 
surplus  revenue  which  we  do  not  want.  A tax  is  put  upon  iron  ore, 
which  cannot  compete  with  the  American  ore  for  the  reason  I have 
given  to  you,  and  you  put  a burden  upon  the  consumer  which  is  purely 
and  absolutely  unnecessary.  The  reason  wby  this  foreign  ore  comes 
in  is  because  it  is  low  in  phosphorus,  while  most  of  the  American 
ores,  I am  sorry  to  say,  have  a little  too  much  phosphorus  in  them  to 
make  a good  steel.  Every  ton  of  foreign  iron  ore  that  comes  here  makes 
a market  for  a ton  of  American  ore  that  otherwise  would  not  be  used, 
and  does  not  reduce  the  price,  because  our  ore  is  already  sold  for  half 
the  money  that  foreign  iron  ore  costs  laid  down  here.  You  reduce 
prices  when  you  have  competition,  but  here  the  thing  is  sold  at  higher 
rates,  and  therefore  it  does  not  reduce  the  price  of  American  ore,  but 
by  enlarging  the  market  for  it  gives  us  a better  price. 

There  are  no  conceivable  circumstances  under  which  I think  a duty 
should  be  placed  upon  American  ores,  nor  is  it  of  any  conceivable  bene- 
fit to  any  earthly  interest.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  a positive  damage  to 
retain  it.  I do  not  import  any  foreign  iron  ore  ; I do  not  use  any.  I 
use  my  own  ore,  but  1 simply  deal  with  the  question  as  a matter  of 
public  concern,  in  which  the  consumer  can  be  benefited  without  injury 
to  the  producer. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  As  I understand  your  argument,  it  amounts 
to  this : that  the  present  or  any  proposed  tariff  upon  foreign  iron  ore 
is  a mere  revenue  tariff,  and  that,  in  your  judgment,  it  is  not  a proper 
subject  for  the  imposition  of  a tariff. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  For  the  reason  that  it  impairs  our  ability  to  produce  a 
manufactured  article  at  a low  cost.  I have  no  hesitation  in  putting  a 
revenue  on  any  article,  if  the  government  needs  the  revenue,  but  the 
revenue  should  be  got,  as  far  as  possible,  from  such  articles  as  would  not 
obstruct  the  growth  of  American  manufactures.  I believe  this  country 
is  to  be  the  greatest  manufacturing  country,  and  I want  to  make  the 
growth  of  manufactures  as  easy  and  rapid  as  possible.  I would  there- 
fore take  off  the  duty  on  iron  ore  because  it  is  simply  an  obstruction 
to  the  growth  of  some  kinds  of  business.  To  take  it  oft'  is  protective 
in  the  sense  that  it  removes  an  obstruction.  As  to  the  doctrine  of 
protection  for  the  sake  of  protection  I may  entertain  different  views. 
I am  against  obstruction  where  it  is  not  necessary,  whether  I am  in 
favor  of  protection  or  not. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  will  acknowledge,  I think,  that  the 


ARRAM  S.  HEWITT.  | IRON  AND  STEEL.  1085 

400,000  or  500,000  tons  of  iron  ore  that  comes  into  this  country — you 
may  say  all  of  it — has  been  used  in 'making  Bessemer-steel  rails. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  The  great  bulk  of  it. 

Mr.  Oliver.  And  the  concerns  that  have  been  using  this  iron  ore  on 
which  there  is  a duty  are  the  large  Bessemer-steel  concerns  of  the  sea- 
board ; is  not  that  so  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Yes,  I suppose  so.  I believe  it  has  gone  mainly  to 
Bethlehem,  Cambria,  and  some  to  Pittsburgh ; I do  not  know  whether 
any  has  gone  to  Cleveland  or  Chicago ; I think  not. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Steel  rails  have  been  exceptional,  and  the 
profits  enormous  beyond  that  of  any  other  manufactured  article  in  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I have  never  known  of  any  such  profits  in  connection 
with  any  business  with  which  I have  had  anything  to  do. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  So  that  upon  this  ore  the  duty  has  been  paid 
by  these  large  Bessemer-steel  concerns  called  monopolies. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  The  Bessemer  steel  concerns  and  all  other  concerns  are 
mere  intermadiaries  between  the  producer  and  the  consumer;  the  more 
cheaply  they  get  their  articles  the  more  cheaply  will  the  consumer  get 
his. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I think  you  will  acknowledge  that  they  rarely 
pay  any  attention  to  that. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  They  are  governed  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand. 
The  current  rate  is  a question  of  demand  and  supply,  but  the  average 
rate  is  based  upon  the  fair  cost  of  production.  In  other  words,  if  a man 
dc^s  not  get  his  profits  on  an  average  he  stops  his  works,  and  if  he  does 
get  his  profits  he  continues  to  run.  If  you  mean  to  say  that  the  money  has 
been  paid  by  these  various  steel  works  into  the  Treasury,  it  is  true ; but 
that  has  come  to  an  end.  These  steel  works  are  now  able  to  produce 
steel  rails  in  excess  of  the  demand,  and  therefore  the  burden  will  be 
taken  from  the  consumer  by  taking  the  duty  off  the  iron  ore.  They  are 
competing  with  each  other  now  for  the  first  time. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  You  will  concede  that  labor  is  lower  in  Can- 
ada, for  instance,  than  it  is  with  us. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Certainly,  and  it  is  lower  in  Great  Britain  than  it  is  in 
Canada ; and  it  is  lower  in  France  than  in  England,  and  lower  in  Bel- 
gium than  in  France. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  There  are  very  large  deposits  of  rich  ores  in 
Canada,  and  those  are  the  only  ones  that  will  bear  transportation. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Certainly,  and  I want  it  to  come  in  free  as  soon  as 
possible. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Would  it  not  be  fair  to  admit  the  argument 
that  the  ore  producers  made  to  us  some  days  ago — that  the  small  dif- 
ference between  the  cost  of  labor  in  Canada  and  this  country  is  influ- 
enced by  what  is  termed  the  protective  policy  of  the  government,  and 
to  that  extent  it  should  have  a nominal  protection  of  50  or  75  cents? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I do  not  want  a nominal  protection  of  75  cents  on  ma- 
terial that  originally  costs  $1  a ton. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Nominally,  labor  is  worth  20  cents  a day  on 
the  Mediterranean. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  So  much  the  better  for  us,  for  that  does  not  reduce  the 
value  of  American  labor  a particle.  I tell  you  it  does  not,  because  the 
freight  alone  is  more  than  it  costs  me  to  dig  my  ore  and  pay  $1.50  a 
day,  and  therefore  it  does  not  reduce  the  price  of  labor. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I understood  you  to  say  that  these  foreign 
ores  were  necessary  to  mix  with  yours  ? 


1086 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ABRAM  S.  HEWITT. 


Mr.  Hewitt.  Certainly  they  are. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Then  you  do  not  compete  with  those  ores? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I said  distinctly  and  plainly  that  there  is  no  compe- 
tition with  them.  Nobody  competes,  because  the  freight  on  these  ores 
is  more  than  the  cost  of  digging  the  American  ores  and  putting  them 
on  board  a boat  or  cars. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Does  not  the  freight  generally  average  from 
5s.  to  9s.? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I beg  your  pardon.  I controvert  it.  Fifteen  shillings 
is  the  price.  I contradict  it  absolutely,  and  want  it  to  go  upon  the 
record. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  is  a matter  very  easily  settled. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Certainly,  and  therefore  I contradict  it  so  positively. 
It  is  from  15s.  to  20s.,  and  very  often  20s. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  In  1879  I know  of  my  own  knowledge  that 
ore  was  brought  at  from  5s.  to  8s. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Where  from  ? 

Commissioner  Oliver.  From  the  Spanish  ports. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I do  not  contradict  anything  you  know  of  your  own 
knowledge.  I merely  say  that  such  a thing  never  came  to  my  knowl- 
edge. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  At  the  same  time,  last  year  was  exceptional 
I am  speaking  of  the  importation  of  these  ores  now. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I brought  the  first  cargo  of  Spanish  ores  myself,  and 
paid  22s.  I never  heard  of  5s.  or  8s.  being  paid.  The  Anchor  Line  run- 
ning to  the  Mediterranean  may  take  it  in  as  ballast  or  take  it  free,  but 
this  trade  last  year  ran  up  to  about  700,000  or  800,000  tons,  and  of  course 
that  ends  the  ballast  question.  Anybody  can  see  that  5s.  to  8s.  would 
not  pay  any  vessel  to  bring  it  from  Spain  or  Africa  to  New  York. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I am  speaking  of  sailing  vessels. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  It  has  ceased  to  be  a matter  of  sailing  vessels.  It  is 
mostly  done  by  steam.  There  are  some  sailing  vessels  engaged  in  it. 
There  are  not  only  the  ores,  but  there  is  scrap  iron,  scrap  steel,  scrap 
cast  iron — three  forms  in  which  iron  comes  in.  The  manufacture  of  these 
articles  is  not  a business.  The  whole  world  is  engaged  in  making  scrap, 
but  nobody  pursues  it  for  a livelihood.  It  is  the  result  of  the  friction 
of  civilized  life,  and  therefore  you  protect  no  industry  by  putting  a 
duty  upon  scrap  materials,  upon  waste  products  generally,  and  I speak 
more  particularly,  now,  of  iron.  You  may  get  revenue  by  this  means, 
but  if  you  find  that  the  imposition  of  a duty  interferes  with  the  progress 
of  business  and  hinders  manufacture,  then  it  is  an  unwise  thing  to  put 
a duty  upon  it.  Scrap  iron  is  subject  to  a duty  of  $8  a ton,  cast  iron  $6, 
and  old  railroad  iron  $8.  I would  have  them  free  just  as  I would  iron 
ore.  I would  make  them  free  because  they  would  cheapen  the  cost  of 
the  manufactured  product  to  the  consumer,  because  they  would  very 
much  enlarge  the  business  of  this  country.  At  present  The  scrap  accu- 
mulated in  the  West  Indies  and  South  America  is  shipped  to  England, 
where  it  enters  free  and  is  manufactured  and  sold  there.  But  if  this  $8 
a ton  duty  were  removed,  a very  large  proportion  of  it,  if  not  the  whole 
of  it,  would  come  to  this  country,  and  we  should  be  able  to  do  this  manu- 
facturing, whereas  it  is  now  done  somewhere  else.  It  would  therefore 
enlarge  the  area  of  labor  and  give  employment  to  more  men.  That  is 
one  side. 

On  the  other  side,  you  will  be  told  that  it  will  interfere,  not  with  the 
manufacture  of  scrap  iron,  for  there  is  no  such  thing  voluntarily,  but 
with  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron,  with  which  scrap  iron  comes  into  com- 


ABIIAM  8.  HEWITT.] 


IRON  AND  STEEL. 


1087 


petition.  To  that  I answer  that  pig  iron,  is  used  just  in  proportion  as 
you  can  use  scrap  iron.  Scrap  iron  is  not  much  used  alone.  It  is  in 
some  cases  used  without  admixture,  but,  as  a rule,  it  is  more  economical 
to  use  scrap  iron  with  puddled  iron  from  pig.  Therefore  I do  not  think 
it  would  narrow  the  market  for  pig  iron.  But  whether  it  would  tend  to 
narrow  or  enlarge  it,  I would  still  make  it  free,  because  I think  that  the 
manufacture  of  pig  iron  at  the  present  rate  of  duty  could  stand  perfectly 
well  any  competition  that  might  come  from  scrap,  although  I do  not 
think  it  would  be  of  any  moment,  as  I have  said.  The  introduction  of 
iron  ore  free  would,  in  my  judgment,  enable  us  to  reduce  the  duty  on 
pig  iron  to  some  extent.  I think  if  we  made  scrap  free  we  might  bring 
pig  dowTn  certainly  to  $6  and  preserve  the  relation  which  now  exists 
between  the  two.  I do  not  think  pig  iron  would  be  damaged. 

I want  to  note  here  that  I am  a consumer  of  scrap  iron  to  a very 
considerable  extent.  I do  not  want  my  position  misunderstood.  The 
whole  amount,  I think,  does  not  exceed  20,000  tons  a year  certainly. 
While  my  firm  are  personally  the  makers  of  about  50,000  tons  of  pig 
iron  in  a year,  we  are  interested  in  making  50,000  more.  In  other  words, 
I have  a personal  interest  in  the  manufacture  of  100,000  tons  a year,  and, 
as  a pig-iron  maker,  I am  in  favor  of  scrap  iron  being  free,  and  I believe 
I shall  gain ; but  whether  I do  or  not,  I believe  the  country  will  gain, 
and  I earnestly  urge  upon  the  Commission  to  recommend  that  it  be  made 
free.  Charles  E.  Smith,  at  one  time  president  of  the  Philadelphia  and 
Beading  Bailroad,  made  a strong  report  in  favor  of  making  it  free,  but 
the  report  was  met  by  a howl  of  condemnation  from  one  end  of  Penn- 
sylvania to  the  other,  and  Congress  was  frightened  and  the  duty  was  left 
on,  very  greatly  to  the  detriment  of  Pennsylvania.  Of  course,  if  you 
report  in  favor  of  it,  you  will  probably  be  met  with  the  same  amoitut  of 
condemnation,  and  I put  this  in  evidence,  that  I take  part  of  the  re- 
sponsibility on  my  own  shoulders  if  I can.  Those  are  the  main  points 
in  regard  to  iron. 

In  regard  to  steel : I suppose  everybody  admits  that  the  duty  upon 
steel  is  out  of  all  reason.  It  was  a very  proper  duty  at  the  time  it  was 
imposed.  It  was  equivalent  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  about  30  per 
cent.,  and  did  not  represent  the  real  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor ; but 
in  the  progress  of  things  and  the  development  of  business,  it  has  now 
got  to  be  a duty  of  about  100  per  cent.,  and  there  is  no  justification  for 
it  from  any  point  of  view.  N The  duty  has  now  ceased  to  be  a revenue 
duty,  and  the  domestic  price  has  now  got  to  be  below  the  foreign,  and  the 
government  is  not  able  to  get  the  full  benefit  of  the  duty  of  $28.  My  own 
standard  for  fixing  the  duties  is,  as  far  as  possible,  to  equate  the  t>rice 
of  labor  between  the  competing  countries.  You  can  only  conduct  busi- 
ness by  imjmsiug  such  a rate  of  duty  as  will  compensate  for  the  difler- 
ence  in  the  cost  of  labor.  My  own  figures  are,  somewhere  from  $12  to 
$15  will  be  adequate  for  the  steel-rail  business.  My  own  opinion  is 
$14  per  ton  should  be  the  duty  imposed  upon  steel.  If  you  remove  the 
duty  upon  iron  ore,  of  course  you  have  given  them  an  additional  bene- 
faction. If  you  reduce  the  duty  on  pig  iron  by  $1  or  $2  a ton,  then  you 
will  give  them  an  additional  benefaction.  You  ask  w7hy  I would  reduce  it 
at  all;  if  the  duty  has  ceased  to  be  protective,  what  is  the  use  of  bringing 
it  down  ? I answer  this : That  the  consumer  wants  protection  when  there 
is  an  active  demand  and  high  prices.  Therefore,  when  i>rices  begin  to 
go  up,  if  the  consumers  can  go  abroad  and  buy  steel  subject  to  a duty 
of  $14  instead  of  $28,  they  are  protected  to  that  extent.  As  $14  is  ail 
that  is  needed,  I want  to  give  the  consumer  the  benefit  of  the  other  $14 
no  longer  necessary.  I want  the  lowest  rate  of  duty  which  you  can 


1088 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ATJRAM  S.  IIEWITT. 


adopt  to  give  tlie  government  adequate  revenue,  and  the  existing  indus 
tries  the  protection  which  they  need  in  bad  times;  that  is  to  say,  the 
difference  between  the  rate  of  wages  in  foreign  countries  and  the  rate 
here.  And  I will  say  always,  under  all  circumstances,  it  should  be  the 
lowest  rate  of  duty  that  can  be  imposed  with  due  regard  to  the  Treasury 
and  to  the  existing  industries  of  the  country,  and  not  the  highest. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  In  the  case  of  steel  rails  that  would  be  about 
50  per  cent,  duty? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  The  present  price  of  foreign  rails  is  about  $28 ; it  would 
be  about  50  per  cent.,  and  that  is  as  much  as  I can  figure  it  out  for 
the  difference  in  -the  rate  of  wages.  Steel  is  produced  by  human 
labor  ; there  is  so  little  that  is  not  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  estimate  it. 
But  in  100  tons  I doubt  whether  5 per  cent,  consists  of  things  that 
have  gone  out  in  the  wear  and  tear.  But  the  steel  business  differs  from 
the  iron  in  this  : We  have  been  able  to  apply  machinery  to  all  the  pro- 

cesses of  its  manufacture ; it  is  almost  automatic.  The  quantity  of  la- 
bor is  only  about  $5  a ton,  whereas,  in  old  times,  if  we  got  off  with  $15 
a ton  on  iron  we  thought  we  were  doing  well.  I should  think  that,  as 
a rule,  the  actual  labor  for  converting  pig  into  iron  or  steel  is  about  one- 
third  of  the  quantity  necessary  for  the  production  of  iron.  The  whole 
process  is  a machine  process.  The  men  are  used  for  attending  machin- 
ery instead  of  manipulating.,  Of  course  in  rolling  there  is  an  applica- 
tion of  physical  force  to  some  extent,  but  even  that  is  very  nearly  auto- 
matic now. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Do  you  desire  to  say  anything  else  in  refer- 
ence to  any  other  class  of  iron  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I am  ready  to  answer  any  questions  as  to  other  classes 
of  iron. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  In  regard  to  pig  iron,  do  you  take  into  con- 
sideration that  there  was  a half  million  tons  of  pig  iron  imported  last 
year  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Yes,  to  make  Bessemer  steel. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  At  the  present  prices  of  steel  rails  will  there 
be  that  great  quantity  or  a proportionate  quantity  imported  this  year  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  There  will  be,  unless  we  learn  to  make  Bessemer  pig 
iron.  They  must  get  pig  iron  from  some  quarter.  We  make  it  on  Lake 
Superior  from  Lake  Superior  ores.  Increase  that  product  and  you  will 
cease  to  import  the  other. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I do  not  see  that  it  is  a very  good  way  to 
keep  from  making  it  by  reducing  the  duty  on  it. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  We  reduce  it  by  domestic  competition.  I am  inter- 
ested in  three  blast  furnaces  on  Lake  Superior,  and  that  region  is  alone 
capable  of  supplying  not  only  this  country,  but  of  supplying  the  whole 
world  with  pig  iron.  It  is  a mere  question  of  putting  capital  there. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  Iron  Mountain  ores 
are  good  Bessemer  ores  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  They  are  good  ; but  they  contain  silica,  and  it  is  more 
expensive  to  flux  it  out.  The  Lake  Superior  are  the  more  desirable  ores, 
but  you  cannot  make  steel  from  the  other.  We  have  on  Lake  Cham- 
plain large  deposits,  and  more  is  being  found  every  day ; and  in  New 
Jersey,  where  we  supposed  we  had  none,  we  are  getting  out  large  quan- 
tities of  Bessemer  ore. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  The  reason  I made  the  suggestion  was  be- 
cause I so  understood  you. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  No,  sir;  we  are  mining  some  Bessemer  ores  to-day  in 
the  Eastern  States,  but  not  enough  to  supply  the  demand.  If  we  could, 


ABRAM  S.  HEWITT.] 


IRON  AND  STEEL. 


1089 


there  would  not  be  a pound  imported.  We  sell  American  ores,  and  can 
afford  to  sell  them  at  a less  rate  because  we  have  not  this  enormous 
freight  to  pay. 

In  regard  to  the  duty  on  iron,  it  is  a pretty  complicated  question. 
There  are  some  branches  of  the  iron  business  very  inadequately  pro- 
tected, so  to  speak,  by  the  taritf  as  it  stands  to-day,  while  there  are 
others  very  much  over-protected.  The  only  way  to  deal  with  that  is  to 
take  each  article  by  itself.  Take  off*  whatever  impediments  are  in  the 
way  of  production.  Take  the  case  of  cotton- ties,  about  which  there  has 
been  an  outcry.  The  duty  there  is  not  in  proportion  to  the  duty  upon 
other  branches  of  iron  manufacture  ; it  is  exceptionally  low ; but  if  you 
take  the  duty  of  $8  a ton  otf  of  scrap  iron  you  will  enable  hoop  iron  to 
be  made  at  three-quarters  of  a cent  a pound  cheaper  than  it  can  be  made 
now  by  anybody,  and  that  is  equivalent  to  the  duty  on  cotton -ties.  In 
every  department  you  will  find  little  peculiarities  which  an  intelligent 
man  will  point  out.  Take  wire,  for  example,  which  is  used  in  making 
barbed-wire  fence.  The  farmer  is  the  great  consumer  of  that  article. 
The  government  gets  $8  into  the  Treasury,  which  the  consumer  lias  to 
pay ; the  manufacturer  of  barbed  wire  does  not  get  it.  At  present,  if 
it  was  not  for  the  patent  upon  the  article,  the  manufacture  of  barbed 
wire  would  be  under  very  favorable  conditions  indeed,  because  steel  rod 
comes  in  at  30  per  cent,  duty  at  present.  You  cannot  make  a ton  of 
American  steel  wire  except  it  is  in  competition  with  the  foreign.  Hence, 
they  imported  60,000  tons  of  steel  rods  this  year  at  a very  much  lower 
rate  than  they  could  be  produced  here. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  was  stated  in  Chicago  that  there  were 
150,000  tons  imported. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  My  information  is  60,000,  and  I got  the  information 
from  a person  who  imports  rods.  Our  works  are  at  Trenton.  At  that 
place  we  have  been  making  wire  for  thirty  years,  and  have  a really 
wonderful  mill,  where  we  roll  40  tons  a day.  We  are  importing  our 
steel-wire  rods  from  Germany  and  Belgium  and  England,  and  drawing 
the  wire  in  Trenton  and  sending  it  out  to  the  farmers.  You  naturally 
say,  “ Don’t  you  want  the  duty  raised  on  wire  rods?”  u No,”  I answer. 
u I don’t  want  you  to  put  on  that  $8  a ton,  which  is  equivalent  to  say- 
ing that  I shall  not  make  wire  from  scrap,”  and  that  is  what  you  do  by 
the  present  tariff. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  $8  a ton  is  on  scrap  iron! 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Also  on  steel  scrap,  and  if  I can  have  scrap  steel  free 
I can  melt  it  down  and  make  my  wire  of  it.  The  duty  upon  steel  is  an 
ad  valorem  duty,  and  that  upon  iron  is  a specific  duty. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  duty  on  cotton-ties,  I should  judge,  has 
not  averaged  over  $11  a ton. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I cannot  give  you  the  figures. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Would  you  deem  it  consistent  to  suggest  that 
the  duty  on  steel  rails  be  made  $14  and  the  duty  on  cotton-ties  be  left 
at  $11. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  No.  Wliat  I say  about  cotton-ties  is  this:  The  duty  on 
cotton-ties  should  not  be  less  than  the  material  from  which  they  are  made. 
If  I find  that  that  duty  is  not  enough,  then  I will  come  to  the  Commission 
with  a good  face  and  say  that  duty  is  not  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  make 
them.  But  so  long  as  there  is  an  artificial  impediment  in  the  way  I 
cannot  come  with  a good  face.  I would  make  things  bear  relations  to 
each  other,  and  for  that  reason  it  would  be  necessary  to  take  up  the 
schedule  in  detail  and  consider  each  question  by  itself,  bearing  always 
in  mind  the  principle  that  the  duty  must  be  kept  off  the  raw  material  in 
H.  Mis.  6—69 


1090 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ABRAM  S.  HEWITT. 


every  form,  and  only  put  upon  the  manufactured  products  at  the  point 
where  they  can  be  affected  by  the  maintenance  of  some  existing  duties. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  How  many  tons  of  scrap  iron  are  introduced 
into  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  It  is  a very  considerable  amount,  and  varies  from  year 
to  year.  I should  think,  in  round  numbers,  it  must  be  as  much  as 
200,000  tons  a year  at  times. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Be  kind  enough  to  inform  us  what  is  the 
amount  received  in  England. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Ko;  I cannot  without  looking  at  the  tables.  They  get 
a great  deal  of  their  scrap  iron  from  South  America  and  Cuba. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Can  you  not  form  any  opinion  as  to  the 
amount  received  in  France  or  Germany? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  The  amount  received  is  large.  Great  Britain  is  an 
enormous  exporter  of  scrap  iron.  For  instance,  we  get  most  of  our  old 
rails  from  Great  Britain,  and  we  are  able  to  pay  better  prices  for  them 
than  they  can  get  there.  They  came  over  here  for  a long  time  to  be 
rerolled  into  American  rails,  and  I have  seen  thousands  of  tons  of  it 
on  the  Pacific  Railroad,  where  they  were  required  to  use  American  rails. 
They  last  about  two  or  three  years.  Those  on  the  Pacific  road  have  all 
been  renewed  since  by  steel  rails. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  If  we  admit  scrap  iron,  to  what  extent  would 
it  affect  the  iron  interest  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Ko  man  can  predict  what  the  effect  would  be;  but  a 
great  deal  more  would  come  in  than  now.  I should  think  it  would 
double  the  present  importation.  In  my  judgment,  however,  it  would 
not  hurt  the  iron  interest  at  all;  I think  it  would  help  the  iron  interest. 

Commissioner  Porter.  Three  hundred  and  fifty-one  thousand  tons 
of  scrap  iron,  including  old  rails,  is  the  amount  that  was  imported. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  You  think  it  would  double  that  quantity? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I think  we  should  import  a great  deal  more,  and  it 
would  enable  a great  many  things  to  be  done  that  are  not  done  now. 
For  instance,  when  rails  were  coming  in  the  fish-plates  would  come  in 
from  the  other  side,  but  with  cheap  scrap  we  would  supply  our  own  fish- 
plates for  our  own  rails.  The  relations  of  things  change  from  year  to 
year.  The  fundamental  principle  is  that  the  more  cheaply  you  can  de- 
liver your  manufactured  article  to  the  consumer  of  the  article  the  bet- 
ter. That  doeh  not  change. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  That  is,  provided  you  have  the  raw  material 
yourself. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  If  you  could  get  it  cheaper  yourself  the  consumer  would 
get  it  cheaper.  My  own  idea  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  assessing  duties 
is  that  under  all  circumstances  duties  should  have  reference  to  value. 
Values  change  very  much. 

Ad  valorem  duties  open  the  way  to  great  frauds.  They  have  been 
the  source  of  great  frauds  under  the  present  tariff.  It  is  always  an  open 
question  to  a man  how  he  should  invoice,  and  unfortunately  our  law 
requires  three  different  standards  of  invoices  on  the  other  side,  and  the 
law  punishes  him  for  making  his  choice.  I think  the  judgment  of  the 
custom-house  officers,  merchants,  and  everybody  is  in  favor  of  specific 
duties.  The  new  French  tariff  is  almost  entirely  specific;  very  little  ad 
valorem.  And  I think  nearly  all  tariffs  now  are  specific.  The  question 
is  to  accomplish  the  ad  valorem  principle  with  a specific  application, 
which  is  desirable.  My  own  view  is  that  the  market  value  of  the  pres- 
ent day  should  be  taken  as  the  basis — the  average  market  value  of  the 
last  three  years — which  is  the  basis  I laid  down  in  my  speech;  that  you 


ABRAM  S.  HEWITT.] 


IRON  AND  STEEL, 


1091 


should  convert  the  ad  valorem  rate  into  the  specific  on  that  basis. 
That  would  do  for  the  present,  but  values  will  continue  to  change.  It 
I had  the  making  of  the  law  myself  I would  require  the  Treasury  De- 
partment every  year  to  drop  out  one  year  and  put  in  the  last  preced- 
ing year,  always  taking  the  average  of  three  years,  and  then  publish 
the  schedule.  They  ought  to  give  at  least  six  months’  notice  of  it  in 
advance.  But  always  collect  the  duty  specifically,  and  always  impose 
it  on  the  ad  valorem  principle.  I believe  that  would  work. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  That  remark  would  apply  to  other  articles 
which  may  properly  be  made  the  subject  of  specific  duty  as  well  as  iron. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I think  it  the  fundamental  principle  that  underlies  the 
whole  thing. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Of  course  it  could  not  be  universally  applied. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  We  have  mixed  duties  to-day,  and  they  are  very  much 
complained  of  and  are  open  to  great  objections;  but  there  are  some 
things  in  regard  to  which  it  seems  almost  impossible  to  adopt  any  other 
system,  unless  the  suggestion  I make  is  adopted,  of  taking  the  average 
value  year  by  year  and  making  the  schedule  correspond.  Take  wire,  for 
instance,  one  of  the  most  difficult  things  to  deal  with.  Wire  is  of  all 
sizes,  from  the  fineness  of  a hair  up  to  the  thickness  of  your  finger,  and 
they  depend  upon  their  size  for  their  price ; the  smaller  the  wire  the 
higher  the  price.  There  cannot  be  a specific  duty  upon  each  number; 
No.  40  is  the  limit.  That  would  be  very  intricate  and  very  much  in  de- 
tail, but  by  adopting  a basis  of  duty  which  applies  to  the  large  numbers, 
and  putting  an  ad  valorem  rate  in  addition  as  you  come  down  in  the 
size,  you  make  it  very  easy.  That  is  one  of  the  cases  where  the  mixed 
system  would  be  good.  There  are  one  or  two  other  articles,  such  as  silk 
goods,  for  instance,  where  the  same  principle  would  apply. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  I did  not  clearly  understand  how  the  changes 
of  those  three  years  would  be  made. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Begin  by  taking  the  last  three  fiscal  years  and  ascer- 
taining the  average  prices  for  those  years.  Then  you  have  a basis  of 
value.  Upon  that  we  will  assume  you  have  a duty  of  35  per  cent. 
Multiply  it  by  35  and  get  the  specific  rate  which  you  impose  upon 
that  article.  Next  year  you  will  have  entered  into  a new  period.  You 
then  drop  off  the  first  of  the  three  years  and  add  the  then  present  year, 
and  again  take  the  a\erage  in  the  same  way.  That  would  be  an  aver- 
age changing  from  year  to  year  slightly.  This  difficulty  about  steel 
blooms  would  not  have  happened  if  the  duty  upon  them  had  been  ad 
valorem ; in  that  case  it  would  have  accommodated  itself  to  the  market. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Would  it  not  give  too  much  power  to  the 
Treasury  Department? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  It  does  not  give  any  power.  They  have  nothing  to  do 
but  to  set  a clerk  to  figure  up  the  average;  it  is  automatic. 

Commissioner  Porter.  Would  it  not  entail  a very  large  amount  of 
labor  ? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  No,  sir;  not  as  much  as  now  in  making  up  the  books. 
Suppose  you  have  4,000  articles  in  the  tariff.  You  make  this  computa- 
tion. The  average  price  is  given  now  by  Nimino’s  computation  for 
three  years.  The  fluctuation  is  by  the  year,  and  the  average  price  is 
on  the  three-year  basis. 

Commissioner  Porter.  Nothing  would  be  stationary. 

Mr.  Hewitt.  Year  by  year  there  would  be  fluctuations,  but  six 
months’  notice  should  be  given  by  the  Treasury.  Iu  other  words,  if 
the  computation  is  made  on  the  1st  of  January  in  one  year,  it  should 
take  effect  on  the  1st  of  July. 


1092 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ABRAM  8.  HEWITT. 


Of  coarse  I do  not  want  to  enter  into  a general  discussion  of  the 
tariff  question.  That  is  a matter  which  I reserve  for  another  sphere. 
My  object  in  accepting  your  invitation  was  to  give  you  the  practical 
information  which  my  own  business  has  furnished  me. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  In  your  judgment,  is  it  not  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  the  law  be  revised  and  changed? 

Mr.  Hewitt.  I have  done  little  else  for  six  years  but  press  upon  the 
public  and  Congress  the  absolute  and  indispensable  necessity  of  it.  I 
have  been  the  advocate  of  it  in  Congress  and  out.  I believe  that  the 
tariff*  is  very  crude,  badly  constructed,  very  unfitted  to  the  needs  of  the 
American  people  at  this  time,  and  ought  to  be  revised,  and  revised  in 
the  interest  of  reform.  As  I said  before,  there  ought  to  be  the  lowest 
possible  rate  of  revenue  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  interests  of  any 
substantial  business.  Personally,  I would  go  much  farther.  If  I had 
the  making  of  laws  I would  never  have  any  tariff.  We  are  where  we 
are  as  the  result  of  legislation  which  has  lasted  one  hundred  years,  with 
hundreds  of  millions  of  capital  invested  in  what  are  called  protected 
industries  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  employed — people  who 
cannot  be  turned  out  of  employment.  Therefore  you  must  take  into 
consideration  all  these  interests.  Upon  some  of  them  there  are  very 
much  higher  duties  than  seem  reasonable.  There  are  some  interests 
that  will  die  even  with  duties  of  60  to  70  per  cent.,  but  there  are  some 
others  that  will  flourish  with  duties  equivalent  to  20  per  cent. 

The  census  returns  enable  you  to  see  how  some  parts  of  the  United 
States  are  wronged  by  the  tariff*.  Do  not  let  these  wrongs  grow.  In 
the  mean  time,  take  the  road  of  reform  and  follow  it  as  far  as  you  can 
without  injuring  any  part  of  the  country,  but  always  travel  in  the 
direction  of  lower  duties,  because  if  you  do  not,  the  stream  will  over- 
flow some  day  and  carry  all  before  it  into  a common  ruin.  The  cost  of 
production  is  now  made  too  dear,  by  legislation,  to  endure  permanently. 


C.  C.  STURTEVANT.] 


WHEAT  AND  FLOUR. 


1093 


C.  0.  STURTEVANT. 

Minneapolis,  Minn.,  September  14,  1882. 

C.  C.  Sturtevant,  secretary  of  the  Minneapolis  Board  of  Trade, 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

The  two  great  interests  which  have  built  up  our  city  and  this  neigh- 
borhood have  been  the  lumber,  originally,  and  the  dour  mills.  The 
manufacture  of  dour  to  day  is  probably  the  largest  manufacture  in  the 
Northwest.  The  first  mills  (that  are  now  standing)  were  built  in  1860. 
In  that  year  there  were  shipments  of  dour  from  here  of  30,000  barrels. 
The  shipments  continued  to  increase  until  in  1873  they  amounted  to 
585,000  barrels ; in  1881  it  was  3,142,974  barrels.  In  that  year  we  used 
about  16,000,000  bushels  of  wheat,  which  was  about  2,000,000  more  than 
the  entire  receipts  of  wheat  in  Chicago  that  year.  Our  receipts  were 
17,000,000  bushels,  and  16,500,000  were  manufactured  into  dour  here. 

There  was  no  dour  imported  until  1878,  and  we  had  no  foreign  trade 
at  all  until  1878.  In  1878  one  of  our  millers  went  abroad  for  the  pur- 
pose of  trying  to  introduce  Minnesota  dour  into  England  alone.  He 
spent  a whole  year  there,  until  he  had  some  shipped  there  and  tried. 
But  the  result  was  that  during  that  year  109,183  barrels  were  shipped. 
It  was  of  medium  grades  of  bakers’  dour.  There  was  none  of  our  fine 
dour  exported  that  year.  The  trade  was  extended,  and  was  mainly  the 
first  year  to  Liverpool,  Glasgow,  and  London  ; Brazil  took  a little.  The 
next  year  it  was  extended  to  the  Continent,  and  next  year  still  farther, 
until  nearly  every  port  in  Europe  took  our  dour,  and  several  shipments 
were  made  to  Alexandria,  in  Egypt.  Now,  that  trade  has  been  built  up 
by  the  energy  and  enterprise  of  one  of  our  millers  by  going  and  staying 
right  there  until  he  could  get  the  dour  introduced.  To-day  there  is  not 
a line  of  steamers  going  to  Europe  that  has  not  its  agent  here  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  us  to  ship  it  with  greater  convenience. 

Then  comes  in  an  incidental  question  in  regard  to  the  tariff.  Mani- 
toba is  now  raising  immense  quantities  of  wheat,  and  the  quality  of  it 
is  much  better  than  ours.  We  have  samples  here  that  were  raised  500 
miles  northwest  of  Winnipeg,  and  are  superior  to  any  samples  in  Min- 
nesota. There  is  a duty  of  20  cents  on  every  bushel  of  wheat  that  is 
brought  into  this  country  to  grind  from  Manitoba  or  any  other  foreign 
country.  There  has  been  a ruling  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
that  where  dour  is  manufactured  exclusively  from  imported  wheat  there 
is  a rebate  of  90  per  cent,  of  75  cents  on  each  barrel  of  dour  exported. 
That  was  found  altogether  inadequate.  Various  experiments  have 
shown  that  it  takes  about  4 bushels  and  40  to  50  pounds  of  this  north- 
ern wheat  to  make  a barrel  of  dour.  During  this  winter  or  spring  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  made  another  ruling,  by  which  he  gives 
us  90  per  cent,  of  about  1)0  cents.  Before  we  had  67  cents  rebate  on 
Manitoba  wheat  or  dour;  now  we  have  80^-  by  the  present  ruling  of 
the  Treasury  Department  on  each  barrel  of  dour,  and  it  saves  the 
miller  a vast  amount  of  expense  and  annoyance.  The  wheat  has  to  be 
subject  to  the  inspection  of  the  Treasury  agent  from  the  time  it  crosses 
the  line  until  it  is  exported,  and  we  cannot  get  the  rebate  until  it  has 
been  out  of  port  a certain  length  of  time.  The  question  has  been  agi- 
tated whether  or  not  we  might  not  have  free  wheat  from  the  British 


1094 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[C.  C.  BTUBTKVANT. 


provinces  to  this  country  to  grind.  Of  course  it  will  he  said  that  it 
would  be  putting  their  wheat  in  competition  with  our  American  wheat. 
But  then  it  strikes  me — and  I think  investigation  will  prove — that  it 
would  make  no  difference  with  the  foreign  demand  for  our  American 
wheat.  The  wheat  raised  there,  if  it  is  not  put  into  flour,  will  go 
abroad  and  supply  the  foreign  markets  in  the  barrel.  Now  the  ques- 
tion is  (inasmuch  as  they  must  have  just  so  much  of  our  wheat  and  no 
more),  whether  or  not  if  it  comes  here  and  our  people  grind  it  and  re- 
tain the  offal  here  and  then  ship  that  flour  abroad  the  farmer  will  be  in- 
jured by  it.  That  is  a question  for  others  to  decide.  My  own  impres- 
sion is  that  they  would  not.  The  foreign  markets  will  take  no  more 
wheat  than  they  want.  Great  Britain  will  take  wheat  raised  in  its  own 
colonies  before  it  will  take  ours. 

Another  matter,  in  regard  to  our  trade  with  Manitoba  in  manufactures 
and  the  trade  generally  with  Manitoba:  They  have  recently  put  a very 
heavy  duty  upon  all  American  goods  taken  into  that  country.  We  have 
a very  large  number  of  manufacturers  here  who  had  a very  profitable 
and  good  trade  with  Manitoba  previous  to  that  tariff  placed  upon  our 
goods.  For  instance,  the  agricultural  implements  used  there  were  almost 
exclusively  of  American  manufacture.  We  had  a large  trade  in  agri- 
cultural implements,  in  furniture,  and  machinery  of  all  kinds,  but  we 
have  virtually  lost  it.  They  impose  a duty  of  35  per  cent,  on  furniture, 
which,  of  course,  virtually  excludes  our  goods.  Some  claim  that  that 
w as  put  on  as  a retaliatory  measure  as  against  our  twenty  cents  a bushel 
on  their  wheat  coming  here.  The  Northwest  is  very  much  interested  in 
that  question.  This  is  their  natural  place  for  trade.  From  time  im- 
memorial their  business  has  been  done  here  almost  exclusively.  Of 
course,  some  of  it  will  probably  be  diverted  by  the  Canada  Pacific 
Railroad,  but  as  the  interests  of  the  Canada  Pacific  and  the  Manitoba 
road  (which  comes  here)  are  practically  identical,  they  are  striving  to 
draw  that  trade  this  way. 

I can  give  you  some  figures  in  regard  to  our  general  manufactures. 
Last  year  there  was  manufactured  within  our  city  limits  hereof  lumber 
234,245,000  feet,  besides  shingles,  lath,  and  other  material.  Of  mis- 
cellaneous manufactures,  largely  of  farm  machinery  and  other  machinery, 
furniture,  and  builders’  materials  and  things  of  that  kind,  the  total  value 
was,  say,  $14,872,000  in  1880,  showing  a gradual  increase. 

I would  say  here,  in  regard  to  flour,  that  the  capacity  of  our  mills 
now  is  a little  over  25,000  barrels  daily,  and  of  that  flour  we  expect  this 
year  to  export  about  one-half. 

By  Mr.  Boteler  : 

Question.  Recognizing  the  necessity  of  your  mills  to  draw  their  sup- 
plies from  a more  extended  area,  1 cannot  understand  why  that  can  be 
an  advantage  to  the  agricultural  community  of  this  country. — Answer. 
I do  not  think  it  would  be  to  the  advantage  of  the  wheat  grower,  but 
I do  claim  that  it  wrould  be  no  disadvantage ; and  if  it  brings  money  and 
business  here,  or  manufactures,  or  anything  else,  and  does  not  take  from 
the  profits  of  tbe  agriculturist,  it  is  a benefit  to  the  wrhole.  My  argu- 
ment is  this:  Foreign  countries  want  200, 000, 000  bushels  of  wheat  or  its 
product,  flour;  Canada  or  the  British  provinces  raise  100,000,000  of  that 
and  send  it  unmanufactured  to  Europe.  Of  course  they  only  want  100,- 
000,000  more  from  here.  If  that  100,000,000,  which  is  going  there  at 
any  rate,  was  brought  here  and  manufactured  and  then  went  there,  they 
would  not  require  one  bushel  less  from  this  country. 


c.  c.  stcrtev ant . ] WHEAT  AND  FLOUR.  1095 

Mr.  Botelee.  That  is  a strange  presumption,  tliat  England  will  re 
quire  that  amount  regularly. 

The  Witness.  Foreign  countries  do  not  buy  any  more  breadstuffs 
than  they  require.  They  buy  that  from  the  country  where  they  can 
buy  it  cheapest,  and  England  takes  the  largest  portion.  They  always 
take  what  is  raised  in  their  own  provinces  before  they  take  ours  from 
here.  The  Canadian  provinces  have  no  other  market  than  a foreign 
market  for  their  wheat,  unless  they  bring  it  here,  and  they  cannot  afford 
to  do  it  with  the  duty  on.  Last  year  England  alone  took  about  half  as 
much  as  it  did  the  year  before;  they  did  not  need  it,  and  if  they  do  not 
need  it  they  are  not  going  to  buy  it. 

Q.  What  is  the  capacity  of  your,  mills'? — A.  They  can  easily  make 
25,000  barrels  per  day ; that  is  their  capacity.  The  smallest  mill  has  a 
capacity  of  225  barrels  a day. 

Q.  Is  there  not  wheat  enough  raised  here  in  this  region  to  supply 
them  ? — A.  Usually,  when  there  is  a good  crop,  but  last  year  there  was 
not  half  enough. 

Q.  When  there  is  not  a good  crop,  of  course  the  price  of  wheat  is  en- 
hanced and  will  just  about  pay  the  additional  duty  upon  the  supplies, 
will  it  not? — A.  We  always  raise  a good  deal  more  wheat  than  we  can 
consume  at  home.  If  that  wheat  goes  to  Europe,  of  course  it  reduces 
the  price  of  wheat  there,  and  the  price  is  reduced  here.  We  do  not  make 
the  price  of  wheat  here,  Europe  makes  it — only  sometimes  the  board  of 
trade  of  Chicago  makes  it,  as  they  did  in  July  and  August.  But  ordi- 
narily and  regularly  the  price  in  Liverpool  regulates  the  price  here. 
.We  do  not  ship  any  wheat  to  Europe;  we  ship  Hour. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  The  rebate  under  the  recent  ruling  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
practically  makes  free  trade,  does  it  not? — A.  It  is  90  per  cent,  of  the 
duty  paid  that  is  returned,  leaving  10  per  cent,  of  the  duty  for  the 
government. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  It  is  nine-tenths  of  20  cents  that  is  returned  ? — A.  That  is  two 
cents  a bushel  for  the  government;  we  do  not  get  any  rebate  on  the 
offal. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  Do  you  not  get  a rebate  on  all  flour? — A.  It  takes  about  4 bushels 
and  3 pecks  to  make  a barrel  of  flour — call  it  5 for  short;  20  cents  a 
bushel  on  5 bushels  would  be  $1;  but  you  only  get  that  90  cents.  It  is 
about  3 cents  a bushel  when  you  come  down  to  it  actually. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  the  duty  of  20  cents  was  laid  on  wheat  ? — 
A.  I do  not. 

Q.  It  was  in  March,  1861.  Since  that  time  the  country  has  improved 
very  remarkably,  and  there  has  been  no  complaint  among  the  consumers. 
You  state,  however,  that  your  trade  is  falling  off  between  here  and 
Manitoba. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  As  you  cannot  furnish  the  furniture  and  agricultural  implements 
to  them,  on  account  of  their  tariff,  will  not  the  consequence  be  that  the 
manufacturers  will  go  there  and  make  it  there  ? — A.  I think  it  will  event- 
ually 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  wise  policy  in  us  to  let  the  Canadians  furnish  us 


1096 


TARIFF  COMMISSION, 


[C.  C.  STURTEVAKT, 


with  furniture,  &c .? — A.  By  no  means.  T would  not  have  the  duty 
taken  off  the  wheat  unless  they  would  take  it  off"  of  our  articles. 

Q.  We  have  no  control  over  the  Canadian  Government.  This  Com- 
mission can  only  propose  legislation  to  Congress.  The  Canadians  saw 
great  prosperity  on  one  side  of  the  line  where  there  was  protection,  and 
great  depreciation  on  the  other  where  there  was  free  trade ; and  now 
that  they  have  adopted  our  policy  shall  we  change  ours ? — A.  Prac- 
tically we  had  free  trade  with  Canada  until  within  the  last  three  years. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  adoption  of  the  policy  of  protection  by  the 
Canadian  Government  is  the  result  of  the  fact  that  the  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  people  for  annexation  was  developing  so  rapidly  that 
they  had  to  adopt  our  policy  in  order  to  prevent,  the  increase  of  that 
feeling? — A.  The  Canadians  have  virtually  cut  loose  from  the  old 
country.  Some  of  them  are  very  strongly  in  favor  of  reducing  their 
tariff;  they  say  it  is  injuring  their  northwest.  I think  the  sentiment  in 
Manitoba  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  nearly  free  trade  between  us  and 
themselves,  and  I think  it  is  growing,  and  will  be  a power  there  within 
a very  short  time,  too. 

Q.  The  adoption  by  them  of  a protective  policy  injures  us,  there  is  no 
doubt  about  that.  How  it  can  injure  us  and  injure  them  I do  not 
understand. — A.  They  are  paying  35  per  cent,  more  for  goods  on  account 
of  that  tariff,  because  the  class  of  agricultural  implements  that  they  re- 
quire in  the  northwest  are  not  manufactured  in  Canada.  Those  that 
have  been  shipped  there  are  entirely  inadequate  for  the  work  to  be  done, 
and  they  have  had  to  come  here  and  get  plows,  &c.  Some  of  our  largest 
manufacturers  that  have  had  that  trade,  and  been  putting  their  goods 
there  and  preventing  manufactures  there,  have  been  sending  their 
goods  there  without  any  profit,  or  none  worth  naming,  and  they  have 
had  to  pay  that  35  per  cent.  It  is  so  with  furniture  aud  everything. 
Those  people  have  to  pay  a price  clear  above  what  they  ought,  and  that 
is  where  it  injures  that  country;  it  retards  the  settlement  of  that 
country. 

Q.  That  may  be  all  very  true,  but  shall  we  adopt  their  former  policy 
of  free  trade  since  they  have  adopted  the  policy  of  protection, .and 
thereby  have  our  section  become  depressed  while  theirs  becomes  pros- 
perous?— A.  No,  sir;  as  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I am  in  favor  of  a 
reciprocity  treaty  and  free  trade  between  us  and  those  provinces. 

Q.  We  cannot  consider  the  question  of  a reciprocity  treaty  between 
us  and  Canada,  nor  can  we  consider  the  question  of  what  the  Govern- 
ment of  Canada  is  going  to  do.  Are  you  aware  by  what  majority  the 
protective  policy  was  adopted  in  their  Parliament  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  at  the  time  when  the  Canadian  tariff  was 
adopted  very  little  was  said  in  the  Canadian  Parliament  about  the 
revenue  ? — A.  I am  aware  of  it,  and  I am  aware  that  the  people  were 
very  much  incensed  at  it. 

Q.  We  cau  only  judge  of  the  people  by  their  representatives  in  Par- 
liament.— A.  Their  representatives  are  very  different  from  ours  here. 

Q.  You  think  that  the  flour  manufacturers  of  Minneapolis  are  not 
satisfied  wfitli  the  drawback  which  is  allowed,  when  the  law  expressly 
states  that  the  drawback  allowed  upon  all  foreign  exportations  of  arti- 
cles manufactured  in  the  United  States  exclusively  from  material  ob- 
tained out  of  the  United  States  shall  be  the  same  as  the  duty  paid,  less 
10  per  cent,  for  the  expenses  of  the  government.  You  get  the  offal, 
Ac.,  whir1'  is  probably  equal  to  the  10  per  cent.,  and  practically  that 
reimburses  you  all  you  pay  for  governmental  purposes.  Do  you  think 


c.  c.  stubtevant.]  WHEAT  AND  FLOUR.  1007 

the  flour  manufacturers  are  not  satisfied  with  that  condition  of  things  ? — 
A.  We  pay  a duty  on  all  offal ; we  don’t  get  any  of  that  back. 

Q.  Is  it  not  worth  something  to  you  ? — A.  It  is  worth  something,  but 
it  is  not  worth  20  per  cent. — what  we  pay  for  it. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  I want  to  know  by  what  line  you  export  this  flour? — A.  We  ex- 
port it  by  nearly  every  line  leading  out  of  New  York,  Boston,  Balti- 
more, Philadelphia,  and  some  by  the  way  of  New  Orleans. 

Q.  You  send  it  over  the  railroad  lines  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  send  any  by  water  ? — A.  We  send  by  the  way  of  Duluth. 

Q.  What  proportion  ? — A.  In  the  summer  season,  while  the  lakes  are 
all  open,  we  send  from  one-fourth  to  one-fifth  that  way,  I think. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Do  I understand  that  this  grinding  of  Canadian  wheat  is  pursued 
only  when  you  cannot  get  wheat  in  this  country? — A.  Only  when  we 
have  run  short  of  wheat,  so  far.  There  was  no  Canadian  wheat  ground 
until  the  short  crop  of  1881. 

Q.  Then  in  the  event  of  a good  crop  in  this  country,  this  question 
cuts  no  figure  at  all  ? — A.  Probably  not $ but  still  they  have  a better  crop 
than  we  have. 

Q.  I either  did  not  get  your  meaning  clearly  or  I do  not  agree  with 
your  reasoning.  Might  it  not  be  that  the  free  importation  of  this  wheat 
would  give  the  millers  or  the  buyers  of  wheat  at  this  point  a little  ad- 
vantage in  this  way  • that  they  could  say  to  the  farmers : “We  will 
'give  you  so  much  for  wheat,  and  if  you  do  not  choose  to  take  it,  we  have 
plenty  of  wheat  that  we  can  get  on  the  other  side  of  the  line,  and  will 
let  you  wait  until  you  will  take  our  price”? — A.  Possibly  it  might. 

Q.  Has  such  an  argument  been  used? — A.  Not  at  all.  There  is  a 
great  deal  more  wheat  that  comes  from  south  of  us  than  we  raise  here. 
Por  instance,  at  this  time  we  are  receiving  quite  large  shipments  every 
day  from  Kansas.  The  Kansas  harvest  is  much  earlier  than  ours. 

Q.  That  would  more  likely  unfavorably  influence  the  Kansas  wheat- 
raisers  than  the  Canadian? — A.  I think  not. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Is  there  any  superiority  in  your  flour  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  is  it? — A.  It  is  in  its  strength.  All  this  hard  Northern 
wheat  makes  better  flour,  and  the  farther  north  the  better.  You  may 
take  a given  quantity  of  our  flour  here,  made  from  this  hard  wheat,  and 
measure  the  water  necessary  to  make  it  into  dough  suitable  for  baking, 
and  you  may  take  the  same  number  of  pounds  of  Southern  wheat  or 
winter  wheat  (the  softer  wheat  raised  farther  south)  and  take  the  same 
quantity  of  water  and  put  into  it,  and  it  is  just  about  the  consistency  of 
paste  used  in  pasting  paper.  The  bakers  state  that  the  flour  from  the 
hard  Minnesota  or  Northern  wheat  will  make  20  per  cent,  more  bread 
in  size  of  loaf,  in  weight,  and  in  use  than  the  same  flour  from  farther 
south.  That  flour  was  taken  to  Liverpool  and  London  and  left  with  the 
bakers  and  they  were  told  to  try  it. 

Q.  Then  your  flour  will  be  likely  to  be  received  there  in  competition 
with  flour  from  the  Black  Sea  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  advantage  in  your  mode  of  grinding? — A.  It  gives 
the  flour  a better  color,  and  they  get  more  from  a bushel  of  wheat. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Are  there  any  statistics  by  which  we  can  find  out  where  the  wheat 


1098 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


(C.  C.  BTURTE V ANT. 


comes  from*?  Have  you  any  board  of  trade  reports  on  that  point? — 
A.  We  have  been  prohibited,  so  far,  by  the  railroads  from  giving  au 
account  in  our  reports  of  the  amount  coming  in  by  the  different  roads. 
There  has  been  a jealousy  among  the  railroads  here,  and  before  we 
could  get  the  daily  receipts  and  shipments  from  the  different  roads  we 
were  obliged  to  pledge  ourselves  to  mass  them,  without  stating  in  de- 
tail what  came  in  over  each  road. 

Q.  Be  kind  enough  to  indicate  by  the  map  the  region  of  country  from 
which  you  draw  your  supplies  of  wheat  here,  so  far  as  your  knowledge 
goes. — A.  We  get  some  little  from  Manitoba;  some  is  found  as  far  north 
on  the  northern  frontier  as  Bismarck — there  is  none  beyond  that — and 
then  coming  down  the  Missouri  River  we  get  more  wheat,  but  the  qual- 
ity does  not  suit.  We  get  some  in  the  vicinity  of  Sioux  City  and  above, 
and  then  across  in  Dakota;  some  from  Northern  Iowa;  but  the  bulk  of 
our  wheat  that  we  grind  now  comes  from  Central  and  Northern  Minne- 
sota and  Dakota;  wehave  a little  brought  from  Northwestern  Wisconsin. 

Q.  And  occasionally,  you  s y,  from  as  far  south  as  Kansas  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  but  that  is  only  when  our  stock  is  exhausted  here  that  we  go  out- 
side of  that  range  for  wheat.  Now  this  year  this  State  is  going  to 
have  a little  over  40,000,000  bushels  of  wheat,  which  will  be  an  increase 
of  8,000,000  or  10,000,000  over  last  year.  A great  deal  of  the  wheat 
from  Southern  Minnesota  goes  to  Chicago  and  Milwaukee. 

Q.  What  is  Dakota  going  to  give  you  this  year  ? — A.  Probably  from 
10,000,000  to  12,000,000  bushels. 

Q.  You  will  get  most  all  of  it  ? — A.  No ; we  will  get  a good  deal  of  it, 
but  a good  deal  of  it  goes  to  Duluth  and  Buffalo.  The  Buffalo  millers 
are,  all  through  that  section  of  the  country  along  the  Northern  Pacific, 
buying  it  up.  We  will  probably  not  get  over  half  of  it.  We  get  some 
wheat  from  Southern  Dakota  by  the  Northwestern  road  and  those 
other  roads,  but  not  a great  deal. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  How  far  north  of  this  does  the  wheat-growing  country  extend? — 
A.  I suppose,  from  the  best  information  I can  get  and  from  samples  of 
wheat  that  have  been  brought  here,  it  extends  at  least  1,000  miles 
northwest  ol  here,  and  the  best  wheat  there  is  grown  in  that  country. 

By  Commissioner  Porter: 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  product  at  the  present  time  of  the  Mani- 
toba wheat  region;  have  you  any  statistics? — A.  No;  I think  they 
claim  that  they  are  going  to  have  in  that  whole  province  from  15,000,000 
to  18,000,000  bushels.  Their  wheat  goes  down  the  Northern  Pacific  to 
Dnlutli,  and  is  shipped  in  bond  through  to  Montreal  and  to  Europe. 
There  are  bonded  warehouses  at  Duluth,  and  the  Manitoba  road  runs 
bonded  cars.  That  wheat  goes  to  Europe  by  the  way  of  the  lakes  and 
the  Saint  Lawrence. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Previous  to  last  year  they  did  not  produce  more  wheat  than  they 
consumed,  did  they? — Yes,  sir;  they  produced  some  more;  we  have 
had  some  of  it  here.  It  is  only  within  the  last  two  or  three  years  that 
there  has  been  any  to  export.  They  have  some  mills  in  Manitoba,  but 
they  are  not  very  good.  I knew  the  exact  amount  of  it  that  went 
through  Duluth  in  bond  last  year,  but  it  has  slipped  my  mind.  What- 
ever surplus  they  have  goes  to  Europe  in  some  shape. 


WILLIAM  W.  FOIWBLL.l 


GENERAL  VIEWS 


1099 


WILLIAM  W.  FOLWELL. 

Minneapolis,  Minn.,  September  14,  1882. 

William  W.  Folwell,  president  of  the  University  of  Minnesota, 
appeared  before  the  Commission  and  made  the  following  statement: 

Mr.  President:  I did  not  expect  to  have  the  pleasure  of  saying  any- 
thing in  the  presence  of  this  Commission.  I did  hope,  however,  to  at- 
tend the  discussions  before  the  Commission,  because  I am  much  inter- 
ested in  the  general  question  of  protection  and  free  trade.  1 am  a free- 
trader; that  is  to  say,  I believe  that  free  trade  is  the  ideal  condition  of 
commerce  and  of  industry,  and  that  this  ideal  condition  maybe  realized 
at  some  time  on  this  planet,  in  some  Utopia  yet  to  be.  Men  ought  to 
live  together  as  brethren  and  ought  to  desire  the  welfare  of  each  other, 
whether  as  nations  or  as  individuals.  But  unfortunately  we  live  in  this 
nineteenth  century,  and  the  principal  business  of  men  is  cutting  each 
others’  throats,  either  physically  or  financially.  And  so  long  as  this 
condition  of  things  continues  I am,  as  I say,  ideally  and  theoretically  a 
free-trader,  while  practically  a protectionist.  I think  we  Americans 
must  do  as  other  peoples  do,  that  is,  we  must  protect  our  industries,  or 
some  of  them,  from  injurious  competition  on  the  part  of  other  nations 
who  do  not  desire  our  prosperity. 

’ Believing  then  that  wTe  must  protect  our  industries,  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  must  be  careful  how  we  do  it.  There  is  such  a thing  as  under- 
taking to  protect  everybody  and  not  protecting  anybody.  We  do  not 
want  to  be  in  the  condition  of  the  old  man  and  his  five  sons  who  traded 
coats  all  day  and  at  the  end  had  each  his  own  coat.  We  can  only  pro- 
tect particular  industries  in  my  opinion,  at  the  expense  of  other  indus- 
tries in  general.  If  we  attempt  a general  scheme  of  protecting  all  call- 
ings, of  course,  the  whole  thing  will  be  a failure.  Then  it  comes  down 
to  special  protection  of  a few  industries.  The  great  mass  of  industries 
do  not  need  protection,  but  will  take  care  of  themselves.  I am  heartily 
in  favor  of  taking  care  especially  of  infant  industries,  which  need  to  be 
cared  for  until  such  time  as  they  can  get  along  on  their  own  feet. 

As  protection  cannot  be  made  universal,  neither  can  it  last  forever. 
It  must  come  to  an  end.  Every  protective  system  should  look  not  to 
its  perpetuation  but  to  its  own  extinction.  It  should  work  out  its  ends 
and  leave  all  industries  at  length  to  take  care  of  themselves. 

And  right  here  I might  say,  as  I have  already  been  requested  to, 
what  occurs  to  me  about  how  our  western  people  feel  in  regard  to  the 
tariff.  So  far  as  I have  been  able  to  observe,  they  do  not  care  a great 
deal  about  the  matter.  They  have  not  much  interest  and  have  not 
much  information  upon  the  subject.  Our  business  is  so  exclusively  and 
overwhelmingly  agricultural  that  our  attention  has  not  been  drawn  to 
the  subject  of  protecting  manufacturers.  It  is  difficult  to  get  any  po- 
litical party  to  put  a protection  plank  in  its  platform,  and  if  they  do  it 
at  all,  it  is  done  in  deference  to  tradition  more  than  because  they  really 
desire  the  extension  or  the  perpetuation  of  a protective  policy. 

I concede,  then,  that  protection  is,  in  our  time,  essential;  but  I insist 
that  comparatively  few  industries  must  be  protected;  and  that  protec- 
tion must  look  forward  to  the  time  when  it  can  be  dispensed  with.  I 
do  not  believe,  to  speak  frankly  and  plainly,  that  the  people  of  the  Mis- 


1100 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  W.  FOLWELL. 


sissippi  Valley,  which  is  going  to  control  the  whole  policy  of  this  coun- 
try, will  carry  protection  indefinitely.  So  that  if  I were  called  upon 
to  legislate  I would  endeavor  to  formulate  a scheme  that  would,  within 
a reasonable  time,  come  to  an  end.  The  indefinite  continuation  of  a 
tariff*  presupposes  the  means  of  spending  unlimited  money.  The  pres- 
ent state  of  things  will  not  always  last;  we  shall  pay  the  national  debt, 
and  then  what  shall  we  do  with  the  immense  income  resulting  from  an 
indefinite  tariff  ? Even  now  the  high-tariff  men  are  urging  the  abolition 
of  the  internal  revenue  in  order  to  give  room  for  increased  revenue 
from  duties  on  imports. 

I do  not  think  of  anything  more  at  the  moment,  but  I should  be  very 
glad,  if  I can  do  so,  to  answer  any  questions  which  may  be  put  to  me. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Question.  You  advise  us  not  to  have  general  protection,  meaning 
thereby  to  select  special  industries,  particularly  those  that  are  termed 
infant  industries.  I understand  that  to  be  one  of  the  suggestions  you 
make? — Answer.  In  substance. 

Q.  Some  parts  of  our  country  are  very  old  and  others  very  new,  and 
the  surrounding  circumstances  of  different  localities  are  quite  varied. 
We  do  not  find  infant  industries  in  every  locality.  For  instance,  the 
cotton  industry  in  the  South  is  nn  infant  industry  compared  with  the 
cotton  industry  in  the  Eastern  States.  In  the  East  they  have  arrived 
as  nearly  at  a state  of  perfection  as  possible.  They  have  arrived  at  the 
full  English  standard  of  perfection  in  machinery,  while  in  the  Southern 
States  you  will  find  that  manufactures  are  just  beginning  to  grow — not 
out  of  their  swaddling  clothes  yet.  How,  then,  can  we  protect  the  in- 
fant industries  of  the  Southern  States  when  the  same  law  must  govern 
the  Southern  States  as  governs  the  Eastern  States?  Can  you  suggest 
any  method? — A.  Ho,  sir;  I do  not  think  I can  suggest  any  method 
which  would  be  general.  I look  upon  this  whole  business  of  protection 
as  a practical  business.  The  men  charged  with  framing  a system  must 
sit  down  together  and  figure  it  out  the  best  they  can  under  the  circum- 
stances. What  I am  insisting  on  is  this,  that  if  we  attempt  to  protect 
every  industry  in  the  whole  range  of  manufactures  and  agriculture,'  the 
effort  will  defeat  itself.  I see  the  point  you  make,  but  I have  nothing 
to  suggest  in  a general  way,  because  when  a commission  sit  down  to 
make  their  recommendations  they  must  do  just  what  they  can.  The 
outcome  must  be  just  what  this  commission  shall  vote,  and  not  what 
theorists  would  have. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  speak  of  a gradual  reduction  of  duty  so  that  eventually  we 
would  work  to  a point  where  it  might  be  called  free  trade.  Have  you 
taken  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the  nearer  we  approach  that  posi- 
tion the  lower  we  reduce  the  wages  of  what  are  called  the  working  peo- 
ple?— A.  I think  that  is  correct  in  certain  particulars. 

Q.  1 mean  generally. — A.  I am  not  sure  about  it  in  general,  but  I 
think  in  certain  particulars  a case  can  be  made  up.  The  wages  of  labor 
depend  so  much  upon  movements  of  population  that  I do  not  think  a 
tariff  can  regulate  labor  very  much.  It  is  oidy  one  of  the  elements.  I 
do  not  believe  that  any  tariff  Congress  shall  make  in  consequence  of 
your  recommendations  will  really  help  the  laboring  classes  permanently. 
That  depends  so  much  upon  emigration. 

Q.  Have  we  not  attracted  that  emigration  for  the  reason  that  we  have 
rich  lands  and  high-priced  labor? — A.  I think  we  have;  chiefly,  though, 
because  of  our  rich  lands.  The  price  of  labor  depends  so  much  upon 


WILLIAM  W.  FOLWELL.] 


GENERAL  VIEWS. 


1101 


other  considerations  than  that  of  the  tariff  on  goods  that  I would  not  be 
willing  to  admit  that  the  resuff  of  free  trade  would  be  a reduction  of 
the  price  of  labor.  We  are  asked  now  to  protect  labor.  I have  lately 
seen  a resolution  of  a labor  association  asking  that  $100  a head  be  put 
upon  laborers  imported  into  this  country,  and  I do  not  see  but  there  is 
some  reason  in  that. 

Q.  It  has  been  suggested  to  us  that  the  duties  on  heavy  products 
might  be  taken  off  or  materially  reduced  and  thereby  lower  the  price  of 
those  heavy  goods  from  abroad.  In  that  case  these  men  who  now  pop- 
ulate the  cities  would  at  once  come  into  competition  with  the  wheat-pro- 
ducers and  corn  producers. — A.  That  is  going  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  abolition  of  duties  is  the  abolition  of  manufactures.  I do  not  ex- 
pect general  free  trade  in  our  time.  I think  it  ought  to  be  at  least  a 
century  working  out,  and  I would  not  think  it  necessary  to  assume  that 
unlimited  free  trade  would  be  necessarily  accompanied  by  a reduction  of 
wages. 

Q.  You  speak  of  the  surplus  money  that  the  government  would  be 
possessed  of  after  the  debt  shall  have  been  paid.  Do  you  not  think 
that  articles  that  are  not  produced  in  this  country  should  be  put  on  the 
free  list  and  then  there  would  be  no  surplus  revenue? — A.  When  you 
come  to  that,  this  Commission  is  so  much  better  informed  than  I am  that 
I dislike  to  venture  any  opinion.  I dare  say  it  might  be  the  case.  I 
think  that  very  likely,  especially  when  the  amount  of  revenue  therefrom 
should  be  very  small. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  There  are  two  theories  of  raising  revenue:  by  excise  duties,  and 
duties  on  imports.  Your  idea  is  that  internal  revenue  would  be  prefer- 
able to  the  duties  on  imports? — A.  1 take  a very  practical  view  of  gov- 
ernment. I assume  that  there  is  a general  science  of  political  economy; 
that  there  are  certain  general  principled  which  are  inductions  from  facts 
observable  to  all  countries;  that  this  science  presupposes  absolute  free- 
dom to  consume,  to  produce,  to  exchange,  and  to  travel.  This  is  a very 
fine  theory  for  the  class-room  and  the  study.  The  teacher  can  analyze 
it  and  teach  it.  The  trouble  is  that  it  does  not  specially  apply  to  this 
country  or  to  any  particular  country.  There  is  then  an  additional  sci- 
ence of  national  economy,  and  the  business  of  national  economists  is  to 
apply  the  principles  of  political  economy  to  the  exigencies  of  their  times 
and  countries  as  far  as  possible.  The  same  is  true  of  moral  philosophy. 
The  moralist  will  tell  you  you  must  not  kill  anybody,  and  yet  you  may 
kill  thousands  upon  thousands  for  state  reasons.  The  political  econ- 
omist suggests  that  you  must  not  interfere  with  anybody’s  industry ; 
that  everybody  must  be  allowed  to  produce  and  consume  as  he  pleases; 
but  the  national  economist  will  come  forward  and  say,  abolish  this  in- 
dustry entirely,  check  this  one,  and  give  that  one  a new  direction,  and 
will  justify  himself  upon  considerations  of  public  policy.  In  that  way 
I escape  from  the  difficulties  into  which  I think  many  political  economists 
fall.  The  ideal  conditions  of  mankind  must  be  adapted  as  they  can  be 
to  particular  times  and  particular  nations. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  So  that  political  economy,  in  its  largest  sense,  will  not  be  available 
until  we  reach  that  Utopia  you  mentioned? — A.  I would  not  like  to  an- 
swer yes.  Nobody  denies  that  moral  philosophy  is  a valuable  science, 
spite  of  the  universal  prevalence  of  immorality. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I said  available  in  its  largest  sense ; I did 
not  mean  that  it  would  be  of  no  use. 


1102 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  W.  FOLWELL, 


By  the  President: 

Q.  Do  you  hold  in  practice  that  national  interests  override  and  over- 
rule general  theoretical  questions? — A.  Certainly.  You  business  men 
must  sit  together,  and  the  outcome  must  be  the  result  of  your  votes,  and 
not  of  your  theories. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  Your  idea  is  that  in  the  present  exigencies  of  the  country,  where  a 
certain  amount  of  revenue  must  be  raised,  it  is  better  to  be  raised  by 
duty,  and  that  we  should  select  certain  industries  to  be  protected  in  that 
way? — A.  Certainly;  I agree  to  that.  I think  it  would  be  a great  wrong 
to  abolish  the  present  tariff  suddenly.  It  should  be  perpetuated  for  a 
generation  or  two,  because  of  vested  interests. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner: 

Q.  You  did  not  intimate  whether  you  thought  that  these  revenues 
ought  to  be  raised  from  imports,  in  preference  to  excise  duties  ? — A. 
The  honest  way  to  support  the  government  would  be  for  every  man  to 
put  his  hand  in  his  pocket  and  pay  his  share  of  direct  taxation.  I think, 
however,  considering  the  habits,  feelings,  and  conditions  of  our  people, 
that  the  revenue  from  imports  is,  on  the  whole,  the  more  desirable 
method.  We  do  not  take  kindly  to  excises  in  this  country,  though  I 
think  we  stand  taxation  upon  luxury  pretty  well.  A tax  of  2 cents 
upon  every  bank  check  is  a tax  which  makes  us  angry  every  time  we 
write  a check. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  You  do  not  think  the  people  like  the  idea  of  a man  coming  around 
annually  to  collect  the  amount  of  revenue  necessary  ? — A.  I do  not 
think  they  do,  and  yet  I wish  they  did. 

Q.  Which  do  you  think  would  be  the  more  desirable,  that  the  tax- 
gatherer  should  go  from  place  to  place  to  collect  taxes,  or  that  it  should 
be  taken  from  them  without  their  being  conscious  of  it,  so  to  speak? — - 
A.  As  an  abstract  question  I would  think  it. far  more  desirable  to  pay 
openly  and  honestly,  and  then  every  man  would  know  what  he  paid. 

Q.  But  you  are  now  speaking  of  practical  business.  From  a business 
point  of  view  is  it  not  a great  deal  easier  and  would  not  the  people 
tolerate  it  more  readily  and  be  happier  under  it,  to  raise  it  when  they 
are  not  conscious  of  it,  rather  than  to  have  to  put  their  hands  in  their 
pockets  and  pay  it  over  to  the  tax-gatherer? — A.  I answer  yes  to  that, 
meaning  that  they  would  be  far  better  satisfied.  As  to  whether  they 
ought  to  be  satisfied,  I am  in  doubt.  Indirect  taxation  is  the  resort  of 
tyrants  and  demagogues  whether  they  are  aristocrats  or  democrats.  I 
think  for  the  present  we  had  better  go  on  collecting  duties  under  the 
present  arrangement  and  then  let  us  all  agitate  and  persuade  one 
another  that  the  better  way  is  to  abolish  the  duties  on  imports  and  let 
each  man  walk  up  and  pay. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  that  the  present  generation  had  better  relegate 
that  matter  to  the  future  ? — A.  1 think  I do,  since  you  force  the  question 
upon  me. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  As  a teacher  of  political  economy,  I take  it  for  granted  that  you 
have  observed  the  action  of  what  are  termed  the  civilized  nations  of 
the  earth  in  the  matter  of  raising  the  revenue,  because  that  is  one  of  the 
great  factors  in  political  economy  which  is  to  be  studied  and  understood. 
Now,  have  you  noticed  that  among  the  nations  of  the  earth  of  which 


WILLIAM  W.  FOLWELL.] 


GENERAL  VIEWS. 


1103 


you  know  anything,  there  has  been  a great  disposition  to  return  to 
what  is  called  the  protective  doctrine?  In  England,  where  everything 
is  as  much  on  the  free-trade  principle  as  possible,  the  great  revenues  of 
the  government  are  raised  by  the  income  tax,  which  is  the  direct  taxation 
you  referred  to.  Have  you  not  noticed  that  in  England  there  have  been 
large  meetings  in  some  of  the  manufacturing  districts,  which  were  very 
clamorous  a year  ago  for  free  trade  in  corn,  &c.,  and  they  are  now  asking 
for  fair  trade,  no  longer  calling  it  free  trade;  that  the  English  colonists  in 
Canada  have  actually  caused  the  adoption  of  a protective  policy  by  a ; arge 
vote  in  their  parliament ; that  France  has  refused  to  renew  the  reciproc- 
ity treaty  between  France  and  England,  which  was  based  on  the  idea 
that  the  products  of  one  country  should  be  admitted  free  of  duty  into 
the  other;  that  in  Germany,  one  of  tha  most  prosperous  countries  in 
the  world,  Prince  Bismarck  has  advised  the  adoption  of  the  protective 
principle ; and  that  the  same  thing  is  occurring  in  almost  all  the  enlight- 
ened nations  of  the  earth;  have  you  not  noticed  that  the  tendency  has 
been  in  that  direction  ? — A.  One  must  be  very  careful  in  making  induc- 
tions. I have  observed  with  interest  the  facts  to  which  you  refer.  I 
have  looked  upon  the  matter  in  this  way : The  old  policy  of  Europe  was 
protective,  as  instanced  by  the  British  corn  laws.  Adam  Smith’s 
“ Wealth  of  Nations”  started  the  free-trade  ball  rolling.  This  system 
went  to  unpractical  extremes,  and  there  is  now  a reaction  against  it. 
The  tide  has  set  back  of  late  years  against  that  immense  free  trade  wave 
which  spread  over  Europe  a generation  or  two  ago.  But  I shall  not  be 
surprised  if,  in  the  course  of  the  next  generation,  there  shall  be  another 
corresponding  reaction. 

Q.  Then  your  idea  would  be  that  in  political  economy,  as  in  everything 
else,  the  maximum  should  be  in  medio  tutissimus  ibis  ; that  we  shall  keep 
a happy  medium  and  not  get  too  much  on  either  side? — A.  And  I would 
add  this:  That  it  is  a matter  of  observation  that  the  growing  feeling  in 
the  West  is  that  the  tariff  must  come  to  an  end;  that  it  cannot  last  for- 
ever. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Does  not  that  feeling  exist  more  particularly  along  the  Canadian 
frontier  ? — A.  I am  not  sure  that  it  does,  and  yet  I do  not  know.  The 
editor  of  our  representative  newspaper  here,  the  Pioneer  Press,  is  theo- 
retically  a free  trader,  but  is  a man  of  sense  and  judgment,  and  he  speaks 
for  a very  large  constituency. 

Q.  You  spoke,  in  the  early  part  of  your  remarks,  of  the  people  not  being 
well  acquainted  with  this  tariff*  question,  and  that  it  has  not  been  dis- 
cussed during  the  present  generation.  Do  you  not  think  that  there  is  a 
great  deal  ot*  ignorance  upon  that  subject,  extending  even  to  our  public 
men,  because  of  not  having  had  an  opportunity  to  become  enlightened 
upon  it  ? — A.  I am  sure  of  it. 

Q.  You  know  the  average  politician  is  not  much  given  to  books;  he 
has  not  much  time  to  devote  to  them.  I speak  of  the  average  politician; 
of  course  there  are  statesmen  in  every  community.  As  there  has  been 
no  general  discussion  of  the  tariff*  question,  do  you  not  think  there  is 
much  ignorance  upon  the  subject? — A.  I am  sure  there  is.  I discover 
that  as  a teacher.  I had  a class  of  young  men  and  women  before  me 
this  mprning,  and  I asked  them,  “ What  news  did  you  see  in  the  morning 
paper?”  Some  answered  that  they  had  seen  accounts  of  a battle  in 
Egypt.  I said,  “ Did  you  not  see  the  news  that  the  Tariff*  Commission 
had  arrived  in  Minneapolis?”  and  I asked  them  what  the  Tariff*  Com- 


1104 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  W.  FOLWELL. 


mission  was,  and  not  one  of  the  seventeen  or  eighteen  knew,  and  yet  they 
are  intelligent  young  people. 

Q.  How  old  were  they? — A.  I should  think  perhaps  twenty  years  old, 
on  the  average.  They  are  young  people  picked  up  from  all  over  the 
State. 

Commissioner  Garland.  That  would  bear  out  the  idea  that  the  press 
reflects  the  sentiments  of  the  people. 

The  Witness.  1 did  not  throw  that  out;  I said  the  editor  of  the 
Pioneer  Press  had  a Prge  constituency.  It  is  true  we  are  ignorant  of 
the  whole  business  in  the  West.  I do  not  suppose  you  would  be  able  to 
find  five  men  in  this  State,  outside  of  the  lawyers,  who  have  ever  read  the 
tariff  statutes. 


STEPHEN  CLEMENT.] 


IRON  AND  STEEL. 


1105 


STEPHEN  CLEMENT. 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  September  11,  1882. 

Mr.  Stephen  Clement,  of  Milwaukee,  treasurer  of  the  North  Chi- 
cago Bolling  Mill  Company,  made  the  following  statement: 

The  representative  iron  men  in  this  State  are  now  in  convention  at 
Cresson  Springs,  some  distance  from  Pittsburgh,  on  the  Pennsylvania 
Bailroad,  and  our  interests  will  be  attended  to,  and  the  action  taken  by 
that  convention  will  be  presented  to  this  Commission. 

Our  company  employs  between  5,000  and  6,000  men,  all  told,  in  the 
different  departments  of  making  steel  and  iron  rails,  bar  iron,  &c. 
There  are  about  1.500  men  in  this  city  on  our  pay-rolls.  We  pay  for 
labor  in  this  city  from  $60,000  to  $90,000  a month ; averaging  about 
$80,000  per  month. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Question.  Can  you  tell  us  when  you  will  probably  present  that  report 
to  us  that  is  now  being  prepared  at  Cresson? — Answer.  No,  sir;  I can- 
not ; but  I suppose  very  soon. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Are  those  persons,  who  are  employed,  all  men  ? — A.  They  are  all 
males,  but  there  are  some  boys. 

Q.  How  many  persons  do  you  calculate  you  support? — A.  I should 
say  between  4,000  and  6,000  people  in  Milwaukee. 

H.  Mis.  6— — 70 


1106 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  SALTER. 


WILLIAM  SALTER. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  15,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Mr.  William  Salter,  of  Bur- 
lington, was  read  and  ordered  to  be  printed : 

To  the  honorable  Tariff  Commission : 

Gentlemen:  I beg  leave  to  submit  to  your  candid  consideration  the 
question  of  the  expediency  of  placing  books  upon  the  “free  list.’7  The 
taxation  of  knowledge  is  especially  objectionable  among  a people  whose 
political  institutions  rest  upon  their  general  intelligence.  It  is  a singu- 
lar anomaly  to  put  a tax  of  25  per  cent,  upon  new  books,  or  those  printed 
within  twenty  years,  while  old  books  come  in  free;  as  though  anti- 
quated and  effete  learning  were  best  for  our  people,  and  we  should  be 
made  to  pay  dearly  for  the  latest  knowledge.  Would  it  not  be  more 
worthy  an  enlightened  government  to  place  no  restriction  upon  the  im- 
portation of  books  fresh  from  foreign  centers  of  intelligence? 

For  somewhat  similar  reasons  I submit  that  the  duty  upon  writing 
and  printing  paper  should  be  reduced. 

Permit  me  to  add  that  as  an  agricultural  State  the  interests  of  the 
people  of  Iowa  call  for  a low  tariff*  upon  all  articles  that  enter  into  the 
substance  and  manufacture  of  things  that  they  use  and  wear.  Our 
farmers  and  their  families  do  as  much  hard  work,  and  labor  as  many 
hours,  and  contribute  as  much  to  the  wealth  of  the  nation  as  the  people 
in  any  of  the  manufacturing  districts.  The  tariff  for  the  support  of  the 
government  should  be  made  to  rest  no  more  heavily  upon  them  than 
upon  others. 

Trusting  that  your  deliberations  will  result  in  causing  the  blessings 
and  the  burdens  of  the  government  to  rest  equally  upon  all  who  enjoy 
and  share  them, 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  your  obedient  servant, 

Wm.  Salter. 

Burlington,  Iowa,  September  14, 1882. 


HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1107 


HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  15,  1882. 

Henry  J.  Philpott,  of  Des  Moines,  representing  the  Iowa  State 
Free  Trade  League,  stated  to  the  Commission  as  follows: 

On  behalf  of  the  Iowa  State  Free  Trade  League,  I beg  leave  to  sub- 
mit to  your  consideration  a summary  of  facts  and  opinions  bearing  on 
the  question  of  tariff  revision.  As  a preface  to  the  important  facts  which 
I shall  present,  allow  me  to  say  that  the  league  which  I represent,  and 
which  has  now  about  fifty  active  branches  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  has  de- 
clared in  a platform,  adopted  at  one  of  its  regular  meetings,  that  any 
tariff  at  all  must  be  a disturbing  element  in  some  line  or  lines  of  busi- 
ness ; and  that  the  only  tax  on  imports  which  should  ever  be  tolerated 
by  a free  people  is  a tariff  for  revenue  only.  A tariff  solely  for  revenue, 
with  all  incidentally  protective  features  carefully  avoided  so  far  as 
possible,  is  entirely  consistent  with  our  definition  of  free  trade,  as  it 
is  with  that  of  every  political  economist  the  world  over,  so  far  as  I am 
able  to  learn.  And  I have  to  say  that  no  revision  of  the  tariff  which 
does  not  look  to  free  trade,  thus  defined,  as  its  end  and  object,  will  be 
satisfactory  either  to  me  individually,  or  to  theleague  I have  the  honor  to 
-represent.  We  are  unalterably  opposed  to  any  avoidable  law,  or  any 
avoidable  feature  of  any  law,  which  gives  one  private  citizen  of  this  free 
country  power  to  levy  taxes  on  another. 

I have  to  say,  further,  that  as  private  citizens  and  taxpayers  the  mem- 
bers of  this  league  are  entirely  willing  and  abundantly  able  to  bear  their 
full  share  in  the  support  of  the  government,  and  that  they  are  able  and 
willing  further  to  bear  the  burden  of  letting  the  protected  industries 
down  easy.  We  demand,  specifically,  that  no  sudden  and  violent  revision 
of  the  tariff  shall  be  made,  even  in  the  effort  to  reach  free  trade.  We 
demand  that  the  first  reduction  shall  take  effect  not  later  than  July  1, 
1883,  and  that  the  free  trade  point  be  reached  not  earlier  than  July  1, 
1887,  nor  later  than  July  1,  1890,  and  that  after  that  period  no  tax  shall 
be  levied  on  any  foreign  article  the  like  of  which  shall  be  produced 
within  the  United  States  to  the  value  of  over  $1,000,000  in  the  last 
census  year,  except  where  the  domestic  article  is  correspondingly  taxed, 
or  if  necessary  for  revenue,  on  a few  articles  of  luxury.  We  demand 
that  the  taxes  on  domestic  and  foreign  liquors  and  tobacco  remain, 
together  with  other  existing  internal  taxes,  in  order  to  make  the  neces- 
sity for  tariff  taxes  as  small  as  possible.  Believing  that  all  tariff  taxes 
are  a disturbing  element  in  the  lines  of  business  they  affect,  we  desire 
to  see  the  dutiable  list  reduced  to  the  minimum  and  the  free  list  cor- 
respondingly increased,  so  that  as  many  as  jjossible  of  the  industries  of 
this  country  shall  rest  on  the  solid  bed-rock  basis  of  human  freedom  and 
unfettered  commerce.  We  do  not  desire  to  engage  in  any  business 
founded  on  an  odious  tax,  and  we  are  shocked  and  mortified  that  any- 
body in  this  region  of  boundless  resources  should  desire  it.  We  are  sur- 
prised beyond  measure  that  any  one  should  say  that  high  taxes  are 
necessary  to  prosperity,  or  even  conducive  to  it.  Especially  are  we 
utterly  astonished  that  any  one  who  knows  the  natural  resources  of  this 
country  should  charge  that  its  fortunate  possessors  in  a condition  of 
freedom  would  be  unable  to  keep  pace  with  overcrowded  and  army- 
ridden  Europe  in  the  race  for  wealth  and  high  wages.  We  flatly  deny 


1108 


'Alt IFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT. 


this  imputation  against  the  enterprise  and  good  sense  and  integrity  of 
the  American  people,  and  we  unhesitatingly  charge  that  it  is  made  in 
the  interest  of  men  who  seek  to  profit,  and  do  immensely  profit,  by  the 
delusion. 

We  are  not  ignorant  of  the  relative  prices  of  foreign  and  American 
goods.  We  know  to  a certainty  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the 
goods  that  Western  people  have  to  buy  are  enormously  dearer  here 
than  in  other  countries,  while  by  far  the  greater  part  of  what  they  have 
to  sell  is  worth  much  more  abroad  than  at  home.  We  pay  $24  for  a 
carpet  that  should  sell  here  for  $1G;  $17  for  a lady’s  dress  that  should 
cost  us  not  over  $10  ; the  same  for  the  stuff  for  a suit  of  clothing ; the 
same  for  a shawl ; $9  for  a pair  ol  blankets  worth  $4.50  ; 50  cents  a yard  for 
flannels  that  sell,  where  we  sell  the  bulk  of  our  surplus,  for  less  than  25 
cents ; $4  for  a hat  that  should  cost  not  over  $2.50 ; $1  for  a calico 
dress  worth  70  cents ; $3  for  a bolt  of  muslin  that  might  be  worth  $2  ; 
5 cents  for  a spool  of  thread  that  would  sell  at  a better  profit  without 
the  duty  for  3 cents ; $1.10,  on  an  average,  for  every  dollar’s  worth  of 
iron  aud  steel  we  buy;  $14  for  a set  of  dishes  that  by  right  ought  not 
to  cost  us  more  than  $10;  and  correspondingly  high  prices  for  a thousand 
of  the  other  necessities  of  our  every-day  life;  and  we  get  but  10  pounds 
of  sugar  for  $1,  where  we  should  get  10.  These  are  not  inferences. 
They  are  facts  familiar  to  many  of  us,  and  known  to  all.  They  are 
shown  by  market  quotations  and  by  actual  purchases.  A wagon-load 
of  wheat  worth  $30  in  Iowa  is  worth  $45  in  Liverpool ; but  a suit  of 
clothes  worth  $45  here  is  worth  from  $15  to  $20  there.  In  other  words, 
ten  bushels  of  Iowa  wheat  will  buy  as  good  a suit  of  clothes  in  Liver- 
pool as  forty-five  bushels  will  buy  in  Iowa,  not  in  all  kinds  of  goods, 
but  in  many  kinds.  The  folly  of  such  legislation  must  be  apparent 
at  a glance.  Its  injustice  is  so  broad  and  deep  that  no  words  of  mine 
could  add  to  its  weight.  But  I want  to  say  that  I rejoice  that  I am 
one  of  the  self-supporting  payers  of  these  outrageous  taxes,  and  not 
one  of  the  miserable  mendicants  who  profit  by  them.  As  a matter  of 
fact  I may  state  that  circumstances  once  compelled  me,  while  traveling 
in  the  wilds  of  Iowa,  to  live  for  a week  on  corn-bread  and  buttermilk. 
As  a matter  of  opinion  allow  me  to  say  that  I would  prefer  to  live  in 
that  way  the  rest  of  my  life  rather  than  live  on  the  proceeds  of  a u pro- 
tected” industry,  and  thus  be  a charge  upon  my  industrious  and  self- 
supporting  fellow-citizens.  The  man  who  feels  that  he  would  be  ruined 
by  the  commercial  freedom  of  his  fellow -citizens  has  my  profound  sym- 
pathy. But,  above  all,  I pity  the  workingman  who  thinks  he  is  a public 
charge,  and  that  he  would  be  ruined  if  thrown  upon  his  own  resources, 
but  who  in  fact  supports  himself  and  is  forced  by  law  to  give  away  his 
hard  earnings  to  his  employer  and  other  ^protected”  paupers.  If  he 
would  lift  up  his  head  and  proudly  say  it,  the  workingman  is  not  a pau- 
per. He  is  self  supporting.  According  to  Carroll  D.  Wright,  chief  of 
the  bureau  of  statistics  of  Massachusetts,  he  has  suffered  a diminution 
of  10  per  cent,  in  the  purchasing  power  of  his  wages  since  18G0.  Pro- 
tection is  a sacrifice,  and  not  a gain  to  him.  Like  the  farmer,  he  is  taxed 
to  support  somebody  else.  Of  course,  that  somebody  else  pretends  that 
he  is  the  author  of  all  the  farmer’s  and  the  workingman’s  prosperity.  I 
never  knew  a cheat  that  didn’t  pretend  that  he  was  giving  two  dollars 
for  one.  But  I think  the  sublimest  cheat  on  record  is  the  man  who  tries 
to  cheat  God  Almighty  out  of  the  credit  of  making  this  a good  country 
to  live  in;  and  who  pretends  that  what  God  has  done  in  the  way  of 
piling  up  mountains  of  iron,  silver,  and  gold,  filling  the  bowels  of  the 
earth  with  salt,  copper,  coal,  and  petroleum,  and  covering  its  surface 


lIENltY  J.  PHILPOTT. ] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1109 


for  centuries  with  rich  vegetable  mould,  and  watering  it  with  mighty 
lakes  and  rivers,  and  planting  boundless  forests — that  all  this  would  do 
the  farmer  and  the  workingman  no  good  uuless  they  were  taxed  with  a 
tax  sucb  as  no  other  people  ever  submitted  to.  I think  brass  ought  to 
be  placed  on  the  free  list. 

We  Western  people  have  some  peculiarities  which  may  be  of  interest 
to  your  Commission.  One  is  that  we  are  very  devout,  and  that  we 
thank  God,  and  not  Morrill,  nor  his  tariff,  for  all  the  good  that  comes  to 
us.  Another  is  that  each  county  takes  care  of  its  own  poor  who  are 
not  able  to  take  care  of  themselves,  and  instead  of  shutting  them  up  in 
a factory  it  puts  them  ouau  poor-farm.”  These  facts  will  account  for 
the  hard  work  and  worry  it  has  taken  to  get  some  testimony  in  favor  of 
high  tariff  p resented  at  this  meeting.  They  may  also  account  for  the 
fact  that  when  a protectionist  editor  in  this  city  builds  railroads  he  goes 
to  Wales  for  his  rails.  I am  sure  they  help  to  account  for  that  growth 
of  tree-trade  sentiment  in  the  West  which  has  called  this  Commission 
here,  and  which  compelled  four  members  of  Cougress  from  this  State 
to  vote  against  its  creation  at  the  risk  of  offending  their  party. 

I have  been  requested  by  a number  of  leading  business  men  of  Des 
Moines,  not  members  of  the  Free  Trade  League,  to  say  that  they  are 
opposed  to  paying  anybody  to  engage  in  a losing  business.  They  want 
everybody  in  the  United  States  to  be  occupied  in  business  that  pays, 
and  they  emphatically  don’t  want  to  be  robbed  in  order  to  make  some 
other  man’s  business  pay.  They  would  much  rather  that  the  man  whose 
busiuess  don’t  pay  without  their  gratuitous  help  would  seek  some  better 
employment.  If  he  can’t  find  it  in  this  country  let  him  go  where  he 
can.  They  are  willing  to  let  him  down  easy,  if  he  has  got  so  accustomed 
to  alms  that  he  can’t  live  without  them,  but  they  want  him  to  begin  in 
a very  few  years  to  run  his  business  without  their  help,  and  if  he  can’t 
make  it  anything  but  a losing  business  let  him  stop  when  his  own  capi- 
tal is  exhausted.  Then  if  he  can’t  make  his  living  here,  and  can’t  get 
to  a country  where  he  can  make  his  living,  they  are  willing  to  contrib- 
ute freely  to  his  support,  provided  a due  account  is  rendered  of  the 
manner  in  which  their  contributions  are  expended,  and  provided  he  is 
content  to  live  on  the  rations  furnished  to  ordinary  paupers. 

I have  also  a statement  that  was  prepared  ou  behalf  of  the  Iowa 
State  Free  Trade  League  by  Mr.  Charles  E.  Russell,  of  Davenport,  who 
intended  to  be  here,  but  has  been  kept  away  by  sickness.  This  state- 
ment coutains  some  very  interesting  facts  from  flour  manufacturers  in 
Rock  Island,  Moline,  and  Davenport. 

The  President.  Read  it. 

Mr.  Philpott  then  read  as  follows : 

CHARLES  E.  RUSSELL’S  STATEMENT. 

I would  first  observe  that  the  census  of  1880  compared  with  that  of 
1870  offers  some  very  striking  instances  of  the  total  absence  of  any  be- 
neficent result  to  the  people  of  Iowa  from  the  protective  tariff*  that 
should  not  be  passed  by  in  silence;  among  these  examples  I note — 

First.  Under  a so-called  protective  duty  of  nearly  100  per  cent.,  the 
woolen  mills  operated  in  Iowa  have  been  diminished  in  number  from 
eighty  five  in  1870  to  forty  in  1880. 

Second.  In  1870  there  were  within  the  borders  of  Iowa  fifty-five  estab- 
lish inerts  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  agricultural  implements.  If 
there  be  any  industry  in  the  world  which  ought  to  flourish  in  Iowa,  it 
is  the  making  of  agricultural  machinery.  That  industry  has  been  “pro- 


1110 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HBNltY  J.  PHILPQTT. 


tected”  by  a duty  of  30  per  cent.  In  1880  the  census  shows  that  we 
still  have  in  this  State  fifty-five  implement  makers,  as  iu  1870.  But 
lookiug  a little  further  we  fiud  eveu  more  instructive  facts.  In  1870 
these  implement  factories  paid  $182,138  in  wages  to  552  hands,  or  an 
average  of  $328  a year  to  each  employe.  In  1880  they  paid  $235,380  to 
653  hands,  or  an  average  of  $236  to  each  employe. 

Third.  In  1870  there  were  545  establishments  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  lumber,  employing  3,563  hands  and  paying  $1,668,244  in 
wages,  or  an  average  of  $467  to  each  employe.  In  1880,  under  the 
operations  of  a so-called  protective  duty  of  $3  a thousand  feet,  the  num- 
ber of  establishments  had  sunk  to  321,  paying  $905,962  to  5,747  em- 
ployes, or  an  average  of  $171  a year  to  each  employe. 

Western  manufacturers  do  not  wish  any  protection  on  their  products. 

Mr.  B.  D.  Buford,  president  of  the  Buford  Plow  Company,  Bock 
Island,  111.,  a well-known  firm  of  twenty-six  years’  standing,  that  last 
year  manufactured  a product  valued  at  $1,009,000,  says: 

There  is  not  one  article  that  we  make  or  one  interest  of  ours  in  the  world  that  is  in 
the  least  degree  benefited  by  the  tariff.  On  the  contrary,  almost  everything  that  we 
buy  is  enhanced  iu  value  by  the  present  tariff,  and  of  course  our  customers,  in  turn, 
have  to  pay  more  for  what  they  buy  of  us.  Almost  every  manufacturer  iu  the  West 
labors  under  this  disadvantage.  We  ship  considerable  amounts  of  our  products  abroad 
where  they  have  to  compete  with  foreign  makers.  IJere  the  disadvantage  is  even 
more  severely  felt.  In  New  Zealand,  where  we  are  now  shipping  our  goods,  we  come 
into  direct  competition  with  makers  who  are  not  hampered  with  these  duties.  We 
formerly  did  a remunerative  business  in  Manitoba,  but  the  Canadian  Government  has 
stopped  that  by  placing  a retaliating  duty  upon  our  products.  Elsewhere  we  are  com- 
pelled to  enter  the  field  and  fight  hampered  by  increased  cost  of  materials,  caused  by 
the  duties  upon  iron  and  steel.  Every  consumer  has  to  ultimately  pay  the  enhanced 
cost  simply  as  a bonus  for  something  called  protection.  The  country  would  be  better 
off  without  it. 

Mr.  Lucius  Wells,  formerly  manager  for  Deere  & Co.,  Moline,  111.,  who 
made  97,000  plows  in  1881,  says  that  the  cost  of  every  implement  turned 
out  by  this  house  is  enhanced  from  15  to  25  per  cent,  by  the  present 
tariff,  with  no  compensating  benefit. 

These  two  great  agricultural  works  afford  some  valuable  statistics 
from  which  to  figure. 

Deere  & Go. — This  company  occupies  a total  floor-room  area  of  eight 
and  three-eighths  acres. 


Hands  employed  800 

Tons  of  steel  used  annually 1, 800 

Tons  bar  and  pig  iron  used  annually 4,  300 

Tons  malleable  iron  used  annually 450 

F«et  oak  and  ash  lumber  used  annually 2,000,000 

Tons  Pennsylvania  coal  and  coke  used  annually 2,  500 

Tons  grindstones  used  annually 1, 100 

Tons  emery  used  annually 30 

Barrels  oil  varnish  used  annually 300 

Plows  made  annually 97, 000 

The  Moline  Plow  Company  uses  every  year — 

Tons  wrought  iron 2,  000 

Tons  pig  iron 750 

Tous  steel 1,000 


No  foreign  steel  is  used  in  any  of  these  establishments. 

Mr.  Piiilpott.  We  have  not  evolved  these  figures  and  comparisons 
out  of  our  inner  consciousness.  There  are  a great  many  Iowa  people 
like  mysUf  who  were  born  here,  and  a great  many  have  never  been  out- 
side of  the  United  States;  but  there  are  others  who  have  been.  Many 


HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT.  ] 


FREE  TRADE 


1111 


of  us  have  made  purchases  outside  of  the  United  States,  and  I want  to 
say  that  the  figures  presented  in  that  paper  for  the  articles  named  are  all 
very  low.  1 have  never  yet  seen  a suit  of  outside  clothing — and  I have 
seen  a great  number  of  them  and  have  always  been  particular  to  inquire 
the  prices — which  could  be  got  in  America  for  twice  the  price  of  the 
foreign  article.  I have  at  my  house  dress-goods  which  can  be  bought 
and  are  bought  every  day  in  Bradford,  England,  for  10  or  12  cents  a 
yard,  that  I cannot  get  here  in  Des  Moines  for  less  than  25  or  30  cents. 
That  is  a cheap  article  of  dress-goods,  of  course.  I have  bought  Scotch 
lawns  that  can  be  bought  every  day  at  10  cents  a yard  in  Scotland,  that 
cannot  be  bought  in  Des  Moines  for  less  than  15  cents  a yard.  I know, 
too,  that  the  Des  Moines  Railroad  Company  bought  Welsh  rails  laid 
down  in  New  Orleans  last  year — and  I give  as  my  authority  Mr.  F.  M. 
Hubbell,  of  the  Des  Moines  and  Northwestern  Railroad — before  the 
duty  was  paid,  at  $32.32  per  ton,  that  would  have  cost  in  this  country 
$48.  They  also  bought  100  miles  of  rail  at  Springfield,  111.,  for  which 
they  paid  $50  a ton.  Steel  rails,  as  a rule,  cost  from  $25  to  $28  a ton 
more  in  the  United  States  than  English  rails  do  laid  down  in  New  York 
ex  duty.  On  steel  blooms  the  English  price  is  £4  12 s.  6d.  to  £4  15s. 
The  American  prices  are  quoted  at  $37.  The  foreign  price  is  about  $23 
for  the  English  long  ton,  or  about  $20  for  the  American  short  ton,  or 
about  one  cent  a pound,  while  the  American  price  of  $37  is  nearer  two 
cents  a pound.  These  market  quotations  come  to  us  every  week  in  the 
Iron  Age  and  in  the  American  Manufacturer,  and  we  cannot  ignore  them. 

I have  before  me  the  r(  port  of  Albert  D.  Shaw,  American  consul  at 
Manchester,  England,  which  has  been  published  in  the  American  Pro- 
tectionist, in  which  he  makes  a comparison  between  the  wages  paid 
here  and  abroad.  And,  by  the  way,  the  rates  of  wages  paid  in  wool 
and  cotton  manufactories,  according  to  the  statistics  of  Carroll  D. 
Wright,  of  Massachusetts,  vary  but  little  between  Massachusetts  and 
the  various  manufacturing  cities  of  England.  But  lie  gives  the  retail 
prices  of  x>ro visions,  and  among  them  he  quotes  sugar  at  5 to  8 cents 
a pound,  while  our  Des  Moines  merchants  sell  it  to  day  without  any 
profit  at  all — and  they  all  claim  at  a real  loss,  and  I think. probably 
the  claim  is  correct — at  9 to  11  cents.  The  result  of  that  is  not  only  to 
make  sugar  cost  more  to  us,  but  to  cause  the  adulteration  of  our  sugar 
with  glucose  and  other  pernicious  substances  which  will  injure  the 
health  of  the  people;  so  that  we  dare  not  even  buy  our  children  the 
candy  we  should  like  them  to  have.  I believe  that  sugar  is  one  of  the 
prime  necessities,  one  of  the  essentials.  On  the  other  hand,  while  these 
products  that  we  Western  people  are  compelled  to  buy  because  we  can- 
not produce  them,  are  so  much  higher  here  than  they  are  where  we  sell 
five  limes  as  much  of  our  products  as  we  do  to  all  the  unprotected  and 
protected  manufacturers  of  America,  our  products  show  an  altogether 
different  phase. 

I find  that  in  Des  Moines  wheat  is  quoted  at  70  to  80  cents  a bushel; 
I did  not  have  time  to  find  out  what  the  average  figure  is.  Corn  is 
quoted  in  Des  Moines  at  55  to  00  cents  a bushel.  I find  the  Liverpool 
quotations  to  be,  the  lowest  figure  for  spring  wheat  8s.  6d.  per  cental, 
about  $ 1.22J  per  bushel,  against  80  cents  here — a difference  of  50  per 
cent,  and  a little  more.  So  that,  as  I stated,  $30  worth  of  wheat  here 
would  bring  $45  in  Liverpool  to-day.  I note  that  corn  quoted  at  55  to 
60  cents  in  Des  Moines  is  quoted  at  6s.  lid.  in  Liverpool  £>er  cental, 
which  would  make  it  about  $1  a bushel — a difference  of  more  than  40 
per  cent.  It  comes  very  near  being  double  in  Liverpool  what  it  is  here, 
and  I know  that  it  is  often  more  than  that,  when,  as  for  the  last  few 


1112 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  J.  PHII.POTT. 


years,  we  are  compelled  to  sell  our  corn  for  25  cents  here,  it  is  worth 
75  there.  And  if  we  exchange  it  here  for  products  of  English  manufac- 
ture on  which  the  freight  ought  to  be  almost  nothing,  we  are  compelled 
to  take  one-third  as  much  as  we  should  get  for  it  without  the  duty.  So 
that  a bushel  of  corn  buys  only  one-ninth  as  much  in  Iowa  as  the  same 
bushel  buys  in  Liverpool  in  very  many  kinds  of  goods  that  we  are  com- 
pelled to  use  every  day. 

I could  verify  many  of  those  prices,  but  do  not  think  it  is  necessary. 
It  is  certainly  familiar  enough  to  any  one  who  knows  anything  at  all 
about  this  question. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  It  seems,  from  the  general  tenor  of  your  remarks,  that  you 
believe  it  to  be  desirable  that  the  people  of  the  Western  States  should 
go  to  foreign  countries  for  their  supplies'? — Answer.  Not  at  all.  I do 
not  think  it  is  necessary  for  them  at  all.  Their  resources  will  enable 
them  to  make  everything  for  themselves  which  it  will  not  abundantly 
pay  them  to  buy  abroad  rather  than  make.  The  man  who  is  truly  inde- 
pendent is  he  who  has  plenty  to  buy  with  and  can  buy  cheaply  where- 
ever  he  has  to  buy  it.  That  is  my  idea  of  American  independence. 

Q.  How  do  you  propose  to  bring  that  about — by  having  every  farmer 
produce  corn,  wheat,  and  oats  to  send  abroad,  or  to  vary  the  indus- 
try ? — A.  Whichever  pays  the  American  people  the  best.  I am  willing, 
gentlemen,  to  trust  the  judgment  of  the  American  people  themselves  in 
that  matter.  If  it  pays  them  better  to  plow,  and  sow,  and  reap,  and 
mow,  then  I demand,  as  a private  citizen,  the  right  to  do  that  for  myself 
and  everyone  who  thinks  so. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  it  better  for  the  farmer  to  have  the  industries 
of  the  country  varied  so  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  other  occupa- 
tions may  consume  the  class  of  articles  which  he  produces'? — A.  The 
very  fact  that  it  is  better  will  cause  it  to  be  so  in  every  community. 
If  it  pays  the  farmer  better  to  till  the  soil  at  home,  he  will  always  do  so. 

Q.  Is  it  not  better  to  have  as  many  customers  as  possible  near  at  hand 
for  the  farmer,  those  customers  being  engaged  in  occupations  of  a varied 
character? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Then  do  you  not  think  it  worth  while  to  encourage  manufactures 
in  a farming  community? — A.  I certainly  think  it  is  beneficial  to  en- 
courage them,  but  not  at  the  expense  of  the  farmer  or  at  the  expense  of 
anybody  else.  Encourage  them  all  alike.  1 am  for  encouraging  manu- 
factures in  the  United  States.  I would  encourage  them  by  taking  off 
as  soon  as  possible  every  possible  duty  from  the  raw  materials  and 
giving  them  the  world  for  a market,  and  thus  relieve  our  shipping  from 
the  injurious  burdens  that  have  always  rested  upon  it,  and,  in  fact,  open 
our  ports  to  all  other  peoples,  and  thus  prevail  upon  them  to  open  their 
ports  to  us.  If  we  open  our  ports  and  allow  our  farmers  to  amass  the 
wealth  that  they  would  under  those  circumstances,  capital  will  soon  be 
here  in  great  abundance,  to  enable  our  manufacturers  with  cheap  capital, 
abundant  resources,  even  by  paying  high  wages,  to  compete  in  the 
markets  of  the  world.  We  export  reapers,  plows,  and  manufactures  of 
various  kinds.  This  system  hinders  our  manufactures  here  in  the  West, 
and  compels  us  to  depend  upon  the  manufactures  of  Pennsylvania  and 
other  States  a thousand  miles  away.  It  does  not  matter  to  us  whether 
our  tribute  goes  to  Pennsylvania  or  to  Europe.  So  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned, I will  say  it  is  better  to  have  manufactures  at  home,  but  it  does 
not  concern  us  a particle  to  have  them  in  Pennsylvania  or  Massachu- 
setts. 


HENRY  J.  RHILPOTT.  ] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1113 


Q.  Would  it  not  do  much  more  good  to  have  manufactures  in  Penn- 
sylvania and  Massachusetts  than  in  Manchester  ? — A.  I admit  that  it  is 
a magnificent  thing  to  have  them  in  Pennsylvania. 

Q.  Whatever  benefits  one  portion  of  our  country  must  necessarily 
benefit  all  the  rest? — A.  Not  if  one  portion  of  the  country  is  developed 
at  the  expense  of  the  other  portion. 

Q.  If  all  the  ports  of  the  world  were  open,  then  perhaps  there  might 
be  some  inducement  for  us  to  be  equally  liberal;  but,  inasmuch  as  all 
other  nations  have  protected  their  industries  and  closed  their  ports 
when  it  was  to  their  advantage,  it  would  be  a piece  of  philauthropy 
which  could  hardly  be  expected  of  us  to  open  our  ports  while  theirs  are 
closed. — A.  Still  not  so  much  philanthropy  as  it  is  to  take  from  Iowa  to 
support  Pennsylvania. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  If  I understood  you,  you  used  the  expression  that  you  were  one 
who  was  willing  to  let  down  these  industries.  What  did  you  mean  by 
that? — A.  I mean  the  protected  industries,  of  which  we  have  almost 
none  in  this  State,  but  which  are  located,  part  of  them,  in  Chicago. 

Q.  You  do  not  get  my  meaning,  probably.  I want  to  know  what  you 
mean  by  letting  them  down;  do  you  mean  by  that,  that  they  would  be 
damaged  by  your  policy? — A.  No,  sir;  their  prices  would  certainly  come 
down. 

Q.  You  did  not  say  “prices”;  you  said  “protected  indutries.” — A.  I 
said,  “ letting  them  down  easy.” 

Q.  I want  to  understand  what  you  meant;  whether  you  meant  to 
say  they  had  to  come  down  under  your  policy? — A.  Oh,  no;  we  do  not 
wish  to  stop  a single  factory  in  the  United  States,  or  a single  protected 
industry. 

Q.  Do  you  expect  them  to  come  down  when  your  idea  is  adopted  ? — 
A.  We  expect  them  to  come  to  free-trade  p rices ; that  is  all. 

Q.  You  expect  prices  to  come  down,  but  not  industries? — A.  That  is 
it.  I wish  to  go  on  record  as  saying  that  that  is  what  I mean — that 
they  come  down  in  their  prices;  and  also,  many  of  them,  I think,  will 
come  down  in  their  profits. 

Q.  You  say  in  your  printed  statement  that  “they  are  able  and  willing 
further  to  bear  the  burden  ot  letting  the  protected  industries  down 
easy”;  you  do  not  say  “ prices”  there. — A.  Very  well;  that  is  a figura- 
tive expression.  They  are  now  in  an  inflated  condition.  They  sell  their 
products  at  inflated  prices,  and  the  figurative  expression  of  “ letting 
them  down  easy  ” simply  means  removing  duties  gradually,  so  as  not  to 
injure  anybody’s  business  unnecessarily,  still  bearing  the  burden  and 
paying  more  than  we  feel  we  ought. 

Q.  Why  do  you  not  adopt  a policy,  then,  of  letting  them  down  at 
once? — A.  We  do  not  want  to  tear  them  down.  If  we  cannot  live  in 
an  atmosphere  of  commercial  freedom,  then  I say,  for  myself,  and  1 know 
I represent  the  sentiments  of  thousands  of  i>eople  in  Iowa,  let  them  come 
down,  and  the  quicker  the  better. 

Q.  I understand  you  ; now  you  make  yourself  clear. — A.  That  is  the 
meaning,  exactly. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Did  you  refer  to  iron  rails  at  $48  delivered  at  New  Orleans  ? — A. 
I referred  to  iron  rails. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  price  of  steel  rails  before  the  present  duty 
was  put  on?— A.  It  was  $50.34,  I think. 


1114 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  J.  PHILrOTT. 


Q.  I mean  the  price  steel  rails  were  selling  at  in  this  country  in  the 
year  when  the  present  tariff  of  $28  was  put  on  ? — A.  I do  not  remember 
the  price. 

Q.  It  was  $150  when  the  present  duty  was  put  on,  when  the  Vander- 
bilts were  buying  for  the  New  York  Central.  In  Chicago,  we  saw  the 
best  works  there  in  the  world.  Illinois  there  comes  well  up  to  Pennsyl- 
vania in  quantity,  and  sells  the  steel  rails  at  $45  a ton.  Would  you  not 
acknowledge  that  as  an  instance  where  protection  induces  capital  to 
build  these  works  and  induces  the  manufacturers  to  gradually  bring  the 
prices  down  to  this  low  basis  we  all  wish  ? — A.  I would  not. 

Q.  Protection  did  not  do  that?— A.  Protection  did  not  decrease  the 
price  of  steel  rails  one  penny. 

Q.  Next  to  steel  rails,  what  is  the  article  most  generally  used  in  Iowa 
which  the  farmer  pays  for  right  out  of  his  own  pocket?  Is  it  not  fenc- 
ing?—A.  Probably  so,  to-day. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  price  of  barbed  wire  for  fencing  to-day  in  Des 
Moines? — A.  I do  not  know  that  I can  give  the  price  of  barbed  wire. 

(A  Bystander.  It  is  from  8 to  9 cents.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  duty  on  steel  rods,  out  of  which  this  wire  is 
made? — A.  Forty-five  cents,  I think. 

Q.  It  is  30  per  cent.,  or  about  $11  a ton.  There  is  no  fence-wire  used 
in  Iowa  except  that  which  is  made  from  foreign  rods.  There  is  no  arti- 
cle of  iron  or  steel  that  is  rated  so  low  except  only  scrap  and  pig  iron ; 
do  you  know  that  fact? — A.  I think  there  is  no  other. 

Q.  Therefore,  under  the  present  law,  the  lowest  article  that  comes  in 
— an  article  that  the  people  of  Iowa  use  the  most  of  all — is  the  highest- 
in-iced  article  that  they  have  to  buy.  Is  not  that  so? — A.  The  duty, 
however,  on  wire  is  2£  cents  and  20  per  cent.  The  farmer  does  not  buy 
the  rods. 

Q.  The  wire-drawers  buy  it? — A.  The  farmers  do  not  buy  it.  They 
buy  wire,  and  the  duty  on  that  is  2-J  cents  and  20  per  cent.,  and  it  aver- 
aged about  76  per  cent,  in  1881,  according  to  the  Report  on  Commerce 
and  Navigation.  They  do  not  import  it  because  the  duty  is  so  high  that 
it  is  prohibitory. 

Q.  An  increase  in  the  quantity  of  wheat  produced  would  make  the 
price  of  wheat  lower,  would  it  not? — A.  Somewhat  lower. 

Q.  Suppose  all  the  3,000,000  or  4,000,000  people  now  engaged  in  mills 
and  factories  were  thrown  on  the  market  as  laborers  and  producers  of 
wheat  and  corn. — A.  I deny  that  that  lias  any  relevancy  whatever,  be- 
cause I deny  that  they  would  be  converted  into  farmers. 

Q.  Then  1 leave  that.  The  average  price  of  wages  in  Germany  and 
England  ranges  lrom  two  to  three  shillings  per  day,  and  that,  of  course, 
is  what  makes  cheap  iron,  because  iron  is  nothing  but  labor.  Then  what 
would  reduce  our  labor  would  raise  theirs,  would  it  not? — A.  Not  neces- 
sarily. 

Q.  You  thiuk,  then,  that  we  would  be  able  to  get  cheap  iron,  and  at 
the  same  time  maintain  the  fair  wages  that  the  laborer  is  now  getting 
throughout  the  country? — A.  1 do.  I deny  that  protection  has  reduced 
the  price  of  steel  rails.  I claim  that  certain  inventions  achieved  by 
Henry  Bessemer,  an  Englishman,  and  by  Gilchrist  and  Thomas,  of 
England,  have  cheapened  the  manufacture  from  $200  or  $300  a ton  in 
England  to  $24  there  to-day.  The  necessary  result  of  that  has  been 
that  they  are  cheapened  from  $150  in  America  (or  $200  or  $300  at  one 
time)  to  the  rate  they  bear  now,  perhaps  $45  or  $47.  But,  note  that  it 
has  reduced  the  price  twice  as  much  in  England  as  it  has  in  this  country. 


HENKY  J.  PHI1.P0TT.  J 


FREE  TRADE. 


1115 


By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  to  speak  of  this  reduction  as  resulting  from 
the  inventions  of  Bessemer  and  the  others  you  speak  of"? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that  there  were  any  steel  rails  until  Bessemer  made 
his  invention?  Was  there  ever  a steel  rail  laid  until  after  that? — 
A.  Not  that  I know  of.  The  effect,  though,  is  the  same,  because  we 
had  to  use  iron  rails  before. 

Q.  That  will  not,  then,  account  for  the  reduction? — A.  Constant  new 
inventions  have  done  it. 

Q.  What  new  invention  has  there  been  that  has  substantially  re- 
duced the  price  of  steel  rails  since  the  original  invention  of  Bessemer? 
— A.  I am  not  a steel-rail  manufacturer. 

Q.  I am  not,  either.  I understand,  though,  that  there  have  been 
some  patents  that  have  worked  an  improvement  in  the  quality  of  the 
article,  and  perhaps  there  may  be  some — although  I am  not  advised  of 
that — that  may  have  caused  a reduction.  My  understanding,  however, 
is  that  the  Bessemer  process  of  making  steel  is  substantially  now  what 
it  was  when  Bessemer’s  patents  were  obtained,  and  1 therefore  am 
inclined  to  doubt  the  idea  which  you  suggest,  that  the  reduction  has 
been  occasioned  on  account  of  the  patents. — A.  My  information  is  that 
the  course  of  invention  has  been  constant  ever  since  the  first  Bessemer 
process  was  introduced. 

Q.  There  has  been  an  improvement  in  quality,  as  I understand  it. 
Do  I understand  you  to  have  the  idea  that  we  would  have  the  present 
production  in  steel  rails,  or  iron  in  any  form,  in  this  country  to-day  if 
we  had  nothing  in  the  way  of  tariff  to  induce  it  ? — A.  I should  not  say 
very  positively  that  we  would  have  had  as  much,  but  I think  we  should 
have  had  a large  proportion,  sufficient  i'or  our  necessities — quite  as  much 
as  we  ueeded. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  you  mean  that  we  have  been  using  too  much? — A. 
I do  not  mean  to  say  that  that  would  have  been  necessarily  sufficient 
for  all  our  home  use.  We  do  not  need  the  manufacture  so  much  as  we 
do  the  iron  itself.  We  would  have  had  all  the  iron  and  all  the  furnaces 
that  we  really  needed. 

Q.  Let  us  see  if  that  is  so.  We  have  had  comparatively  low  tariffs 
in  this  country.  The  period  between  1850  and  1880  has  been  mentioned 
as  a time  when  the  tariff  was  very  low.  Was  there  not  a considerable 
increase  in  the  iron  production  of  the  country  during  that  ten  years? — 
A.  Nothing  like  it  has  been  since,  I freely  admit. 

Q.  I say,  was  there  not  a considerable  increase? — A.  My  memory  is 
that  there  was  not  any  very  great  increase. 

Q.  Then  came  the  war  and  the  high  tariff  and  we  had  an  enormous  in- 
crease?— A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Is  it  not  apparent  from  the  statement  I have  made  just  now,  and 
in  which  you  agree,  that  there  was  a large  increase  in  the  productive 
capacity  of  this  country  in  iron  as  a consequence  of  the  high  price  of 
gold  and  the  tariff  of  1861? — A.  I think  very  likely  that  those  were  all 
causes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  cause? — A.  The  building  of  the  Pa- 
cific Railroad,  and  the  increased  demand  for  iron  in  this  country  prob- 
ably had  something  to  do  with  it.  That  was  a great  railroad. 

Q.  The  building  of  a great  railroad  like  the  Pacific  Railroad,  and  con- 
sequent increased  demand,  would  always  have  a tendency  to  increase 
the  price.  It  is  one  of  the  rules,  I think,  that  we  all  recognize  as  gov- 
erning the  commerce  of  the  world,  that  supply  and  demand  have  cer 


1116 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  J.  PHILrOTT. 


tain  relations  to  each  other,  and  that,  given  a small  production  and  a 
large  demand,  you  always  have  high  prices.  You  assent  to  that? — A. 
Certainly. 

Q.  If  in  point  of  fact — and  that  seems  to  be  the  debatable  question — 
we  had  not  had  in  the  United  States  a very  large  increase  of  produc- 
tion (which  some  people  say  is  attributable  to  the  tariff,  and  you  would 
say  is  not  attributable  to  it),  would  there  have  been,  in  your  judgment, 
such  a production  as  would  have  kept  pace  with  the  demand,  or  would 
there  not/? — A.  There  would  have  been  in  the  whole  world  together. 

Q.  Where  would  it  have  been? — A.  In  England,  Wales,  Germany, 
and  other  countries. 

Q.  Their  capacity  would  reach  far  enough  ? — A.  To  furnish  what  we 
lacked  of  it. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  England  and  Wales  would  have  been  our  source 
of  supply,  instead  of  Pennsylvania? — x\.  No;  that  is  not  my  statement. 
1 say  if  Pennsylvania  had  failed  to  supply  us,  England  and  Wales 
would  have  made  up  the  deficit. 

Q.  In  case  of  war,  supposing  England,  Wales,  and  Germany  were  sub- 
stantially our  base  of  supplies  instead  of  Pennsylvania  as  you  suggest; 
in  your  judgment,  as  an  economical  man,  would  it  be  a good  thing  for 
ns,  or  for  the  world,  to  depend  upon  a single  source  of  supply  for  an 
absolute  necessity  like  that? — A.  I think  not. 

Q.  I am  not  one  of  those  people  who  regard  the  tariff  as  an  un mixed 
blessing,  by  any  means ; but  is  it  not  barely  possible  that,  while  there 
has  been  an  increase  of  price  to  us  on  account  of  the  tariff,  there  has 
been  a larger  supply  resulting,  and  that,  to  some  extent,  the  decrease 
in  the  price  of  steel  rails,  for  instance,  is  attributable  to  that  ? — A.  I am 
inclined  to  thiuk  not  very  strongly. 

Q.  If,  in  point  of  fact,  the  effect  of  the  tariff  is  simply  to  exaggerate 
prices,  and  there  is  no  present  or  prospective  benefit,  I quite  agree  with 
you  that  we  should  not  have  any ; but  1 am  inclined  to  think  that  there 
may  be  a factor  that  you  do  not  fully  take  into  consideration. — A.  Even 
if  admitted,  it  is  so  vague,  so  far  in  the  future,  so  far  away,  compared 
with  the  hard-earned  dollars  that  the  Iowa  people  have  had  to  pay  for 
that  luxury,  that  I do  not  like  to  indulge  in  that  kind  of  speculation. 

Q.  I will  tell  you,  as  a matter  of  information  that  has  been  given  to 
us  in  relation  to  another  product — and  so  far  as  I have  heard  both  sides 
of  the  case,  there  was  no  difference  upon  that  subject — that  up  to  18(53 
or  1864  there  was  no  crockery  made  in  this  country,  except  only  what 
is  known  as  the  yellow  or  Rockingham  ware,  and  then  we  commenced 
making  it,  and  now  we  make  about  half  the  supply  of  the  country. 
From  1850  to  1860  every  person  who  has  spoken  on  the  subject  agrees 
that  the  cost  of  crockery  was  higher  in  this  country  than  it  is  to-day. — 
A.  I do  not  uoubt  it  at  all. 

Q.  Everybody,  at  the  same  time,  agrees  to  another  proposition:  that 
it  is  higher  in  England  to  day  than  it  was  then;  and  there  is  no  ques- 
tion about  that,  because  the  English  potters  say  so,  and  the  importers 
say  so,  as  I understand  it.  That  question  is  free  from  any  considera- 
tion about  patents  or  anything  of  the  kind.  Now,  can  you  account  for 
the  decrease  in  the  cost  in  any  other  way  than  the  way  1 have  sug- 
gested?— A.  We  still  buy  large  quantities  of  foreign  pottery. 

Q.  About  one-half. — A.  I would  like  to  make  a statement  in  connec- 
tion with  this  matter  of  comparison  of  prices.  The  question  has  been 
brought  up  here  as  to  the  relative  prices  of  steel  rails,  pottery,  and  other 
articles  during  the  low-tariff  period  of  1850  to  1860  and  the  present 
period.  I would  like  to  give  some  figures  made  by  the  editor  of  the 


HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1117 


Baltimore  Journal  of  Commerce  and  the  Manufacturers’  Eecord;  and  I 
know  that  they  are  very  nearly  accurate,  because  I had  looked  them  up 
previously.  The  figures  are  in  regard  to  the  prices  of  farm  products. 
1 find  that  for  the  period  of  1846  to  1860 — which  covers  the  low- tariff 
period — the  average  value  of  wheat  realized  on  what  was  exported  was 
$1.34  a bushel.  If  we  take  the  low-tariff  period  of  1850  to  1860,  the 
showing  would  be  still  higher.  But  taking  the  low-tariff  period  before 
that,  it  was  98  cents  a bushel. 

By  Commissioner  Garland: 

Q.  What  market  are  you  quoting? — A.  It  is  the  returns  furnished  by 
the  public  documents  from  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  taken  from  custom- 
house returns. 

Q.  The  Liverpool  market  or  the  New  York  market?— A.  I do  not  think 
it  is  stated. 

Q.  The  matter  of  transportation  comes  in  for  consideration. — A.  I 
presume  it  is  the  New  York  market. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Give  us,  at  the  same  time,  the  prices  here  in  Iowa. — A.  We  West- 
ern farmers  claim  that  the  railroads  have  done  a great  deal  for  us.  They 
have  given  us  constantly  nearer  and  nearer  New  York  prices  for  our 
products.  I suppose  I am  quoting  the  New  York  prices;  they  are  fur- 
nished by  the  custom-house. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Q.  The  custom-house  furnishes  two  prices,  the  export  and  import. — 
A.  It  is  the  export  prices.  The  amount  exported  is  given  and  the  value 
exported,  and  from  that,  by  division,  is  deduced  the  average  price  for 
the  year.  The  average  price  for  those  fifteen  years  was  $1.34  a bushel. 
Now,  by  the  same  returns  for  the  last  seven  years,  during  two  or  three 
of  which  gold  was  at  a premium,  the  price  was  $1.18. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Q.  Would  that  not  be  more  than  you  pay,  by  the  difference  in  trans- 
portation ? — A.  I think  probably  it  would,  but  I want  to  know  now 
whether  the  tariff  has  reduced  that. 

Q.  1 dare  say  that  the  freight  on  every  bushel  of  wheat  taken  from 
Des  Moines  to  New  York  is  one-third  to-day  of  what  it  was  fifteen 
years  ago. — A.  I can  see  how  that  might  give  the  Iowa  farmer  a better 
price. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  question.  You  are  making  a comparison  between 
the  two  periods,  and  we  want  it  intelligently. — A.  I am  quoting  the  New 
York  prices. 

Q.  Then  give  us  the  Iowa  prices. — A.  I am  not  able  to  give  the  figures 
here  in  Iowa,  but  I can  say  this  : that  my  recollection  is,  and  I heard  a 
gentleman  here  in  Des  Moines  say  it  the  other  day,  also,  that  corn  was 
higher  in  Iowa  from  1850  to  1860  than  it  has  been  for  the  last  ten  years. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  It  is  not  troublesome  to  account  for  that.  That  was  the  period  of 
the  settlement  of  the  State,  when  the  settlers  were  using  it.  You  had  a 
direct  home  market  for  every  bushel  raised  in  that  time. — A.  I am  per- 
fectly willing  to  admit  that  it  was  something  else  besides  the  tariff  that 
cheapened  steel  rails,  and  something  else  that  has  done  everything  for 
this  country. 


1118 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT. 


By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  are  well-posted  in  this  matter  and  appear  to  have  studied  it 
up.  What  country  in  the  world,  next  to  the  United'  States,  has  been 
the  most  prosperous,  in  your  judgment,  during  the  past  ten  years? — A. 
I should  unhesitatingly  say  England. 

Q.  More  so  than  France  ? — A.  1 think  so. 

Q.  Have  you  paid  any  attention  to  the  statistics  of  the  payment  of 
the  French  debt  after  France  had  gone  through  the  war  with  Germany? 
— A.  I have,  but  that  is  no  indication.  A tyrannical  government  can 
raise  almost  any  amount  of  money. 

Q.  Has  England  in  the  last  ten  years  paid  a dollar  of  her  debt  ? — A. 
I doubt  it. 

Q.  Has  it  not  been  steadily  increasing  its  debt? — A.  I do  not 
doubt  it. 

Q.  Has  not  France  been  reducing  her  debt? — A.  I do  not  doubt  it. 

Q.  England  is  absolutely  free  trade? — A.  Not  absolutely  free  trade, 
but  England  is  free  trade  as  we  demand  that  this  country  shall  be. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  the  French  tariff  is  even 
higher  than  ours? — A.  No,  1 do  not  know  that  the  French  tariff  is 
higher. 

Q.  Have  you  paid  any  attention  to  the  condition  of  Canada  for  the 
last  ten  or  fifteen  years  ? — A.  Some  little. 

Q.  Are  not  wages  very  much  lower  in  Canada  than  they  are  here? — 
A.  I presume  that  they  are  as  low. 

Q.  Had  not  Canada  what  might  be  called  free  trade,  only  a nominal 
duty  of  10  to  15  per  cent,  during  the  last  ten  years,  up  to  last  year  ?— A. 
Last  year  or  the  year  before. 

Q.  Have  they  not  now  in  Canada,  without  any  opposition,  come  very 
nearly  adopting  the  protective  policy  of  the  United  States,  by  putting  a 
duty  of  25  to  45  per  cent,  on  everything? — A.  Nothing  like  the  protect- 
ive policy  of  the  United  States.  I call  attention  to  that  fact  in  my 
statement,  that  that  has  been  done  as  a retaliatory  measure. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Why  do  you  say  retaliatory  ? — A.  We  put  up  a wall  against  them, 
and  they  retaliated. 

Q.  There  was  a country  rich  in  land  and  rich  in  all  the  resources  that 
our  northern  country  is  rich  in. — A.  I deny  that. 

Q.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it.  We  all  know  that  they  are  rich  in 
minerals,  lumber,  and  land.  It  was  stated  to  us  in  Saint  Paul  that 
they  had  lands  extraordinary  in  quality  and  products.  Would  you 
recommend  in  this  gradual  abolition  of  duties  a taking  off  of  the  duty 
of  20  cents  a bushel  on  wheat  ? — A.  I would  recommend  taking  off  every 
duty  at  once  from  every  agricultural  product  that  is  grown  iu  this  part 
of  the  country,  with  the  exception  of  wool,  and  I would  that,  except 
that  it  would  create  a disturbance.  In  1890  I would  take  it  off  of  every 
agricultural  product,  and  I would  have  the  farmers  of  Iowa  solid  with 
me. 

Q.  We  are  told  that  there  is  a section  500  miles  above  Minnesota  com- 
peting with  us  in  wheat  raising,  and  the  farmers  want  20  per  cent,  duty 
put  on. — A.  Our  views  are  against  that. 

Q.  Then  you  would  recommend  that  20  cents  a bushel  on  wheat  should 
come  off,  thus  allowing  that  wheat  raised  in  Manitoba  to  compete  with 
ours  ? — A.  Yes.  During  the  last  year  of  the  low  tariff,  according  to  the 
statistics  of  the  government,  the  immigration  from  Canada  was  about 
30,000  to  31,000.  During  the  first  year  of  the  high  tariff  it  was  99,000, 


HENRY  J,  PHILPOTT.l 


FREE  TRADE. 


1119 


and  the  next  year  it  was  also  high,  showing  that  the  tariff  did  not  stop 
immigration,  and  did  not  tend  that  way,  but  that,  if  it  had  any  effect 
upon  it  whatever,  it  greatly  increased  it. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  give  us  the  year  you  speak  of? — A.  Probably  it 
was  the  fiscal  year  of  1879  or  1880,  or  1881,  but  I will  not  be  certain  as 
to  the  exact  year. 

Q.  As  to  this  business  of  retaliation,  they  seem  to  have  kept  even 
with  England  and  with  us;  were  they  retaliating  on  England?  They 
had  a general  tariff,  I understand,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  hardly 
to  be  supposed  that  they  are  retaliating  on  all  the  world  on  account  of 
our  injuries  to  them. — A.  Yet,  that  is  just  the  policy  that  we  are  trying 
to  adopt  here — put  up  a tariff  against  all  the  world,  to  fight  against 
England.  That  is  the  intent  of  the  present  tariff,  and  all  arguments  are 
predicated  against  England.  Every  protectionist  paper  in  America 
raises  the  cry  that  we  are  in  an  irrepressible  conflict  with  England.  By 
the  way,  England  takes  live  times  as  much  of  our  products  as  all  the 
States  east  of  the  Pennsylvania  line,  yet  England  is  the  country  we  are 
trying  to  fight  by  shooting  at  the  entire  world.  If  we  can  do  that,  Can- 
ada can  certainly  retaliate  against  us. 

Q.  I beg  pardon;  this  is  your  fight,  not  mine. — A.  I am  not  fighting 
it,  but  I wish  to  say  that  the  price  of  corn  for  fifteen  years,  ending  in 
1855,  was  74  cents;  the  price  for  the  fifteen  years  covered  by  frve  trade 
.was  72  cents.  The  export  price  for  the  last  seven  years  was  56  cents. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Knowing  the  difference  in  freights,  it  is  pos- 
itively unfair  to  make  that  statement.  We  all  know  that  the  rates  of 
transportation  have  been  reduced  from  one-third  to  one-fourth  since 
1860.  Bailroads  are  compelled  to  haul  more  cheaply. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Do  you  think,  by  throwing  down  the  barrier  of  20  cents  a bushel 
on  wheat,  that  the  Iowa  farmer  would  be  benefited  and  get  better  pri- 
ces?— A.  It  would  make  about  as  much  difference  to  him  as  when  two 
clouds  meet  in  the  sky  two  thousand  feet  above  him,  because  the  Amer- 
ican farmers  have  to  sell  this  year  250,000,000  bushels  of  wheat  abroad. 

Q.  Are  not  the  farmers  selling  a great  deal  of  wheat  to  these  big  mil- 
lers, the  Washburns  and  others,  in  Minneapolis? — A.  On  the  contrary, 
we  buy  Miuneapolis  flour  here. 

Q.  Do  they  not  sell  it  to  them  ? — A.  I think  not  in  this  part  of  Iowa. 
In  the  northern  part  of  Iowa  undoubtedly  they  do. 

Q.  If  the  barrier  was  put  down  and  the  millers  there  could  get  their 
wheat  more  cheaply,  as  they  certainly  could  do,  because  prices  are  lower 
in  Canada  than  here,  would  that  benefit  the  farmers  of  any  part  of 
Iowa? — A.  As  I said  before,  1 do  not  think  the  reduction  of  that  par- 
ticular duty  would  benefit  the  farmers  of  Iowa  a particle.  It  would 
only  be  giving  a small  sop  to  Cerberus.  I beg  the  Commission  to  re- 
member that  it  has  been  proved  here  at  this  meeting  that  tariffs  reduce 
the  prices  of  articles  instead  of  increasing  them.  I infer  from  that,  that 
that  tariff  of  20  per  cent,  is  what  makes  wheat  so  cheap  here  in  Iowa. 
If  that  be  a proper  inference,  as  it  must  be  from  the  argument,  I should 
say  that  the  removal 

By  Commissioner  Ambler: 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  that  would  be  a proper  inference 
from  the  argument? — A.  Most  certainly. 


1120 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HEXRY  J.  PH1LPOTT. 


Q.  Which  argument  was  it? — A.  The  argument  made  in  the  case  of 
pottery,  and  also  in  the  case  of  steel  rails. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  you  apply  an  argument  made  with  reference  to  an 
industry  just  starting  to  an  industry  such  as  the  raising  of  wheat,  in 
which  there  is  a very  large  capital  already  invested"? — A.  And  yet  each 
new  wheat-field  is  an  industry  just  started. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Of  course  it  is. 

The  Witness.  I have  seen  it  stated,  and  do  not  doubt  it,  that  we  have 
never  produced  more  than  wheat  enough  to  seed  our  good  wheat  lands 
for  one  year.  The  wheat  industry  in  this  country  is  yet  in  its  infancy. 

Q.  Where  has  it  grown  to  years  of  discretion"? — A.  I should  say  in 
Germany  it  had,  and  in  England;  but  this  country  being  such  a large 
country,  its  infants  are  pretty  good  sized. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

A.  T do  not  want  you  to  understand,  from  any  question  I ask,  that  I 
am  making  an  argument  against  any  theory  you  propose.  I merely  want 
to  get  at  precisely  what  your  views  are.  You  say  in  your  direct  state- 
ment, UI  have  to  say  further  that  as  private  citizens  and  tax-payers 
the  members  of  this  league  are  entirely  willing  and  abundantly  able  to 
bear  their  full  share  in  the  support  of  the  government.”  How  do  you 
propose,  when  free  trade  is  reached,  to  raise  the  revenue  necessary  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  the  government  economically  administered  ? — 
A.  By  a tax  on  liquors  about  equal  to  the  present  tax. 

Q.  You  further  recommend  “that  the  taxes  on  domestic  and  foreign 
liquors  and  tobacco  remain,  together  with  other  existing  internal  rev- 
enue taxes,  in  order  to  make  the  necessity  for  tariff  taxes  as  small  as 
possible.”  Do  you  think  the  present  internal  revenue  raised  from  those 
articles  would  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  government  eco- 
nomically administered,  and  pay  off*  the  public  debt  during  the  time  re- 
quired by  the  exigencies  of  the  country "? — A.  I am  inclined  to  think 
they  would  hardly  do  it. 

Q.  Now,  tell  me  how  you  would  get  the  balance? — A.  I would  levy  a 
tax,  of  course,  upon  foreign  liquors  and  tobacco  to  countervail  the  ex- 
cise tax. 

Q.  That  is  already  levied.  Do  you  think  the  tax  is  sufficient  ? — A.  I 
rather  doubt  it. 

Q.  Do  you  believe,  and  do  you  advocate  the  levying  of  a tax  upon  a 
particular  industry  in  the  country  that  is  not  general  throughout  the 
United  States?  For  instance,  I illustrate  with  tobacco.  Tobacco  is 
not  raised  in  all  the  United  States.  Do  you  think  it  is  fair  to  make  a 
tax  upon  the  products  of  a few  particular  States  and  allow  the  products 
of  other  States  to  be  free  from  taxation  ? — A.  We  are  willing  to  balance 
that  with  our  alcohol. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  manufacture  of  alcohol  is  advantageous  to 
this  country  ? — A.  I do  not  see  how  that  has  any  relevancy. 

Q.  I say  that,  because  if  there  should  arise  in  this  country  a public 
sentiment  that  would  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  alcohol  we  would 
have  nothing  upon  which  the  taxes  we  expect  to  get  could  be  raised. — 
A.  Then  we  would  have  to  look  elsewhere. 

Q.  That  is  what  I am  coming  to.  Do  you  propose  to  levy  a tax  of  so 
much  a bushel  on  wheat  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  propose  to  levy  a tax  upon  corn  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  propose  to  levy  it  upon  cotton? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  propose  to  put  it  on — the  windows  of  the  houses  ? — 
A.  It  is  on  there  now. 


HKN'UY  J.  PIIILPOTT.  J 


FREE  TRADE. 


1121 


Q.  Do  you  propose  to  tax  the  light  of  heaven  ? — A.  That  is  already 
taxed. 

Q.  How  is  that  taxed? — A.  There  is  an  average  tax  of  about  50  per 
cent,  on  window  glass. 

Q.  We  can  get  light  without  window  glass. — A.  We  do  not  like  to  in 
this  part  of  the  country.  The  man  who  raises  the  product  is  not  the 
man  who  bears  the  taxes ; it  is  the  man  who  consumes  who  pays  tbe 
taxes. 

Q.  What  product  of  the  State  of  Iowa  do  you  consume  upon  which 
a tax  is  levied  ? — A.  Wool  is  one  small  item. 

Q.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  only  taxes  foreign  wool, 
and  not  Iowa  wool. — A.  Very  well  ; but  then,  according  to  the  argu- 
ments that  have  been  produced  by  members  of  the  Commission — 

Q.  I deny  that  I am  making  any  argument;  I am  after  information, 
and  that  is  all.  Do  you  propose  to  dispense  with  the  revenue  by  duties 
on  imports  l — A.  As  far  as  possible. 

Q.  Your  demands  are  that  the  tariff  should  be  gradually  reduced 
until  we  reach  free  trade,  and  then,  you  say,  you  are  willing  to  tax  some 
of  the  luxuries.  Do  you  regard  tea  and  coffee  as  luxuries  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  propose  to  tax  them  ? — A.  That  is  a practical  question  for 
Congress  to  decide. 

Q.  I want  to  find  out  what  the  Free  Trade  League  is  for? — A.  The 
Free  Trade  League  has  never  framed  a complete  tariff. 

Q.  Congress  has  never  done  so  yet. — A.  I suppose  your  Commission 
will. 

Q.  I doubt  that.  You  do  not  expect  us  in  five  months  to  do  what 
Congress  has  failed  to  do  for  one  hundred  years.  You  Avould  give  11s 
credit  for  more  talents  than  I think  any  nine  men  in  the  United  States 
have,  if  you  expect  us  to  do  that. — A.  And  you  expect  the  Iowa  State 
Free  Trade  League  to  do  that  very  thing. 

Q.  Oh,  no ; I want  to  know  how  you  propose  to  raise  money  ? — A.  As 
I said,  the  Free  Trade  League  has  never  framed  a tariff,  and  for  that 
reason  I cannot  be  certain  how  far  I represent  the  sentiments  of  that 
Free  Trade  League  in  stating  whether  I believe  such  and  such  a duty 
should  be  placed  upon  articles.  But  I will  say  for  myself,  personally, 
that  there  are  a number  of  articles  on  the  free  list  which  I think  might 
yield  some  revenue,  and  I think  tea  and  coffee  are  among  the  number  ,* 
but  I would  have  the  duties  on  tea  and  coffee  quite  low,  for  the  reason 
that  they  are  used  probably  in  larger  quantities  by  the  poorer  classes 
of  people  than  by  the  wealthy.  But  I would  put  a low  duty  on  some- 
thing that  everybody  uses,  because  I do  not  believe  there  is  a workman 
in  the  United  States  that  would  not  want  to  contribute  his  share  of  the 
taxes  like  a man  to  support  the  government. 

Q.  You  have  not  formulated  in  your  own  mind  the  ways  and  means 
to  raise  the  revenue  for  the  government,  and  you  do  not  know  that  the 
Free  Trade  League  has  done  so  up  to  this  time  ? I squarely  and  fairly 
want  it  if  you  have  done  so. — A.  I have  stated  for  the  Free  Trade 
League  that  we  are  willing  to  be  taxed  on  a few  articles  of  luxury. 

Q.  But  you  do  not  state  what  they  are.  What  is  the  definition  of 
luxury? — A.  There  are  some  of  the  finer  kinds  of  silks,  for  instance, 
some  wines  and  brandies  that  might  bear  a high  duty ; diamonds,  gems, 
and  jewels ; and  there  are  fancy  articles  that  come  to  this  State  to-day 
that  might  be  taxed  50  per  cent. 

Q.  The  duty  is  now  so  high  upon  diamonds  that  three-fourths  of  those 
that  come  to  the  country  are  smuggled  in,  and  if  you  make  it  any  higher 
it  will  increase  the  amount  of  smuggling. — A.  The  duty  on  diamonds  is 
H.  Mis.  G 71 


1122 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[henry  j.  philpott. 


10  per  cent.,  and  if  that  encourages  smuggling  I should  like  to  know 
what  30  per  cent,  on  some  kinds  of  cloth  will  do. 

Q.  You  are  proposing  to  tax  tobacco  because  you  think  people  ought 
not  to  chew,  I presume? — A.  No;  that  is  not  the  reason,  specially. 

Q.  You  know  that  tobacco  is  not  raised  in  every  State  in  this  Union? — 
A.  I know  that  it  is  consumed  in  every  State,  and  that  the  consumer 
invariably  pays  the  taxes. 

Q.  That  is  so  sometimes,  but  not  always.  Now,  if  you  have  got  a 
well-defined  way  of  raising  revenue,  in  your  own  mind,  which  is  better 
than  by  raising  it  by  duties  upon  imports,  it  is  fair  to  let  us  have  it. — 
A.  If  this  government  were  economically  administered  as  it  should  be, 
$80,000,000,  or,  at  the  outside,  $100,000,000  is  quite  sufficient  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  that  could  be  raised  by  moderate  taxation.  After  reaching  what 
I should  call  the  free-trade  period,  I should  be  perfectly  willing  to  pay 
taxes  on  tea  and  coffee,  not  too  high,  and  on  the  finer  kinds  of  silks, 
fine  wines,  brandies,  particularly  such  as  we  import,  and  to  be  taxed  on 
fancy  articles  of  various  kinds.  If  the  people  had  free  trade  and  were 
allowed  to  have  the  prosperity  that  free  trade  would  give  them,  the 
taxation  we  could  put  upon  articles  of  consumption  would  not  be  at  all 
burdensome,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  we  could  raise  the  $80,000,000 
or  $100,000,000  necessary  to  run  the  government.  You  understand  my 
position  now. 

Q.  I do.  What  amount  of  imports  do  you  think  would  come  into 
this  country  under  your  schedule  necessary  to  raise  the  $100,000,000  ?— 
A.  I should  think  by  the  year  1890,  if  we  reach  free  trade  at  that  time, 
we  could  easily  have  $1,500,000,000  of  imports. 

Q.  What  amount  of  exports  ? — A.  About  the  same ; it  would  nearly 
always  balance. 

Q.  Of  what  would  it  be  composed  ? — A . We  would  send  many  things  of 
iron  to  Brazil,  such  as  plows  and  agricultural  machinery,  as  we  do  now 
to  Australia.  We  would  send  alcohol  and  many  articles  of  that  kind 
to  Europe;  and  cotton  goods  to  China  and  Japan;  and  we  would  con- 
quer that  East  India  and  China  trade. 

Q.  Have  we  any  ships  with  which  to  carry  it  ? — A.  We  would  g'et  the 
articles  transported  some  way;  we  would  do  just  as  we  have  to  do  un- 
der the  present  system — we  would  wait  for  Johnny  Bull. 

Q.  Do  you  know  why  we  have  no  trade  with  Brazil  to-day? — A.  On 
account  of  the  tariff*. 

Q.  No,  sir;  it  is  the  navigation  and  shipping  laws  and  the  fact  that 
we  have  no  Navy  and  no  marine. — A.  I am  willing  to  admit  that  to  a 
certain  extent;  but  if  we  have  free  trade  all  those  obstacles  will  be  re- 
moved, and  if  this  great  people  of  50,000,000,  with  their  unbounded  re- 
sources, which  have  been  saved  for  them  by  their  Creator  for  at  least 
0.000  years,  need  ships  in  order  to  conquer  the  commerce  of  the  world, 
they  will  get  them.  I have  that  much  faith  in  them.  To  say  that  the 
50,000,000  of  American  people,  of  whom  I am  one  and  one  of  the  poor- 
est (that  is,  one  of  the  weakest),  are  not  able  to  take  care  of  themselves 
in  a free-for-all  race,  is  a thing  that  I utterly  deny. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  would  become  of  this  country  if  our  imports 
exceeded  our  exports  in  twenty  years? — A.  I think  it  would  move 
grandly  on. 

Q.  You  think  a farmer  who  buys  more  than  he  sells  will  get  rich  ? — 
A.  I think  that  a farmer  who  takes  in  more  than  he  puts  out  will  get 
rich.  Our  income  is  our  export,  so  far  as  our  foreign  trade  is  concerned. 


HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1123 


Mr.  Philpott  afterwards  further  stated  to  the  Commission  as  fol- 
lows : 

I wish  to  make  a statement  in  regard  to  the  amount  of  wheat  exported 
from  this  country.  I would  like  to  have  it  go  on  the  records  of  this 
Commission  as  it  actually  is.  It  can  be  found  in  the  reports  of  the  Bu- 
reau of  Statistics.  I will  refer  you  to  the  place  where  you  can  find  it, 
and  also  give  you  the  facts  as  they  are. 

In  the  year  1879  there  were  produced  in  the  United  States  about 
498,000,000  bushels  of  wheat.  According  to  the  report  of  the  Bureau 
of  Statistics  for  1880,  and  according  to  the  difierent  reports,  from  36  to 
40  per  cent,  of  that  was  exported.  That  is  one  of  our  agricultural  pro- 
ducts in  which  we  are  particularly  interested.  I have  seen  it  stated 
that  it  was  40  per  cent.,  and  again  I have  seen  it  stated  at  36  ; and  I 
am  not  sure  but  I have  seen  it  stated  as  low  as  34  per  cent.  The  wheat 
crop  produced  in  1879  will  appear  in  the  record  of  exports  for  1880. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Was  not  1879  an  exceptional  year? — Answer.  The  propor- 
tion was  rather  large  that  year. 

Q.  Do  you  think  last  year  that  we  exported  one-half  of  the  amount 
we  exported  in  1880  ? — A.  No ; I think  not ; but  I would  also  say  that 
last  year  was  exceptionally  low,  while  the  preceding  year  was  excep- 
tionally high.  For  the  present  year  I have  seen  a number  of  estimates. 
The  Agricultural  Department,  I think,  estimates  the  present  crop  at 
.five  hundred  millions  ; and  I have  seem  estimates  all  the  way  from  that 
up  to  six  hundred  millions ; but  I am  willing  to  put  it  at  five  hundred 
millions. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler: 

Q.  Suppose  you  mention  what  was  exported  before  1879,  to  make  the 
statement  complete? — A.  In  the  year  1850  about  one-third  of  one  per 
cent,  of  the  crop,  if  I mistake  not,  was  exported.  In  1860,  something 
over  two  per  cent,  of  the  crop  was  exported.  In  1870,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  there  was  14  per  cent. ; but  I will  not  be  positive  of  that.  In  1880 
it  is  variously  estimated,  as  I said,  but  not  lower  than  34  per  cent.  So 
that  the  proportion  of  our  crop  for  which  we  depend  upon  the  foreign 
market  has  maintained  a constant  and  very  rapid  growth  for  the  last 
thirty  years  or  more. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Then,  when  there  was  what  we  might  call  free  trade,  about  1850, 
we  only  exported  about  2 per  cent,  of  the  wheat  crop,  and  when  we  had 
high  protection  in  1880  we  were  able  to  export  34  per  cent,  of  our  wheat  ? 
— A.  If  you  wish  to  put  it  in  that  way,  that  we  did  do ; and  that  was 
partly  because  we  were  compelled  to,  and  partly  because  we  produced 
so  much  more  of  it.  However,  the  export  was  increasing,  and  it  in- 
creased as  rapidly,  perhaps,  under  free  trade  as  it  did  under  protection. 

Q.  Not  from  the  statement  you  made  of  1850  to  1860. — A.  Allow  me 
to  make  the  statement  I have  here,  taken  from  the  Manufacturers7 
Becord,  of  Baltimore,  which  that  paper  got  from  the  government  reports. 

In  the  five  years  ending  1845,  the  amount  of  wheat  exported  was 
about  $3,000,000,  and  the  flour  $34,000,000,  in  round  numbers.  In  the 
next  five  years,  ending  1850,  $12,801,000  worth,  or  something  over  four 
times  as  much  wheat,  and  $82,000,000  worth  of  grain,  and  twice  as  much 
flour  exported.  I would  also  state  that  for  the  five-year  period,  ending 
with  the  end  of  the  high  tariff,  it  had  to  sell  at  98  cents,  although  we  only 


1124 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HENRY  j.  philpott. 


exported  one-fourth  as  much;  whereas  during  the  five-year  period  in 
which  we  had  low  tariff  we  sold  four  times  as  much  wheat  and  got  $1.25 
for  it.  The  same  is  true  of  corn.  Under  our  low  tariff  we  exported 
3,474,109  bushels  in  the  five  years  ending  1845,  and  in  the  five  years 
ending  1850  (the  first  five  years  of  low  tariff)  we  exported  over  42,000,000 
bushels,  or  nearly  fourteen  times  as  much. 

This  question  has  not  been  discussed  fairly.  It  is  not  fair  to  take  the 
present  year,  what  we  call  a u boom,”  and  compare  it  with  any  single 
year  in  the  past.  The  only  fair  way  is  to  take  a whole,  long  series  of 
years  and  base  the  average  upon  that. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  We  take  your  own  statement.  Don’t  say  we 
are  not  taking  it  fairly. 

The  Witness.  I beg  pardon  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission 
is  not  unfair,  but  the  matter  that  has  been  put  before  the  Commission  in 
that  way  has  been  stated  unfairly.  So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I am 
perfectly  willing  to  admit  and  have  admitted  to  the  Commission  that 
1879  was  an  exceptional  year.  What  I want  is  to  get  this  matter  be- 
fore this  Commission  just  exactly  as  it  is;  I would  not  misrepresent 
anything. 

In  1882  we  exported  43,148,000  bushels,  just  a little  less  than  we  did 
in  the  five  years  ending  1845,  showing  that  our  export  of  corn  is  con- 
stantly increasing.  And  in  1880  we  exported  98,000,000  bushels  of  corn, 
twice  as  much  as  we  did  in  the  other  five  years.  In  1881,  91,000,000 
bushels.  In  the  five  years  ending  1870  we  only  exported  47,000,000 
bushels.  So  that  it  shows  that  pur  dependence  on  foreign  markets  for 
our  products  is  constantly  increasing,  in  spite  of  all  that  can  be  done 
by  building  up  our  protected  manufactures. 

But  what  I wanted  to  call  your  attention  to  particularly,  was  that  we 
have  produced  this  year  and  year  before  last  about  500,000,000  bushels 
of  wheat.  We  retained  for  home  consumption,  according  to  the  Bureau 
of  Statistics  (I  think  the  report  is  given  for  September,  1881;  it  is  one 
of  the  quarterly  reports  for  that  year  sometime),  a little  less  than 
300,000,000  bushels.  It  is  estimated  in  that  article  from  the  Baltimore 
Manufacturers’  Record  that  we  will  consume  about  300,000,000  bushels 
this  year  at  home,  and  we  will  be  obliged  then  to  sell  200,000,000 
abroad.  Now,  remember  that  of  that  300,000,000  bushels  we  consume 
at  home,  50,000,000  bushels  will  be  required  for  seed  to  sow  37,000,000 
acres.  Every  farmer  here  knows  that  it  takes  50  bushels  of  wheat  to 
sow  37  acres,  taking  tall  wheat,  and  that  is  rather  a low  estimate. 

Mr.  Guinnell.  That  is  rather  low.  They  put  on  about  two  bushels 
to  the  acre  now. 

Mr.  Philpott.  I want  to  make  this  statement  fair,  even  at  the  risk 
of  making  it  against  myself.  We  will  allow  50,000,000  bushels  for  seed, 
then  that  leaves  250,000,000  bushels  to  be  eaten.  Now,  the  farmers  of 
this  country  themselves  constitute  more  than  half  the  population  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  is  very  natural  to  infer  that  they  consume  at  least 
one  half  of  the  wheat.  That  leaves  125,000,000  bushels  for  the  farmers 
to  eat.  The  manufacturing,  mechanical,  and  mining  population  of  the 
country  is  about  one-fifth  of  it;  one-fifth  of  250,000,000  bushels  which  is 
left  to  be  eaten  is  50,000,000  bushels.  So  that  the  manufacturing,  me- 
chanical, and  mining  population  of  the  whole  United  States  consume 
less  of  our  wheat  than  we  are  compelled  to  sow  for  seed,  and  only  one 
fourth  part  as  much  as  we  are  compelled  to  find  a market  for  abroad. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  Please  do  not  understand  that  because  you 
are  not  interrupted  we  are  assenting  to  what  you  say.  It  would  pro- 
long the  session  too  much  if  I were  to  interrupt  you. 


HENRY  J.  PHILPOTT.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1125 


The  Witness.  I would  refer  you  to  the  census  of  1880,  when  it  is 
out. 

The  part  exported  must  be  about  200,000,000  bushels,  or  about  four 
times  as  much  as  is  consumed  by  the  entire  mining,  mechanical,  and 
manufacturing  population.  Of  course  the  mechanical  part  of  the  popu- 
lation is  not  at  all  protected.  I lived  in  this  country  in  what  are  called 
free-trade  times,  and  I never  knew  a farmer  who  got  his  horse  shod  in 
England,  or  who  had  his  house  built  there,  or  had  it  plastered  or  glazed 
there,  or  had  his  cellar  dug  there,  or  his  cistern  walled,  or  his  well.  I 
therefore  consider  that  those  classes  of  occupations  cannot  possibly  be 
protected  by  the  tariff;  that  we  would  still  need  the  wells  without  the 
tariff,  still  be  compelled  to  get  them  dug,  as  well  as  our  cisterns  and 
cellars,  and  that  we  would  not  get  it  done  abroad.  I make  that  as  a 
fair  statement.  I shall  take  Commissioner  Oliver’s  word  for  it  that  no 
one  will  interrupt  me  now  if  he  objects  to  it,  but  I wish  it  to  go  on  the 
record  that  I make  this  statement.  I think  it  is  not  fair  to  assume  a 
case  that  we  are  going  to  lose  all  our  home  market.  If  every  manufact- 
uring establishment  in  the  United  States,  every  blacksmith  shop  and 
everything  of  that  kind  were  shut  up,  and  that  many  people  would  just 
simply  stop  buying  our  wheat,  we  could  only  lose  a market  for  50,000,000 
bushels,  and  we  lost  fifty  million  bushels  and  more  by  a short  crop  last 
year.  Our  crop  last  year  lacked  over  100,000,000  bushels  of  being  as 
large  as  the  crop  of  the  year  before,  and  that  would  be  a bigger  loss  to 
us  than  the  entire  market  of  every  manufacturing,  mechanical,  and 
mining  man  in  the  country. 

I think  I have  made  that  statement  so  that  it  will  go  on  record  as  I 
conceive  it  actually  to  be. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  what  the  aggregate  of  the  agricultural  products 
in  the  United  States  is? — A.  The  agricultural  products  last  year  were 
about  $3,000,000,000. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  me,  outside  of  wheat,  corn,  and  pork,  what  the 
amount  of  exports  may  be  % — A.  About  two-thirds  of  the  cotton  was 
exported. 

Q.  You  include  that  in  your  $3,000,000,000  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  The  estimate  is  too  low. 

The  Witness.  I have  the  agricultural  report  of  1880,  giving  the 
census  report  on  agriculture,  and  it  only  foots  up  $2,000,000,000. 

Q.  I see  by  this  report  you  have  handed  me  that  there  was  exported 
nearly  92,000,000  bushels  of  Indian  corn  in  1881.  What  proportion  does 
that  bear  to  the  corn  crop  of  the  country? — A.  About  0 per  cent. 

Q.  Of  oats  there  were  402,000  bushels  exported ; what  proportion  does 
that  bear? — A.  That  would  only  be  quite  a small  proportion.  1 would 
like  to  state  that  the  total  agricultural  product  footed  up  in  the  census 
of  1870  $2,440,000,000  worth.  That  was  on  a paper  basis,  when  gold 
was  at  a premium,  so  those  were  inflated  prices.  In  1880  the  prices 
were  quite  low.  The  winter  before  that  there  was  more  corn  burned 
for  fuel  in  this  State  than  was  ever  burned  before,  and  it  was  very  low 
in  price;  it  was  hardly  worth  gathering  in  many  parts  of  the  State.  A 
great  deal  of  it  was  left  out  in  the  field  and  wasted,  partly  because  it 
was  a bad  time  to  gather  it.  But  I have  figured  up  the  product  of  beef 
and  pork  in  the  year  1880,  and  added  it  to  the  statement  of  the  Agri- 
cultural Department.  I cannot  possibly  find  more  than  $3,000,000,000 
worth.  And,  remembering  that  there  were  inflated  values  in  1870, 
I should  say  that  was  about  right.  During  that  year  we  exported 


1126 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[HEXEY  j.  philpott. 


$737,000,000  worth  of  agricultural  products,  as  shown  by  the  custom- 
house returns.  That  would  be  almost  one-fourth,  and  1 think  it  is  safe 
to  say  that  instead  of  having  a home  market — that  home  market  we 
make  ourselves  when  we  eat  what  we  produce — instead  of  having  a 
home  market  of  90  per  cent,  and  exporting  10  per  cent.,  it  would  be 
safer  to  say  that  we  export  25  per  cent,  and  have  a home  market  of  75 
per  cent.  The  farmers  consume  half  of  the  rest  and  the  manufacturers 
15  per  cent,  of  the  whole. 

Commissioner  Underwood.  I want  it  to  be  known  that  about 
$300,000,000  of  the  export  was  cotton. 


S J.  LOUGHRAN.] 


IRON  AND  STEEL. 


1127 


S.  J.  LOUGHRAN. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  15,  1882. 

Mr.  S.  J.  Loughran,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  State  Journal,  and 
by  occupation  an  engine-maker  and  founder,  made  the  following  state- 
ment : 

Having  been  appointed  to  prepare  a statement  of  the  views  and  in- 
terests of  the  iron  and  steel  workers  of  this  city  upon  the  subjects  of 
your  investigation,  I have  conferred  with  the  proprietors  of  all  the  boiler- 
shops  and  foundries,  in  whose  name  the  following  is  submitted : 

There  is  not  much  imported  iron  or  steel  used  in  this  city.  Four  of 
the  five  foundries  use  a little  Scotch  pig,  in  all  not  more  than  six  car- 
loads a year.  Two  or  three  kinds  of  “America- Scotch  ” are  used  in  small 
quantities.  Strong  foundry  iron  is  obtaiued  from  Lake  Superior,  Ohio, 
Tennessee,  and  Missouri. 

American  boiler  plate  and  American  flues  only  are  used  by  our  boiler- 
makers. They  say  the  English  plate  and  flue  is  inferior  in  quality,  and 
for  that  reason  they  will  not  use  it.  They  complain  that  American  plate 
is  not  always  equal  to  the  stamp,  and  they  desire  that  Congress  make  a 
more  stringent  law  for  the  safety  of  boiler  users. 

Only  American  bar  iron  is  used  here.  Common  English  is  much  in- 
ferior to  common  American  iron,  and  we  find  that  the  best  is  the  cheapest. 

English  tool  steel  is  used  by  some.  W ithin  two  or  three  years  we  have 
been  getting  American  tool  steel  that  is  equal  to  the  English,  which  is 
fast  displacing  the  imported  article. 

American  machinery  steel  is  taking  the  place  of  iron  in  the  construc- 
tion of  machinery.  The  quality  is  excellent,  and  the  competition  among 
American  manufacturers  has  reduced  the  price  as  low  as  that  of  supe- 
rior iron.  The  price  of  tool  steel  has  also  been  reduced  by  American 
manufacturers.  American  steel,  equal  to  English,  is  now  sold  15  per 
cent,  lower  than  the  English. 

We  appreciate  the  fact  that  a protective  tariff  has  improved  the  quality 
and  reduced  the  cost  of  iron  and  steel  in  all  their  forms.  We  also  be- 
lieve that  a continuation  and  perpetuation  of  the  protective  policy  will 
encourage  capital  and  skill  to  greater  developments,  resulting  in  more 
improved  quality  and  reduction  ot  cost.  The  cost  of  iron  and  steel  can 
be  reduced  permanently  only  by  American  competition  and  free  trade 
at  home — not  with  foreign  nations.  By  free  trade  at  home  we  mean  the 
absence  of  all  obstructing  combinations  of  capital  or  labor,  and  direct, 
cheap  transportation. 

Admitting  the  necessity  of  a reduction  of  the  tariff  on  some  articles, 
we  dread  the  result  of  any  reduction  that  would  close  mines  or  mills  j 
for  although  the  effects  would  be  first  felt  in  Eastern  States,  the  disas- 
trous wave  would  reach  every  hearth  and  home  in  Iowa,  as  after  the 
panic  of  ’73.  A diminished  market  for  the  produce  of  Iowa  farms  would 
deprive  Iowa  farmers  of  that  surplus  cash  with  which  they  built  houses, 
barns,  and  fences,  and  purchased  implements,  machinery,  and  more  acres. 
A tidal  wave  of  tramps  would  again  sweep  over  our  fair  land,  impover- 
ished for  want  of  employment  and  demoralized  by  poverty. 

The  disastrous  results  of  depression  following  the  panic  are  instructive. 
Some  manufacturers  were  forced  by  the  competition  to  reduce  the  grade 
of  their  iron.  Boiler-makers  had  difficulty  in  obtaining  from  the  man- 


1128 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[S.  J.  LOUGHRAN. 


nfacturers,  previously  and  since  reliable,  such  iron  as  they  could  safely 
warrant  to  the  purchasers.  Thus  were  the  lives  and  property  of  some 
jeopardized  by  a forced  economy.  Then,  aud  always,  the  rule  holds 
good,  that  poor  pay  secures  poor  service. 

Some  of  our  farmers  have  had  experience  in  this  line,  which  should 
not  be  forgotten.  About  ten  years  ago  there  was  an  organization  of 
farmers  known  as  the  Grange.  At  that  time  agricultural  implements 
and  machinery  were  high.  The  farmers  vowed  utter  extermination  to 
the  manufacturers  and  their  agents ; not  considering  that  it  was  a vicious 
credit  system  which  made  the  goods  cost  so  much.  They  appointed 
purchasers  and  agencies,  and,  of  course,  bought  cheap  machinery  and 
sold  it  cheap  to  the  Grangers.  Some  of  their  reapers  and  mowers 
lasted  one  year  ; some  two  or  three.  When  some  parts  failed  it  was 
found  impossible  to  obtain  repairs ; the  cheap  manufacturers  could  not 
be  found,  or  the  agents  had  become  tired  of  their  agencies.  It  was  a 
dear  lesson  to  many,  aud  one  that  all  should  heed. 

Should  Congress  heed  the  clamor  of  a few  one-idea  and  inexperienced 
211  en  to  open  the  ports  for  free  admission  to  such  machinery  and  imple- 
ments as  heartless  or  ignorant  importers  may  choose  to  oixler,  the  re- 
sult will  be  much  more  disastrous  to  the  farmers  of  Iowa.  European 
methods  and  implements  are  utterly  unsuited  to  the  wants  of  this 
country,  and  their  mechanics  are  too  self-satisfied  to  learn  from  Ameri- 
cans. I do  not  underrate  the  farmers  of  the  United  Kingdom.  A 
Scotchman  will  grow  more  wheat  on  one  acre  of  his  cold  and  storm- 
beaten  isle  than  an  American  will  grow  on  three  acres  of  Iowa’s  choicest 
soil ; but  he  does  it  at  an  expense  of  animal  power — strong  men  and 
Clydesdale  horses — much  greater  than  Iowa  farmers  can  afford. 

Should  England  send  us  a plow  possessing  merits,  some  cute  Yankee 
will  make  another  so  much  superior  that  farmers  cannot  afford  to  use 
the  imported  implement  if  they  should  get  it  for  nothing. 

Tim  demand  and  uses  for  iron  and  steel  increase  much  faster  than 
population  or  occupied  territory.  Unless  the  supply  keeps  pace  with 
the  demand,  the  prices  will  be  unnaturally  high.  Unless  capitalists 
have  assurance  that  money  invested  in  iron  or  steel  works  is  as  safe  as 
money  invested  in  land  they  will  not  embark  in  the  iron  or  steel  busi- 
ness. Therefore  it  would  be  wisdom  itself  to  remove  all  apprehensions 
by  the  adoption  of  a permanent  policy  of  protection.  Make  iron-mills 
stock  as  safe  as  government  bonds,  and  it  will  sell  as  fast  as  4 per  cents. 
Then  we  will  have  cheap  iron  and  plenty  of  it. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  You  have  a practical  knowledge  of  the  statements  you 
make  in  regard  to  the  qualities  of  American  machinery  and  American 
iron? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


J.  B.  GRINNELL.] 


FLAX,  WOOL,  ETC. 


1129 


J.  B.  GRINNELL. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  15,  1882. 

Hon.  J.  B.  Grinnell,  of  Grinnell,  Iowa,  stated  as  follows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  As  a citizen 
of  the  State,  in  the  absence  of  any  formal  welcome  by  the  authorities  of 
this  the  capital  city  of  the  State,  I will  say,  for  one,  that  I am  very 
happy  to  see  the  honorable  Commission  here,  representing  all  por- 
tions of  the  United  States  and  so  many  industries.  I have  attended 
three  conventions  that  were  called  for  the  purpose  of  inaugurating 
what  we  call  the  Tariff  Commission.  I was  favorable  to  that  Commis- 
sion. I made  three  long  journeys  for  promoting  the  organization  of 
that  Commission.  I made  a promise  to  a certain  gentleman  connected 
with  the  flax  interest  of  the  country  and  the  hind  interest,  that  when 
the  Commission  came  to  this  city  I would  appear  before  them.  I made 
a further  promise  to  certain  farmers,  numbering  twenty  or  thirty  in  one 
place  and  fifteen  or  twenty  in  another,  that  I would  present  the  matter 
of  flax-raising  and  the  embarrassments  under  which  it  is  now  carried 
on  in  this  State,  and  ask  relief  before  this  Commission. 

I have  no  prepared  speech.  The  notes  I have  I have  made  since  I 
came  into  the  room,  expecting  that  the  Board  of  Trade  and  others  here 
would  occupy  the  whole  of  the  time  and  that  I would  have  until  to-morrow 
to  prepare  what  I purpose  to  say. 

I say,  gentlemen,  preliminarily  to  the  particular  remarks  I wish  to 
make,  that  I am  a farmer.  It  is  true,  I have  had  varied  occupations  within 
the  last  twenty-eight  years,  more  from  necessity  than  from  inclination. 
But  my  interests  are  solely  with  the  agriculturists,  as  land  owner,  settler 
in  this  State,  and  farmer,  taking  up  a large  tract  of  land,  having  con- 
tinued on  it  lor  the  last  twenty -eight  years,  and  having  operated  farms 
in  different  counties  in  the  various  branches  of  agriculture. 

I am  very  glad  you  have  just  been  listening  to  a free-trader.  I am  a 
protectionist.  I am  a tariff  man  from  association,  from  conviction,  from 
principle,  and  from  interest.  I dissent,  however,  entirely  from  all  of  his 
allegations  in  regard  to  the  opinions  of  the  farmers.  I have  a wide  ac- 
quaintance with  farmers  all  over  the  State,  and  I do  not  know  of 
an  intelligent,  progressive  farmer,  that  uses  the  best  tools,  that  has 
the  best  barns,  that  raises  horses  whose  necks  “ are  clothed  with 
thunder,”  and  who  has  the  best  opportunities  for  gaining  information, 
who  is  a free-trader;  and  I claim  an  extensive  acquaintance.  I will 
say  frankly,  without  disrespect  to  the  gentleman  who  has  occupied 
your  time,  that  I do  not  know  of  a person  who  entertains  his  opinion. 
1 understand  free-trade  leagues  are  formed.  That  is  all  very  well. 
You  can  go  into  a town  anywhere  and  can  hear  the  argument  made 
that  a suit  of  clothes  can  be  got  for  $12  abroad  that  cost  $25  here.  But 
you  go  out  among  those  who  believe  in  reciprocity,  and  who  believe  that 
we  cannot  keep  and  sell  both,  that  we  cannot  both  have  the  highest 
market  and  the  cheapest  goods  at  the  same  time,  and  that  we  have  a 
government  to  support,  and  they  Like  no  stock,  as  far  as  I know,  in  that 
assertion.  I will  say  furthermore,  that  you  come  to  a State  of  educa- 
tion. Our  schools  are  as  free  as  the  air  and  water.  Our  colleges  are 
well  patronized,  and  I do  not  know  of  a president  or  professor  of  any 


1130 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  GRIXXELL. 


college  in  the  State  of  Iowa — and  there  are  some  twelve  or  fifteen  col- 
leges here — that  is  a free-trader.  I do  not  utter  this  to  impair  in  any 
degree  the  force  of  the  gentleman’s  statement.  I only  wish  to  give  it 
as  a matter  of  public  sentiment.  It  is  my  conviction  that  there  is  com- 
paratively no  free- trade  sentiment  in  the  State  of  Iowa. 

And,  gentlemeu,  we  are  now  1,700,000  people  in  this  State,  which  is 
but  thirty-eight  years  of  age,  and  but  little  more  than  one-third  of  our 
acres  are  under  cultivation.  We  are  passing  the  great  rudimentary 
period.  We  are  just  having  time  to  send  our  boys  to  college  and  our 
girls  to  seminaries.  We  have  a railroad  system.  We  are  starting  our 
manufactures.  This  is  a city  of  manufactures  of  about  30,000  inhabi- 
tants, and  what  would  it  be  but  for  the  fact  that  5,000  people  in  the  city 
of  Des  Moines  are  connected  with  manufactures  ? I tell  you  there  is 
no  industrious  people,  there  is  no  enterprising,  ambitious  city  in  the 
State  of  Iowa  that  does  not  encourage  these  manufactures.  That  is  the 
spirit  that  animates  all  the  towns.  When  capital  comes  here  to  build 
manufactories  it  is  told:  You  shall  come  free  of  taxation;  you  shall 
have  this  water-power  free;  you  shall  have  this  real  estate  free.  The 
fact  is  there  is  a constant  strife,  from  Keokuk,  the  watchful  fox  in  the 
southeastern  corner  of  the  State,  to  the  northwest  corner,  and  so  on 
throughout  the  State,  as  to  who  shall  be  ahead  in  manufactures.  I 
can  appeal  to  every  gentleman  here,  to  Senator  Wright,  who  has  been 
all  over  the  State  as  a judge,  and  who  knows  men  from  every  part,  to 
bear  me  out  in  the  assertion  that  it  is  the  ambition  of  the  people  of  the 
State  to  become  a manufacturing  State. 

Look  at  our  farm  products.  The  oats  raised  in  the  State  to-day  are 
selling  in  this  market  at  30  to  35  cents  a bushel.  Corn  is  selling  at  00 
cents  a bushel.  Cattle,  such  as  I raise,  well  fed,  are  worth  now  from  $4 
to  $7  per  hundred,  live  weight,  on  foot.  Now,  of  course,  these  facts  show 
that  the  gentleman  to  whom  you  have  listened  so  patiently,  and  who  is 
a free-trader,  is  mistaken  entirely  in  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  farmers. 
He  conceals — he  has  a right  to  for  the  sake  of  his  argument — the  fact 
which  I present  before  you,  that  there  are  1,700,000  people  in  this  State, 
which  is  rapidly  increasing  in  population  and  in  every  industry  of  which 
I can  speak,  where  there  are  prosperous  times,  high  prices,  and  crops 
reasonably  good.  The  doctrine  of  the  people  of  this  State  is  the  same 
doctrine  that  has  been  proclaimed  by  Jackson,  by  Greeley,  by  Clay,  by 
Republicans  and  Whigs,  and  by  all  the  statesmen  that  I have  read  of 
or  heard  of  from  the  lOundation  of  this  government  to  the  present  time. 
That  is  my  inividual  opinion,  which  I think  it  proper  to  state,  and  is 
not  given  without  some  means  of  knowledge.  It  is  a biased  opinion,  I 
grant,  because  that  is  a sentiment  which  has  grown  with  my  growth, 
and  it  has  taken  possession  of  me  and  grown  from  year  to  year  more 
firmly,  that  the  only  way  in  which  the  State  of  Iowa  can  become  a man- 
ufacturing  State  is  that  we  shall  have  some  of  the  benefits  of  a tariff. 

Though  not  agreeing  in  politics  with  Senator  Voorliees,  of  Indiana,  I 
am  in  entire  accord  with  an  utterance  of  his  in  a conversation  with  me 
not  long  since,  when  he  said  that  “This  government  must  be  main- 
tained ; we  have  the  pensioners  to  pa  , ; we  have  the  general  expenses 
of  tlie  government,  and  they  cannot  be  raised  by  direct  taxation  alone. 
No  politician  in  Indiana  or  out  of  it  could  live  twenty-four  hours  advo- 
cating a direct  taxation,  and  1 am  for  Indiana,  with  God’s  help,  having 
her  share,  and  therefore  I am  for  a tariff.”  I agree  distinctly  with  that 
eminent  gentleman  in  that  respect,  and  that  is  the  position  in  the  State 
of  Iowa  to-day,  of  all  parties. 

I was  told  by  a soldier,  a lame  man,  leaning  on  his  cane,  who  had  slept 


J.  B.  GRINJfELL.] 


FLAX,  WOOL,  ETC. 


1131 


in  prison  in  the  South,  and  is  now  drawing  a pension  of  only  $8  per  month, 
“With  free  trade,  where  would  be  the  pensioners?  I do  not  believe 
that  the  pensioners  of  the  country  would  be  paid  on  a free-trade  basis’’; 
and  I was  in  hopes  the  learned  gentleman  who  has  been  advocating 
free  trade  to  you  this  afternoon  would  refer  to  that  matter  and  answer 
how  we  could  be  expected  to  meet  the  hundreds  of  millions  required  for 
the  pension  pay-roll.  I say  that  1 am  for  a tarilf  to  carry  the  pension- 
ers.  I am  for  a tariff  to  support  the  government.  I am  for  a tariff  that 
the  State  of  Iowa  may  get  the  most  she  can  out  of  it. 

1 will  state  another  fact.  In  the  history  of  manufactures,  especially 
in  new  countries,  they  gravitate  towards  cheap  food,  coal  measures,  and 
water  power.  We  have  all  three  of  those  ingredients.  We  have  the 
best  corn  State  in  the  Union,  and  have  raised  more  corn  thau  we  shall 
need.  We  have  corn  to  supply  the  wants  of  five  millions  of  people. 
That  is  waiting  to  be  consumed,  to  be  used  in  the  still.  We  have  water 
power.  The  Des  Moines  River,  which  is  dammed  by  the  government, 
lias  water  power  enough  to  turn  all  the  spindles  that  can  be  brought  into 
our  State.  The  largest  streams  have  abundance  of  water  power. 

Now,  as  a citizen  of  the  State,  I desire  that  manufactures  may  grav- 
itate to  us.  I desire  that  this  Commission,  if  it  represents  the  citizens 
of  Iowa — I do  not  mean  the  editors  ; I deny  that  a man  who  sits  in  his 
office  can  represent  the  masses  of  the  people  with  their  flocks  and  their 
herds — I desire  that  this  Commission  shall  say  that  the  people  of  Iowa 
want  a tariff,  and  that  that  State  shall  receive  its  just  proportion  and 
no  more  ; that  this  tariff  shall  be  so  framed  that  betore  some  of  as  shall 
sleep  in  the  grave  we  shall  know  that  Iowa  is  as  celebrated  for  being 
a manufacturing  State  as  it  is  now  tor  its  remarkable  agricultural  pro- 
ductions. And  that  I believe  will  be  in  the  near  future. 

That  which  we  have  felt  the  want  of  we  have  attained  in  a remarka- 
ble degree;  that  is,  cheap  money.  I am  happy  to  announce  that  any 
man  with  good  property  and  good  security  cau  borrow  money  to  an  in- 
definite amount  in  this  State  at  from  (3  to  8 per  cent.,  whereas  in  years 
previous  it  was  from  8 to  12  per  cent.  Of  course  that  goes  to  show  the 
marked  prosperity  of  the  people.  Money  is  the  most  sensitive  of  all 
commodities,  and  this  goes  to  show  how  good  is  our  security.  With 
this  cheap  money  our  manufactures  are  coming  up.  This  capital  city 
will,  be  the  center  of  the  manufacturing  industries  of  the  State.  Money 
is  concentrating  here.  Here  is  an  abundance  of  coal,  here  is  an  abun- 
dance of  water  power,  here  is  a great  agricultural  basin  and  plenty  of 
timber,  and  all  that  goes  to  make  up  a rich  and  prosperous  place. 

It  is  enough  that  I should  say — not-  by  way  of  repetition,  but  as  a mat- 
ter of  fact — that  the  agriculturists  of  this  State  are  prosperous.  They 
are  happy,  and  when  any  gentleman,  I care  not  what  his  profession, 
seeks  to  enforce  upon  me  the  conviction  that  I am  burdened  by  low 
prices  for  my  products  and  by  high  prices  for  that  which  is  necessary 
for  me  and  my  family,  I beg  leave  to  call  his  attention  to  this  fact,  that 
now  clothing  and  the  necessaries  of  life  in  a family  are  indigenous. 
They  may  be  produced  in  our  own  couutry,  and  cost  50  per  cent,  less 
now  than  they  did  12  to  15  years  ago.  I make  that  declaration,  and 
opposed  to  that  1 make  this  statement:  that  the  products  of  this  State 
to-day — wheat,  oats,  corn,  barley,  live  animals — are  now  60  per  cent, 
above  what  they  were  in  the  time  of  low  tariff,  50  per  cent,  in  our  favor 
as  purchasers,  and  60  per  cent,  in  our  favor  as  sellers.  I make  that 
declaration  from  a careful  comparison  of  facts. 

I am  quoting  Iowa  prices.  I do  not  quote  New  York  prices  or  Liver- 
pool prices — only  I agree  with  the  Commissioner  when  he  pushed  my 


1132 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  GRIXNELL. 


friend  Philpott  to  know  whether  he  was  taking  into  account  the  freight. 
This  I know,  having  been  connected  in  a small  way  with  railroads  and 
railroad  managers,  that  the  cost  of  transportation  from  the  city  of  Des 
Moines,  or  from  Grinnell,  where  I live,  to  New  York,  is  now  just  exactly 
74  per  cent,  less  than  it  was  fifteen  years  ago.  I have  wagoned  grain,  by 
my  employes,  and  I know  that  before  the  railroads  came  we  wagoned 
grain  40  miles  and  received  40  cents  a bushel  for  it.  The  first  few  years 
of  my  residence  in  the  State  wheat  rarely  brought  more  than  60  cents  a 
bushel.  Last  year  and  the  year  previous  it  was  almost  double  that. 
Those  facts  are  the  best  statement  I can  make  in  regard  to  our  produc- 
tions. What  we  purchase  costs  us  less,  and  what  we  sell  brings  us 
more. 

But  that  is  not  all.  The  purchasers  of  our  lands,  by  reason  of  the 
numerous  railroads  and  cheap  freights  from  New  York,  New  England, 
Ohio,  and  Illinois,  are  willing  to  pay  more. 

Of  course  this  is  a prohibition  State,  I am  bound  to  say.  I am  bound 
to  tell  the  whole  truth  if  I can  in  the  short  time  allotted  to  me.  By  the 
prohibition  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  State  the  saloon  has 
no  legal  existence  in  Iowa  to-day.  I do  not  wish  to  burden  you  with 
any  threats  in  regard  to  your  drinks  at  all,  but  if  you  get  any  here  you 
will  get  them  illegally. 

The  landed  interests  of  the  State  are  very  prosperous.  City  lots  and 
farm  lands  have  advanced  at  least  20  per  cent,  in  the  last  three  years.  I 
know  that  to  be  a fact,  and  that  is  the  testimony  of  real  estate  agents 
in  the  city  of  Des  Moines  and  in  the  country. 

The  newer  sections  of  Iowa — the  north  and  northwest,  equal  to  fifteen 
millions  of  acres,  or  an  area  of  the  size  of  all  New  England,  save  Maine — 
have  land  well  adapted  to  flax  culture.  It  can  be  sown  as  the  first  crop, 
and  to  prepare  foul  land  for  corn,  and  before  the  time  for  corn  planting. 
The  seed  now  only  is  used  for  oil,  and  the  flax  straw  is  burned,  involv- 
ing the  waste  of  fiber,  which  should  be  utilized  by  factories  for  towel- 
ing, bags,  rope,  and  twine.  Under  a higher  tariff  on  jute,  or  jute  butts, 
rope  was  made  aud  the  tow  was  sent  eastward.  These  competitors  are 
Indian  products  with  little  substance,  and  they  are  now  fraudulently 
used  in  heavy  cloth,  carpets,  and  for  burlaps.  It  seems  the  duty  of  the 
government  to  prevent  this  imposition  and  encourage  the  use  of  the  flax 
fiber.  Tow  of  flax  is  now  only  $10  a ton.  Some  farmers  think  it  should 
be  $20  a ton.  Flaxseed  has  20  cents  a bushel  in  way  of  quotation.  It 
might  be  increased  to  30  cents. 

If  these  rates  would  involve  dearer  oil  to  the  consumer,  it  would  be 
only  temporary,  since  the  use  of  the  fiber  would  lessen  the  cost  of  the 
seed.  Millions  of  acres  are  available  for  flax,  and  a strong  competi- 
tion would  arise,  if  the  fiber  found  a market.  The  farmers  invite  the 
honorable  Commission  to  keep  out  a free  article  and  encourage  the 
use  of  that  which  has  real  value.  No  farmer  can  dispense  with  bags, 
ropes,  and  twine,  and  the  substitute  of  the  self  grain-binder,  where  one 
man  by  machinery  performs  the  labor  of  six  with  twine,  creates  such  a 
demand  that  I estimate  that  the  next  year  one  million  of  dollars  will  be 
required  for  grain  twine  alone. 

The  good  we  seek  is  most  apparent  in  a natural  attraction  of  a new 
manufacturing  industry  towards  our  cheap  food,  ample  coal  measures, 
and  water-power,  furnishing  employment  for  thousands  of  our  farmers 
now  idle  in  the  winter,  and  utilizing  a valuable  fiber  now  supplanted  by 
poor  goods  made  on  foreign  soil.  We  trust  in  Congress  for  legislation 
which  may  avert  this  waste  and  be  in  the  interest  of  a sound  financial 
policy,  aiding  Iowa  in  her  march  to  eminence  in  manufacturing  and  to 


J.  B.  GRINXELL.] 


FLAX,  WOOL,  ETC. 


1133 


tlie  liigli  rank  as  a fabricator  which  she  now  holds  as  the  leading  agri- 
cultural State  of  the  Union,  though  not  one-half  her  domain  is  utilized. 
Her  lands  were  never  selling  so  rapidly  and  at  such  high  prices  as  now, 
under  the  stimulus  of  railway  building,  the  growing  prohibition  senti- 
ment, and  the  promise  of  an  adjusted  tariff  at  your  hands  as  the  pledge 
of  a stable  and  beneficent  policy  in  the  interest  of  all  classes. 

When  I advocate  a tariff*,  I appeal  to  the  facts  of  history  to  show  that 
competition  has  brought  us  lower  articles.  It  has  brought  us  cheaper 
cloth  than  this  w^orld  ever  knew.  It  has  brought  us  cheaper  farming 
utensils  than  were  ever  heard  of.  It  has  brought  us  Bessemer  steel  at 
$40  a ton,  which  formerly  cost  from  $150  to  $160  a ton.  Therefore,  I 
say,  put  this  tariff  upon  flaxseed  and  upon  jute  butts,  and  you  encour- 
age one-third  of  this  State.  You  encourage  the  people  that  are  to  dwell 
upon  fifteen  millions  of  acres  of  fertile  soil  to  enter  upon  flax  culture, 
and  they  will  so  compete  that  we  will  in  the  end  have  cheaper  oil  than 
now.  What  else  shall  we  have?  If  it  is  said  that  bagging  will  be  higher 
for  handling  the  grain,  I answer  that  it  will  be  better,  as  much  better  as 
linen  is  better  than  cotton — with  all  deference  to  the  honorable  Com- 
missioner from  the  State  of  Georgia.  We  know  that  linen  in  the  history 
of  the  world  is  preferred  to  cotton.  The  bagging  would  be  better,  the 
toweling  would  be  better,  and  this  linen  which  would  go  into  the  manu- 
facture of  carpets  in  place  of  jute  butts  would  have  a value,  whereas 
1 he  jute  butt,  as  it  is  beaten  up  and  picked  after  the  manner  of  shoddy, 
has  little  value.  We  shall  encourage  and  build  up  a new  industry  and 
save  for  the  farmer.  We  shall  then  establish  these  bagging  factories, 
which  will  be  found  wherever  there  is  water  power  and  fuel,  and  it  will 
prove  to  be  a boon  wherever  there  is  water  and  an  abundance  of  coal. 
These  manufactures  will  spring  up  all  over  the  Northwest,  and  that  is 
one  of  the  beauties,  gentlemen,  of  the  protective  tariff  that  we  wish  to 
have  exhibited  here. 

I beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  fact  that 
one  of  the  great  drawbacks  to  agriculture  in  this  country  is  that  in  the 
winter  the  farmer  has  nothing  to  do.  He  works  hard  six  or  eight  months 
in  the  year,  and  the  balance  of  the  time  he  is  at  rest.  But  if  he  had 
some  employment  of  this  kind,  he  could  utilize  his  time  after  the  crops 
are  gathered  and  the  frost  has  come.  If  we  had  flax  manufactories, 
we  could  make  our  own  bags,  our  own  linen  cloth,  our  own  ropes,  and 
whatever  could  be  made  from  this  flax  fabric.  That  is  my  idea  of  manu- 
facturing. It  is  my  idea  of  the  tariff*,  and  it  is  my  idea  of  the  province 
of  this  Commission,  to  give  us  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  the  youngest  of  the 
States,  comparatively,  on  the  frontier,  although  boasting  of  rich  soil,  and 
favorable  climate,  and  industrious  people,  some  of  the  benefits  that 
grow  out  of  this  tariff*. 

Judge  C.  C.  Cole  has  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
colony  called  Amana  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State,  where  they  make 
their  own  flax.  I have  used  the  towels  they  make;  the  flax  is  grown 
there,  rotted  there,  and  manufactured  on  their  own  soil.  I call  that 
true  independence.  And  I want  to  say  in  regard  to  Cedar  Eapids  that 
they  have  considerable  encouragement  there.  Tney  have  used  their 
fiber  there  in  connection  with  paper  making  to  some  extent.  I would 
be  very  glad  to  accompany  this  Commission  upon  a visit  to  the  Amana 
community,  where  they  could  see  one  of  the  most  prosperous  communi- 
ties in  this  State — a community  that  lives  on  the  tariff  principle  strictly. 
The  consumer  and  producer  are  neighbors.  The  boys  and  girls  work  in 
the  winter  as  well  as  in  the  summer. 

One  more  fact  in  connection  with  this.  It  has  come  to  pass  that  the 


1134 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  GBINNELL. 


methods  of  farming  have  entirely  changed  in  this  State.  When  I came 
here  20  years  ago,  it  was  the  bnsiuess  of  six  men  to  bind  after  a reaper 
that  threw  the  grain  down,  and  that  wras  hard  work.  Then  another 
man  set  up  the  grain.  What  has  come  to  pass  now  ? The  header  takes 
off  the  top  of  the  grain,  as  you  may  have  seen  it  in  Manitoba.  The 
header  is  about  to  do  away  with  all  this  labor  of  men  bending  over  and 
making  a band  of  the  straw  to  bind  the  grain.  It  is  done  now  by  the 
self-binder,  and  by  the  use  of  these  self-binders  one  man  who  drives  the 
machine  can  cut  15  acres  a day.  At  first,  with  these  self-biuders,  they 
utilized  wire.  But  that  was  found  to  be  destructive  to  cattle  when  they 
came  to  consume  the  straw,  and  it  was  also  injurious  to  the  thrashing 
machines ; so  they  now  use  twine.  Where  does  that  twine  come  from 
and  what  is  its  cost?  That  twine  will  cost  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Iowa  next  year  not  less  than  one  million  dollars  for  binding  wheat  and 
oats.  It  must  come  from  Connecticut  or  New  Jersey,  and  it  costs  25 
cents  an  acre  for  that  twine  used  in  binding.  If  you  will  recommend 
that  jute  butts  and,  perhaps,  fiber  should  be  subject  to  a higher  duty, 
and  a little  more  duty  upon  oil,  we  shall  be  able  to  establish  manufact- 
ures for  linen,  for  ropes,  and  for  different  articles  necessary  for  our  farm- 
ers in  tying  up  their  grain,  and  you  will  have  caused  them  to  expend 
among  themselves  one  million  dollars  which  now  goes  to  other  States 
to  make  rope  or  to  make  twine  necessary  to  bind  their  grain.  You  will 
have  caused  the  flax  to  be  saved  and  not  to  be  burned.  I present  that 
as  a new  feature  of  economy.  I present  it  as  a political  economist,  as  a 
social  economist,  as  that  which  we  shall  demand  of  our  representatives. 
I know,  and  I think  I can  confidently  say,  that  any  rejmrt  of  this  Com- 
mission, or  any  other,  to  receive  their  sanction,  must  be  an  encourage- 
ment to  the  flax  growers  that  are  found  over  nearly  one-half  of  this 
State,  to  the  end  that  w’e  may  make  our  own  bags  for  grain,  our  own 
ropes,  and  our  own  twine,  and  that  the  home  industry  may  be  used  in 
these  wastes,  where  now  the  prairie  produce  is  swept  away  by  the  prairie 
fires. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Is  flax  now  raised  here  only  for  the  seed  ? — Answer.  Only 
for  the  seed,  with  rare  exceptions. 

Q.  You  mention  that  Amana  community.  I suppose  they  have  cheap 
labor. — A.  Yes,  sir ; the  women  and  everybody  work. 

Q.  Can  you  approximate  the  quantity  that  is  raised  in  the  State  of 
Iowa? — A.  It  is  not  far  from  15,000,000  bushels.  I will  give  the  exact 
figures  and  the  number  of  acres  hereafter. 

Q.  And  after  using  the  seed  the  remainder  is  burned  or  destroyed? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  you  had  cheaper  labor  you  could  utilize  it  now,  could  you  not? — 
A.  Oh,  yes;  but  we  cannot  compete  with  the  labor  abroad. 

Q.  How  much  more  would  you  want  the  present  duty  increased  to  be 
able  to  make  a home  market  ? — A.  I want  $30  a ton  on  jute  butts,  which 
I call  a fraud ; I want  30  per  cent,  more  on  flaxseed. 

Q.  Where  would  you  have  to  seek  a market  for  this  article  ? — A. 
Among  our  own  people ; 1,700,000  people  would  use  this  rope  and  twine. 
It  is  in  every  store,  on  every  farm.  Every  farmer  lias  to  have  bags, 
and  we  would  go  to  making  ticking  and  the  coarser  cloths. 

Mr.  C.  C.  Cole.  Senator  Allison  suggested  that  they  could  not  have 
time  to  rot  it.  He  spoke  of  the  fact  that  the  acreage  of  the  State  is 
about  equal  to  that  of  wheat  and  its  yield  is  about  the  same.  It  is  a 
more  certain  crop;  it  is  more  cheaply  harvested,  and  as  cheaply 


J.  B.  GRINNELL.] 


FLAX,  WOOL,  ETC. 


# 


1135 


marketed,  or  more  so.  The  fiber  is  good,  and  with  labor  they  would 
take  it  and  break  it  up  without  rotting  it ; and  Senator  Allison  remarked 
that  it  had  been  sent  to  some  manufacturer  in  Illinois  and  made  into 
very  coarse  burlaps,  used  for  wrapping  the  coarser  woolen  goods,  and 
it  might  be  that  more  protection,  or  some  further  invention  in  respect 
to  it,  might  convert  it  into  a much  more  desirable  and  valuable  material. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  The  rotting  process  requires  plenty  of  water? 

Mr.  Cole.  And  time. 

Mr.  Grinnell.  I should  have  stated  that  our  climate  is  such  that  flax 
will  rot  from  the  time  it  ripens  until  winter.  It  will  rot  sufficiently  in 
an  ordinary  season  so  that  it  can  be  hatcheled  and  utilized. 

After  the  statement  of  Mr.  L.  W.  Goode,  Hon.  J.  B.  Grinnell 
further  stated  as  follows  : 

I made  my  statement  in  a general  way,  but  I think  with  authority. 
My  friend  Goode  may  be  entirely  correct  in  what  he  says  about  two 
members  of  Congress  having  been  called  upon  to  make  free-trade  speeches, 
as  he  understands.  But  I will  offer  as  a premium  to  purchase  a suit  of 
clothes  for  every  person  in  the  room  who  will  produce  a free-trade 
speech  made  by  either  of  the  members  named. 

Mr.  Goode.  There  is  a free-trade  speech  from  Mr.  Far  well  in  the 
Marengo  Messenger. 

Mr.  Grinnell.  Have  you  the  speech  here  ? 

Mr.  Goode.  I have  not ; but  it  was  a speech  that  our  Free  Trade 
League  would  call  free  trade. 

Mr.  Grinnell.  I find  the  term  “free  trade”  applies  to  many  varie- 
ties. I know  that  Mr.  Farwell  was  a Whig,  and  I have  heard  him  ex- 
press as  strong  tariff' sentiments  as  I have  ever  heard  by  anybody  in  my 
acquaintance  with  public  men.  I will  state  in  that  connection,  that 
there  was  a very  prominent  free-trade  organ  in  his  district,  to  wit,  the 
Davenport  Gazette,  edited  by  a man  of  marked  ability,  a resident  of 
this  State  nearly  thirty  years,  English  born.  But  the  paper  could  not 
survive  under  its  free-trade  principles,  and  Mr.  Russell  has  retired,  and 
the  leading  paper  in  that  district  now  is  an  outspoken  tariff'  commission 
paper.  It  advocates  the  tariff'  commission  and  at  the  same  time  the  tariff ; 
and  I am  not  in  the  habit  of  making  the  acquaintance  of  members  of  Con- 
gress who  go  against  the  leading  daily  paper  in  their  district.  The  only 
prominent  free-trade  paper  in  the  State  of  Iowa  that  I ever  was  ac- 
quainted with  has  changed  to  a tariff  paper  within  the  last  four  to  six 
weeks.  But  in  regard  to  Mr.  McCoid’s  district,  I simply  wish  to  state 
that  the  daily  press  (The  Hawkeye  and  the  Gate  City)  are  both  tariff' 
papers. 

The  other  matter  I wish  to  allude  to  is  in  regard  to  paper.  Flax 
fiber  enters  quite  largely  now  into  the  manufacture  of  the  finer  kinds 
of  paper.  I talked  with  a gentleman  who  had  been  before  you,  Mr. 
Wellington  Smith,  I think  his  name  is,  and  he  said  he  wished  to  see 
this  industry  stimulated,  because  they  could  use  the  flax  fiber  in  their 
better  kinds  of  paper;  that  it  gave  a better  finish.  And  that  is  another 
reason  why  we  wish  to  see  the  flax  industry  encouraged  here. 

Another  fact  is  that  we  are  competing  with  the  world  under  this  tariff. 
The  facts  show  that  we  export  paper  in  competition  with  Great  Britain 
to  South  America,  Australia,  and  other  countries.  And  it  is  no  small 
amount.  The  reason  why  the  gentleman  here  did  not  buy  his  paper  in 
Canada  was  because  it  was  an  inferior  article.  He  could  not  bring  it 
here  unless  he  wished  to  expose  an  inferior  article.  I give  these  facts 
only  in  justification  of  what  I said,  that  a judicious  tariff  always  pays, 


1136 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  B.  GEIXNELL. 


as  it  lias  done  in  regard  to  railroad  iron,  printing  machinery,  spades  and 
shovels,  and  agricultural  machinery  ; else  we  could  not  compete  with 
the  old  world  with  its  cheaper  labor,  lower  money,  and  organized  capi- 
tal. 1 believe  that  is  demonstrated.  I remember  one  bill  that  I paid 
for  my  paper  six  or  seven  years  ago  of  9 cents  a pound,  and  another  at  9J. 
I am  told  that  it  can  be  bought  now  for  5g  or  6.  I mention  this  fact, 
occurring  under  my  own  observation,  to  show  that  as  a reader  of  news- 
papers— I am  supposed  to  have  thirty  or  forty  coming  to  my  house,  so 
my  wife  says — I do  not  wish  any  change  in  the  tariff  on  print-paper.  It 
is  low  enough,  and  if  you  will  keep  it  where  it  is  we  will  make  paper 
here  in  Des  Moines,  using  our  water-power,  and  we  can  compete  with 
the  world  and  get  good  prices,  and  remunerate  labor. 

On  September  16  Mr.  Grinnell  added  the  following  further  state- 
ment: 

I beg  leave  to  make  a statement  in  regard  to  the  sheep  interest  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Gue.  I can  say  that  I have  been  a great  sheep  man 
in  the  matter  of  bringing  them  in,  although  I am  not  one  who  has  made 
the  money.  I have  brought  more  sheep  into  the  State  of  Iowa  than  any 
five  men.  The  occasion  of  the  decline  of  the  sheep  industry  may  be 
stated  thus:  The  war  stimulated  wool-growing  immensely  in  this  State. 
I sold  my  wool  several  years  at  75  cents  to  $1.05  a pound.  I was  in  the 
habit  of  sending  it  to  David  Dows,  an  eminent  commission  merchant  in 
New  York,  and  he  sent  me  a draft  for  $10,000  for  my  wool  for  a single 
season.  At  the  close  of  the  war  everybody  was  anxious  to  have  a con- 
tract, and  clothing  and  everything  of  the  kind  accumulated  greatly. 
Sheep  then  began  to  decline  in  price,  and  wool  also.  At  that  juncture 
there  was  a remarkable  revival  in  the  stock  business.  A great  many 
of  our  sheep  became  diseased  by  being  brought  together  in  large  quan- 
tities, and  also  on  account  of  the  introduction  of  disease  from  Ohio. 
Michigan,  and  other  States.  The  people  who  had  my  sheep  out  on 
shares — I had  at  that  time  six  or  seven  thousand — said  to  me,  “You 
won’t  compel  us  to  keep  these  sheep  now,  when  we  can  get  $6  for  pork 
and  cattle"?”  I said  if  they  desired  to  do  so  to  bring  them  back,  and 
they  brought  them  back,  and  they  changed  their  occupation  to  the 
raising  of  cattle  and  pork,  and  I transferred  those  sheep  to  Colorado. 
The  last  thousand  I had  1 sent  to  Colorado,  and  I saw  their  descendants 
last  winter  there  in  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  and  California.  The  dogs, 
low  prices  of  wool,  and  the  cessation  of  the  war,  together  with  the  fact 
that  another  industry  promised  larger  returns,  were  the  causes  of  the 
decline  in  the  wool  business. 

In  that  connection  I will  state  that,  of  my  own  knowledge  of  the  facts, 
there  never  was  in  the  history  of  this  country  so  much  wool  produced 
as  there  is  to-day,  and  never  of  so  good  quality,  according  to  the  testi- 
mony of  every  one,  so  far  as  I know.  Also  that  the  cloth,  such  as  I 
and  most  men  wear,  was  never  so  cheap  by  10  to  20  per  cent,  as  it  is  on 
this  16th  of  September,  1882.  I give  that  as  the  testimony  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  woolen  goods.  1 believe  it  is  a fact,  from  my  own  purchases 
and  from  my  observation  of  sales.  I will  give  an  illustration:  At  the 
tariff  meeting  held  in  the  city  of  New  York  some  of  the  gentlemen  ex- 
patiated on  the  high  price  of  clothing.  There  arose  in  the  convention 
a Pennsylvania  gentleman,  and  said:  UI  am  here  as  a standing  illus- 
tration that  the  statements  made  by  the  gentleman  are  not  true.  I am 
not  good  looking,  but  I am  well  dressed.  I have  on  a suit  of  clothes 
that  1 have  worn  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  America  for  the  last  nine 


J.  B.  GKINNELL.]  FLAX,  WOOL,  ETC.  1137 

mouths,  and  that  suit  only  cost  me  $15,  aud  it  is  good  for  several 
mouths  yet.” 

(A  Bystander.  Where  did  he  buy  them?) 

Mr.  Grinnell.  In  the  city  of  New  York.  And  I will  say  that  I saw 
in  Chicago  a better  suit  of  clothes  than  I am  in  the  habit  of  wearing, 
for  the  same  price.  I do  not  mean  to  say  they  were  made  by  a mer- 
chant tailor.  A man  in  my  employ  said  he  had  a suit  of  clothes  that  he 
bought  for  $13,  and  he  looked  well  enough  to  go  to  a wedding. 

I will  say  that  the  protective  tariff,  in  my  judgment,  has  stimulated 
the  wool  industry  in  this  country  in  competition  with  that  of  South 
America,  Australia,  and  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  so  that  we  have  more 
sheep  than  ever,  and  more  wool  and  of  better  quality ; and  we  have 
cheaper  clothing  and  wear  better  clothes  than  we  have  ever  done  in 
this  country  for  thirty  years. 

H.  Mis.  (J 72 


1138 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H,  A.  KOBLE. 


H.  A.  NOBLE. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  15,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  H.  A.  Noble,  representing  the 
Baker  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  was  read  and 
ordered  to  be  printed : 

To  the  honorable  Tariff  Commission : 

Gentlemen:  As  far  as  the  manufacture  of  barbed  wire  in  this  State 
is  concerned,  I will  state  that  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the  State  of 
Iowa  consumes  more  barbed  wire  than  any  other  State  in  the  Union, 
Illinois  alone,  perhaps,  excepted,  although  many  doubt  that  the  latter 
State  is  the  largest  consumer. 

There  are  manufactured  in  this  State,  according  to  the  best  informa- 
tion we  can  get,  about  10,000  tons  of  barbed  wire  per  annum,  besides  a 
large  amount  through  the  State  on  hand  machines,  which,  o;i  account  of 
operating  without  license  from  the  parties  claiming  to  own  the  various 
patents,  both  on  machines  to  manufacture  the  wire  and  the  barbs  of 
various  devices  put  on  the  wire,  they  manufacture  with  as  little  pub- 
licity as  possible,  making  it  very  difficult  to  form  any  correct  estimate 
of  their  production.  We,  however,  think  we  are  safe  in  estimating 
that  not  less  than  12,000  tons  of  wire  are  barbed  in  this  State  per  year, 
and  more  than  that  consumed. 

The  wire  used  for  making  this  barbed  wire  is  all  steel  wire,  and  pro- 
cured from  wire-drawing  mills  that  are  located,  with  the  exception  of 
Saint  Louis,  Cleveland,  and  Chicago,  in  the  Eastern  States  and  Penn- 
sylvania, and  are  drawing  the  wire  mostly  from  German  rods.  These 
foreign  rods  are  classed  under  the  ruling  of  the  Treasury  Department  at 
a rate  of  duty  that  is  generally  satisfactory. 

We  understand  that  the  steel  manufacturers  and  wire  mills  ask  that 
the  ruling  of  the  Treasury  Department  be  overruled  by  Congress,  so 
that  the  duty  on  foreign  rods  will  be  greatly  advanced.  AYe  think  that 
such  an  advance  would  be  against  the  interest  of  the  W estern  agri- 
cultural States,  who  are  the  principal  consumers  of  barbed  wire,  as  an 
advance  of,  say,  one  cent  per  pound  only  on  12,000  tons  of  barbed  wire 
consumed  in  Iowa  alone,  would  be  $240,000,  which  would  be  a tax  on 
the  consumers  mostly,  which,  in  our  judgment,  would  be  unnecessary  to 
give  good  protection  to  the  steel  interests  of  this  country. 

In  the  matter  of  wages  paid  to  employes  in  the  barbed- wire  factories 
in  this  State,  from  our  own  experience  and  careful  inquiry  of  other 
manufacturers,  we  should  say  that  the  average  wages  per  day  for  each 
laborer  was  $1.75. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  15,  1882. 


H.  A.  Noble, 


L.  W.  GOODB.J 


PAPER. 


1139 


L.  W.  GOODE. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  (September  15,  1882. 

L.  W.  Goode,  editor  of  the  Iowa  State  Leader,  stated  as  follows: 

I was  appointed  on  one  of  the  committees  by  the  board  of  trade  of 
this  city  to  appear  before  this  Commission,  and  the  suggestion  was 
made  that  I should  speak  more  particularly  as  regards  print-paper,  aud 
generally  upon  the  subject  of  paper.  I have  spent  some  little  time 
going  over  the  city  in  company  with  Mr.  W.  E.  Andrews,  of  the  West- 
ern Newspaper  Union,  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  subject. 

We  discovered  that  we  have  the  third  largest  house  in  the  United 
States  dealing  in  wall-paper.  They  are  handling  over  a million  and  a 
quarter  pounds  of  wall-paper  annually.  I have  not  the  figures  exactly 
at  command  as  to  the  rate  of  duty  on  that,  but  my  impression  is  that  it 
is  perhaps  from  30  to  35  per  cent.  The  annual  value  handled  by  that 
house  is  about  $170,000,  I am  told. 

In  print-paper  the  amount  handled  here  is  somewhere  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  100,100  pounds  per  month,  and  that  is  a low  estimate.  It 
will  run  over  that,  to  160,000  pounds  sometimes.  The  duty  on  that  is 
20  per  cent. 

Now,  so  far  as  I am  concerned,  1 have  no  personal  grievance  in  regard 
to  the  tariff,  because  I pay  it  to  the  manufacturer  and  charge  it  to  the 
man  to  whom  I sell  the  paper.  The  only  thing  I could  urge  here  would 
be,  if  the  tariff  was  taken  oft*,  I could  furnish  the  paper  that  much  more 
cheaply. 

The  scope  of  the  print-paper  of  course  is  a limited  one,  and  I do  not 
care  to  dilate  upon  it  at  any  length. 

The  Western  Newspaper  Union,  which  furnishes  patent  insides  for  small 
papers  all  over  the  Western  country,  have  their  main  office  here,  and  a 
branch  office  in  Kansas,  another  at  Saint  Paul,  and  another  at  Detroit, 
and  perhaps  two  or  three  other  offices.  This  matter  affects  them  even 
more  than  it  does  us,  or  fully  as  much,  because  papers  that  they  sup- 
ply with  their  insides  are  usually  small  concerns,  and  are  scattered  over 
a wider  range  of  country  perhaps  even  than  the  Leader  goes  over.  I had 
hoped  that  Mr.  Andrews  would  be  here.  I gave  him  rather  the  statis- 
tical department,  and  I expected  to  supplement  Mr.  Philpott’s  state- 
ment. 

If  the  Commission  have  no  objection,  I would  like  to  add  a few  facts 
to  those  given  by  Mr.  Philpott. 

Iowa  prices  have  been  compared  with  New  York  prices  here  this  af- 
ternoon. I think  it  will  strike  every  member  of  the  Commission  that  it 
is  eminently  fair  to  use  the  New  York  prices,  for  this  reason.  The  Iowa 
prices,  as  has  been  suggested  by  one  gentleman,  have  been  liable  to 
fluctuations  on  account  of  freight.  When  Mr.  Grinnell  was  on  the 
stand,  he  remarked  that  prices  were  very  much  higher  a few  years  ago 
than  now,  for  the  reason  that  there  were  then  no  railroads.  This  State 
stands  to-day  about  number  six  in  the  United  States  with  railroads,  and 
we  can  get  freights  from  New  York  very  low.  The  price  of  our  corn,  oats, 
cattle,  and  pork  is  all  regulated  by  the  Liverpool  prices ; at  least,  that  is 
the  position  taken  by  the  free-trader,  and  I think  business  men  gen- 
erally admit  that.  If  that  be  so,  the  only  price  that  can  be  taken  as  a 
criterion  is  the  New  York  price.  That  price  is  not  liable  to  fluctuation 


1140 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[L.  VV.  GOODE. 


like  ours,  because  if  the  Liverpool  price  governs  the  Iowa  price,  then  the 
Iowa  price  is  always  the  Liverpool  price  less  cost  of  freight  from  here  to 
Liverpool. 

Mr.  Grinnell  also  made  a general  sweeping  statement  here,  that  there 
were  very  few  farmers  in  this  State  interested  in  free  trade.  Of  course 
that  is  a glittering  generality.  I don’t  know  that  I could  attack  it 
specifically.  I could,  however,  demonstrate  in  a very  short  time  to  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  that  we  have  any  quantity  of  free-trade  farmers 
all  over  the  State.  I think  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Commission  to  the  fact  that  four  of  our  Iowa  members  of  Congress 
voted  against  the  creation  of  this  Commission  to  demonstrate  it ; also 
that  Mr.  McCoid,  who  was  nominated  a short  time  ago,  explained  his 
vote  on  this  Commission  and  made  a iree-trade  speech.  Mr.  Farwell 
also  made  a free-trade  speech.  Politicians  are  pretty  good  indices  of 
the  state  of  public  feeling,  and  when  you  find  them  beginning  to  trim 
their  sails  upon  any  subject,  you  may  know  that  they  have  at  least  a 
respectable  amount  of  public  sentiment  to  back  them. 

I had  intended  to  attach  to  my  remarks  a few  letters  from  some  of 
our  prominent  farmers,  to  give  the  Commission  some  idea  in  regard  to 
the  character  of  free-trade  agitation,  but  I don’t  know  thar  I care  to  go 
into  that  now  at  any  lengh.  As  one  of  the  officers  of  the  league,  I have 
had  to  a certain  extent  a good  deal  to  do  with  detail  work,  and  have 
been  with  Mr.  Philpott  a great  deal,  and  am  ready  to  answer  any  ques- 
tions in  regard  to  our  work  through  the  State  and  the  West. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  You  are  speaking  of  paper  particularly,  being  interested 
in  that  subject;  you  have  stated  that  the  duty  does  not  make  very  much 
difference  to  you;  that  you  simply  add  the  duty  to  the  price  of  the  paper 
and  charge  it  over  to  the  consumer.  If  this  20  per  cent,  was  taken  off, 
the  consumer  would  get  it  that  much  more  cheaply? — Answer.  A large 
per  cent,  of  it. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  what  is  the  price  of  your  print-paper  in  any  cen- 
ter of  the  West — the  average  price  for  the  last  six  months  in  Chicago, 
for  instance  ? — A.  The  average  price  is  lower  than  it  has  been  for  two 
years.  It  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  85,75  to  86. 

Q.  It  has  been  stated  to  us  on  excellent  authority  that  it  is  just  ex- 
actly the  same  price  in  England  and  in  America.  If  the  price  of  print- 
paper  is  the  same,  I would  like  to  understand  how  taking  off  the  duty 
of  20  per  cent,  would  help  either  you  or  your  customer. — A.  It  might 
not  just  at  the  present  time ; it  is  certainly  of  no  benefit.  I will  state  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Commission  that  Mr.  Andrews  informed  me  to-day — 
and  I expected  him  to  make  the  statement  himself — that  some  time  ago 
he  made  an  attempt  to  get  his  paper  in  Canada,  and  that  he  found  that  he 
could  lay  his  paper  down  and  pay  the  duty  on  it  cheaper  than  he  could 
buy  it  in  the  United  States. 

By  Commissioner  Aalbler  : 

Q.  What  was  the  then  price  of  paper  here  ? — A.  My  impression  is, 
about  7 cents. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Was  that  paper  to  be  got  from  Canada  the  same  quality  to  be  ob- 
tained here? — A.  I understood  so. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  amount  of  paper  in  value  is  used  in  the  United 
States  in  the  course  of  the  year  ? — A.  I never  made  a computation, 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  it? — A.  No,  sir. 


h.  W.  nOODE-1 


PAPER. 


1141 


Q.  Do  you  think  it  runs  into  millions  ? — A.  I presume  it  is  a very 
large  amount. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  amount  is  imported  into  this  country? — A.  I 
understood  a small  sum.  I have  no  definite  figures  on  it. 

Q.  Do  you  think  taking  off  this  duty  of  20  per  cent,  would,  if  not  im- 
mediately, in  time,  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  subscriber  who  pays  from 
3 to  5 cents  a copy  ? — A.  1 think  possibly  he  might  not  get  the  benefit 
of  all  of  it. 

Q.  The  statistics  here  for  the  last  three  years  show  that  paper  used 
for  books  and  newspapers  in  1879  was  $660  worth;  that  in  1880  there 
was  $1,000  worth  ; and  1881,  $59,000  worth,  imported  into  the  United 
States.  When  you  come  to  distribute  that  among  consumers  of  paper 
(the  readers)  it  would  make  very  little  difference. — A.  It  probably  would 
not  if  the  tariff  is  still  retained  on  wood  pulp. 

Q.  Whether  it  is  or  not,  I suppose  you  will  admit  that  $60,000  distrib- 
uted among  the  fifty  millions  will  not  make  a very  large  difference  ? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  have  reiterated  the  remark  of  Mr.  Philpott,  given  here  to-day, 
in  regard  to  New  York  quotations  of  wheat.  Do  you  not  consider  it  very 
unfair,  when  the  rate  of  freight  20  years  ago  was  at  least  a dollar  per  hun- 
dred from  this  point  to  New  York,  to  give  to  us  a comparison  of  the  prices 
of  wheat  upon  that  basis  ? — A.  1 say  the  New  York  quotation  is  the  only 
quotation  you  can  make,  for  the  very  reason  you  give — that  the  varia- 
tion in  freight  makes  it  exceedingly  unfair  to  take  the  rates  in  any  one 
of  the  States,  especially  when  you  take  into  account  the  fact  that  one  of 
our  Western  States  settles  up  very  rapidly  when  the  railroads  begin  to 
come  into  it.  You  must  have  some  permanent  place  where  the  fluctu- 
ation is  not  perceptible.  That  place  naturally  is  New  York,  the  great 
shipping  port. 

Q.  And  you  give  it  to  us  as  an  argument  that  we  should  reduce  du- 
ties, because  in  1855,  for  instance,  wheat  was  worth  $1.50,  and  at  an- 
other period,  between  1870  and  1880,  it  was  worth  80  cents,  when  one- 
half  of  that  difference  is  made  up  on  account  of  the  excessive  freight 
rates.  With  only  one  railroad  at  that  time  the  freight  rate  must  have 
been  excessive,  and  the  farmer  at  that  time  did  not  get  half  the  price 
in  Iowa  or  Illinois  that  he  does  to-day  ? — A.  The  price  was  regulated  in 
Liverpool. 

Q.  The  question  is  what  the  Illinois  or  Iowa  man  got  for  his  wheat 
in  1855  and  1875,  without  any  reference  to  Liverpool.— A.  I contend 
that  it  is  unfair  to  take  the  prices  here  in  Iowa.  I think  the  only  price 
that  you  can  take  that  is  at  all  suitable  in  regard  to  the  exports  of  this 
country,  is  the  New  York  price.  You  might  say  in  that  connection  that 
the  ocean  freights  fluctuate  to  a certain  extent,  and  that  would  have  its 
effect  upon  the  Liverpool  price.  The  New  York  price  is  governed  by 
the  Liverpool  price. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Is  that  a statement  of  the  whole  truth?  I know  it  is  very  com- 
monly said,  but,  after  all,  is  it  true  that  Liverpool  regulates  the  prices  ? — 
A.  I think  it  is  substantially  true. 

Q.  Is  not  this  the  fact,  that  the  price  is  regulated  by  the  entire  sup- 
ply and  the  entire  demand,  and  that  Liverpool,  instead  of  making  the 
price,  is  merely  the  place  where  the  prices  are  made  ? — A.  That  is  so, 
and  when  I use  the  term  “Liverpool  fixing  the  price,”  I mean  that  the 
price  there  governs  the  price  in  New  York  and  Chicago. 


1142 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[l.  W.  GOODE. 


Q.  That  may  be  so,  but,  after  all,  does  not  the  supply  of  wheat  iu 
New  York  and  Chicago,  and  all  over  the  world,  make  the  price  at  Liver- 
pool ? — A.  It  is  regulated  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand. 

Q.  And  all  there  is  iu  this  idea  of  Liverpool  fixing  the  price  is  because 
that  is  the  greatest  market  ? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  So,  after  all,  Liverpool  makes  no  prices ; but,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand  makes  prices,  and  Liverpool  is  merely 
the  place  of  registration  ? — A.  Certainly.  Our  Iowa  shippers  scan  very 
carefully  the  Chicago  market  and  govern  their  action  accordingly. 

Q.  Then  it  is  because  it  does  regulate  the  entire  market  that  you  go 
there  ? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  hardly  fair  to  say  that  Liverpool  makes 
the  price  when  you  and  I agree  perfectly  that  it  is  the  aggregate  sup- 
ply and  demand  that  make  the  price  ? — A.  You  might  state  it  that  way. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  the  wheat,  for  instance,  in  this  country,  or, 
in  general  terms,  of  the  agricultural  products  of  this  country,  finds  a 
foreign  market  at  all  ? — A.  I believe  it  is  less  than  10  per  cent. ; I can- 
not tell  exactly,  offhand. 

Q.  In  England  they  do  not  buy  any  wheat  from  us  except  what  they 
need.  We  cannot  possibly  supply  any  more  wheat  to  Great  Britain 
than  her  shortage  amounts  to.  In  fact,  we  cannot  supply  that  much. 
If  that  was  our  only  market  and  we  had  our  present  production,  would 
it  be  worth  anything  here? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  would  be  worth  the  price 
that  our  dealers  could  afford  to  pay  and  ship  to  Liverpool. 

Q.  The  moment  you  had  filled  Liverpool  up,  how  much  would  they 
take  from  you?— A.  We  do  not  supply  them  with  their  shortage. 

Q.  But  suppose  you  have  supplied  their  shortage,  then  what  ? Of 
course  you  would  have  to  supply  the  shortage  in  competition  with  the 
Black  Sea. — A.  Mr.  Philpott  tells  me  that  we  export  about  40  per  cent, 
of  our  agricultural  products.  I have  not  the  figures. 

Q.  Suppose  it  is  40  per  cent.  Then  if  we  had  the  other  60  per  cent, 
demand  rubbed  out,  where  would  we  be? — A.  Just  as  I said  before;  it 
would  depend  altogether  upon  what  our  shippers  should  send  to  Liver- 
pool and  sell  it  for. 

Q.  But  if  they  do  not  want  it  there? — A.  We  have  got  that  market 
and  have  to  be  governed  by  it. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  if  the  60  per  cent,  was  put  upon  the  market,  the 
result  would  necessarily  be  a glut  and  a reduction  in  the  price  of 
wheat. — A.  It  would  have  the  effect  to  lower  the  prices. 

Q.  Yerv  materially? — A.  It  would  wipe  out  the  whole  market  en- 
tirely. 

Q.  The  price  here  in  Iowa  would  probably  come  down  one-half,  would 
it  not  ?— A.  I never  estimated  it. 

Q.  It  turns  out,  then,  that  the  home  demand,  as  well  as  the  foreign 
demand,  makes  the  price.  That  is  correct,  is  it  not  ? — A.  I assent  to 
it.  Of  course,  we  have  a demand  at  times  when  we  have  very  little 
wheat  to  export.  Very  naturally,  when  that  condition  of  affairs  arises 
the  price  of  wheat  goes  up.  Our  export  is  the  safety-valve  to  let  off  the 
surplus. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  In  such  a state  of  the  case,  I understand  you  that  the  whole  de- 
mand is  the  first  factor,  and  that  the  Liverpool  demand  is  the  second  ? — 
A.  It  is  always  the  first  in  any  country. 

Q.  What  did  I understand  you  to  say  about  wood  pulp  ? — A.  I re- 
ferred to  it  but  once,  referring  to  the  importation  of  paper  having  any 


r,.  W.  coodj!.! 


PAPER. 


1143 

appreciable  effect.  I mentioned  the  fact  that  there  was  a duty  on  wood 
pulp,  and  if  that  was  not  abolished  it  would,  of  course,  have  its  effect 
upon  the  price  of  print  paper. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  wood  pulp  there  has  been  imported?— A. 
No,  sir;  I have  never  gone  into  the  statistics  at  all. 

Q.  But  you  still  think  it  has  an  effect  upon  the  price  of  paper?— A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  the  amount  of  print  paper  used  ? — A.  I cannot 
give  it. 

Q.  Statistics  show  that  there  was  $152.80  paid  in  1879  on  pulp ; 
$1,001.50  in  1880,  and  $3,017.40  in  1881. — A.  I will  state  that  my  idea 
of  the  effect  of  the  tariff  is  not  governed  at  all  by  the  importations.  The 
fact  that  there  is  a tariff*  must  affect  the  prices.  For  example,  two 
years  ago  our  mills  had  on  hand  about  250,000  tons  of  paper.  Paper 
was  very  low.  An  order  was  issued  commanding  the  mills  to  run  on 
reduced  time,  and  some,  perhaps,  quit  altogether  until  their  supply  was 
reduced.  The  price  was  then  run  up  until  papers  in  this  Western 
country  were  forced  to  pay  9 cents  a pound  in  Chicago.  1 contend  that 
that  condition  of  affairs  could  not  happen  under  free  trade,  because  the 
moment  the  attempt  was  made  to  increase  the  price  by  an  effort  of  that 
kind  an  opportunity  would  be  given  for  bringing  in  foreigu  goods. 

Q.  You  say  it  does  not  affect  the  increase  ; does  it  affect  the  decrease 
of  prices  ? — A.  It  did  affect  the  increase  of  prices  in  that  case. 

Q.  On  a basis  of  20  per  cent,  duty  it  could  not  afford  to  be  imported, 
as  I understand  you,  between  the  prices  of  5 cents  and  9 cents  a 
pound? — A.  I don’t  know  that  it  was  5.  I mean  5.75  and  6. 

Q.  Twenty  per  cent,  of  0 does  not  bring  it  to  9.  So  1 do  not  see  how 
that  would  affect  the  tariff*;  do  you?  Mathematically  20  per  cent,  on  6 
cents  does  not  bring  it  up  to  9. — A.  Certainly  not. 


1144 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  S.  ANDERSON. 


J.  S.  ANDEESON. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  16,  1882. 

Mr.  J.  S.  Anderson,  pork  packer,  of  Des  Moines,  addressed  the  Com- 
mission as  follows : 

I want  to  give  you  some  facts : The  total  number  of  bogs  packed 
in  Iowa  is  approximated  at  about  1,000,000  bead.  Tbe  amount  of  salt 
used  is  about  16  pounds  per  bead,  making  16,000,000  pounds,  of  wbicb 
about  one-tbird  is  foreign  salt,  making  about  5,500,000  pounds  of  foreign 
salt  used  at  an  average  cost  of  70  cents  per  hundred,  or  at  a cost  of 
$38,500.  Domestic  salt  used,  10,500,000  pounds,  at  a cost  of,  say,  37J 
cents  per  hundred,  making  $39,375. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  You  use  tbe  foreign  salt;  that,  of  course,  answers  tbe  pur- 
pose?— Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I might  say  that  those  who  pack  in  this 
country  for  tbe  foreign  market  use  foreign  salt,  and  those  who  pack  for 
tbe  domestic  market  use  tbe  domestic  salt. 

Q.  Those  packing  for  foreign  market  have  a drawback,  I suppose?— 
A.  I could  not  say.  We  pack  particularly  for  tbe  domestic  trade  and 
sue  domestic  salt.  These  are  tbe  approximate  figures  of  tbe  product. 


G.  W.  AV.  WERUM.  1 


FLAX. 


1145 


G.  W.  W.  WEKUM. 

I)es  Moines,  Iowa,  September  10,  1882. 

Mr.  G.  W.  W.  Werum,  of  Des  Moines,  addressed  the  Commission  as 
follows: 

I will  say  on  behalf  of  the  linseed-oil  business  that  I think  you  will 
find  all  those  engaged  in  its  manufacture  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mount- 
ains are  in  favor  of  leaving  the  duty  as  it  is  ; they  do  not  wish  it  in- 
creased or  lowered.  East  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  I think  they  are 
in  favor  of  putting  linseed  oil  upon  the  free  list,  for  the  reason  that  they 
work  largely  upon  foreign  seed,  and,  of  course,  their  interest  is  to  have 
linseed  oil  upon  the  free  list ; whereas  west  of  the  mountains,  where 
we  work  American  seed,  we  are  in  favor  of  the  duty,  and  are  perfectly 
well  satisfied  with  the  duty  as  it  is.  The  business  has  so  adjusted  itself 
to  the  present  duty  that  it  gives  perfect  satisfaction. 

I came  to  this  country  and  here  engaged  in  the  flax-fiber  business, 
building  a mill  in  this  city.  I was  sent  here  by  a syndicate  of  flax-fiber 
men  in  Ohio,  with  a view  to  test  the  quality  of  the  fiber  of  this  section 
of  the  country,  in  contem plation  of  building  spinning-mills  in  Des 
Moines.  1 came  here  and  built  a mill,  and  found  that  the  fiber  was  as 
good  as  we  had  in  the  country  ; the  quality  was  perfectly  satisfactory. 
We  ran  the  mill  the  first  year  at  a profit.  At  that  time  there  was  a duty 
on  foreign  fiber.  Before  I went  into  the  second  year’s  business  the  ar- 
ticle of  jute  was  discovered  and  commenced  to  be  imported,  and  the 
owners  of  all  the  spinning-mills  of  this  country,  finding  that  they  could 
get  jute  butts  cheaper  than  they  could  get  flax  fiber,  became  free-traders, 
whereas  before  that  they  were  protective  men.  They  began  to  want 
free  jute.  The  consequence  was  that  there  was  an  influence  brought  to 
bear  upon  Congress  that  put  flax  and  jute  butts  upon  the  free  list,  and 
that  shut  us  all  up.  We  now  have  two  sets  of  machinery  that  have 
been  lying  idle  for  years.  I am  not  now  interested  in  the  fiber  business, 
except  indirectly.  I should  be  perfectly  satisfied  if  there  was  a duty 
upon  foreign  fiber  about  equal  to  the  duty  upon  other  gcods.  It  would 
be  one  of  the  largest  businesses  in  the  United  States,  and  would  employ 
as  many  people  as  any  business  in  the  country. 

I have  experimented  with  jute  to  some  extent  myself,  and  have  satis- 
fied myself  that  it  cannot  be  raised  in  this  climate ; it  is  too  cold.  But 
I am  fully  satisfied,  from  my  experiments,  that  it  can  be  raised  in  the 
South,  and  I believe  B would  be  found  to  be  as  profitable  as  any  crop 
which  they  raise ; and  if  it  had  a duty  put  upon  it  about  equal  to  that  of 
other  goods,  it  would  also  help  the  flax-fiber  business  North. 

I have  no  suggestions;  but  I think  if  you  will  examine  you  will  find 
the  manufactures  of  jute  fiber  are  almost  at  the  head  of  our  list  of  im- 
portations, and  yet  there  is  no  country  in  the  world  that  can  produce  it 
better  than  this,  but  it  cannot  be  produced  here  if  it  has  to  carry  the 
weight  of  this  duty  upon  its  shoulders.  I am  satisfied  in  my  own  mind 
that  if  there  was  a duty  levied  upon  all  imported  articles  you  would 
find  that  the  fiber  business,  both  jute  and  flax,  would  become  one  of 
the  largest  in  the  country ; but  it  must  have  a protection  that  would 
put  it  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  others.  The  idea  of  $6  a ton  upon 
imported  jute  amounts  to  nothing.  I found  that  flax-seed  had  a pro- 


1146 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


TO.  W.  W.  WERTTM. 


tection  and  the  flax-seed  business  was  getting  larger  and  larger  every 
year.  The  consequence  is  that  the  same  mill  we  had  for  fiber  we 
turned  into  a linseed-oil  factory,  and  are  working  it  for  that  to-day.  I 
have  given  the  matter  a good  deal  of  study,  and  I speak  more  for  the 
parties  who  want  to  engage  in  the  business  than  for  myself.  I know 
the  position  they  are  in.  Of  course  they  are  weak  financially.  But, 
still,  I think  if  this  protective  tariff  is  levied  upon  imported  articles, 
upon  patriotic  principles,  if  that  is  done  for  the  benefit  of  the  American 
people,  it  ought  to  be  upon  this,  which,  I think,  is  a business  that  is  en- 
titled to  protection  just  as  much  as  any  other  business.  According  to 
the  old  saying,  man  is  selfish,  and  those  who  have  come  before  you 
have  their  own  stories  to  tell  according  to  their  individual  interests ; 
and  you  probably  feel  a good  deal  like  the  man  who  went  to  the  Cen- 
tennial, who  said  afterward  that  the  thing  was  all  in  a mist  so  that  he 
could  hardly  tell  what  he  did  see  and  hear.  You,  however,  want  facts 
and  figures,  and  those  are  the  only  things  you  can  refer  to,  so  that  a 
speech  like  I am  making  will  do  you  little  good. 

There  is  no  better  country  in  the  world  for  the  production  of  flax 
fiber  than  Iowa.  It  is  particularly  adapted  to  it.  And  I will  say 
further,  that  if  there  is  ever  a manufacturing  interest  built  up  in  the 
Western  country,  they  must  get  their  raw  material  from  the  surface  of 
the  soil.  We  have  no  coal  of  any  consequence.  There  is  nothing  that 
will  supply  the  raw  material  so  well  as  flax  fiber.  The  same  way  in  the 
South,  though  they  have  cotton  there.  But  I will  say  here  that  the 
great  bulk  of  coarse  fiber  used  for  making  bags  for  cotton  is  made  from 
this  foreign  jute,  and  they  could  raise  the  jute  and  manufacture  it  in 
the  South.  They  are  one  of  the  largest  consumers  of  jute.  There  is  no 
business  that  would  benefit  the  South  more  than  the  jute  business,  and 
I think  protection  should  be  put  upon  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  South,  if 
not  for  the  benefit  of  the  flax  interest  in  the  North,  but  undoubtedly  it 
would  benefit  both  classes. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  Why  can  you  not  manufacture  these  different  articles 
now? — Answer.  Simply  for  the  reason  that  the  spinner  can  buy  the  jute 
butt  cheaper  than  he  can  make  flax  tow,  and  for  that  reason  alone.  If 
a man  is  manufacturing  tow,  and  has  to  j>ay  protective  tariff  prices  for 
labor,  it  will  shut  him  up  every  time. 

Q.  Then, the  reason  is  because  your  labor  is  too  high? — A.  The  labor 
is  too  high  for  the  price  we  get  for  the  goods.  There  is  no  question 
about  the  raw  material ; there  are  thousands  of  tons  coming  to  us  here, 
and  if  labor  were  as  low  as  it  is  abroad  we  could  do  one  of  the  best 
businesses  in  the  country. 

Q.  Then,  what  you  want  is  protection  to  just  the  amount  of  difference 
in  the  labor? — A.  Yes;  just  to  put  it  on  an  equal  footing;  that  is  all  it 
requires. 


W.  E.  ANDREWS.] 


PAPER. 


1147 


W.  E.  ANDREWS. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  16,  1882. 

Mr.  W.  E.  Andrews,  of  the  Western  Newspaper  Union,  addressed 
the  Commission  as  follows : 

I have  been  requested,  as  one  of  the  largest  consumers  of  print  paper 
in  the  West,  to  give  my  views  regarding  the  tariff  on  paper,  and  its 
effects.  I had  made  no  preparation  to  do  so  until  scarcely  an  hour 
since,  so  that  what  I have  to  say  will  necessarily  be  somewhat  crude 
and  brief.  The  Western  Newspaper  Union,  of  which  1 am  manager, 
uses  over  125,000  pounds  of  print  paper  each  month  at  its  different 
offices,  including,  besides  its  principal  office  here,  branch  offices  at 
Detroit,  Omaha,  and  Kansas  City.  We  supply  what  are  known  as 
ready-printed  or  auxiliary  sheets  to  over  five  hundred  imblishers  in  the 
West,  located  principally  in  Iowa,  Nebraska,  Kansas,  Missouri,  and 
Michigan.  1 will  say  simply  that  at  the  present  time  I do  not  consider 
the  tariff  on  paper  a burden,  either  to  our  company  or  our  customers, 
or  to  any  one,  for  the  reason  that  the  manufacturers  of  print  paper, 
those  of  the  West  as  well  as  of  the  East,  are  producing  a better  quality 
of  paper  for  the  same  money  than  the  Canadian  paper  makers.  Of  the 
quality  of  goods  and  the  condition  of  the  paper  market  in  countries 
more  remote  1 am  not  at  present  advised.  While  I admit  that  just  now 
the  tariff  on  paper  is  no  burden  to  the  consumer,  yet  I am  emphatically 
of  the  opiuion  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  a tariff  at  all,  and  that  its 
abolition  would  be  of  practical  benefit  to  the  consumers  of  paper.  A 
good  many  cogent  reasons  can  probably  be  given  why  the  tariff  should 
be  taken  off  from  paper  and  the  items  which  enter  prominently  into 
its  manufacture,  but  there  are  two  in  particular  that  occur  to  me  just 
now. 

First.  The  tariff  becomes  a disturbing  element  in  the  paper  trade,  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  it  enables  the  paper  makers  to  more  easily  manip- 
ulate the  market.  For  instance,  during  the  years  of  1879  and  1880  the 
price  of  paper  was  low.  In  the  summer  of  1880  we  were  able  to  buy 
No.  1 print  for  6 cents  per  pound.  The  supply  of  paper  in  the  country 
was  very  large.  The  paper  makers  met  in  convention  and  agreed  to 
run  on  half  time,  which  they  had  a right  to  do,  but  when  the  supply 
on  hand  had  been  reduced  nearly  two-thirds  they  made  the  next  move 
on  the  board,  which  was  to  put  up  its  price,  and  with  a vengeance. 
Paper  went  from  6 cents  to  9 cents  per  pound  almost  instantly,  and  was 
held  there  firmly  for  over  six  months,  until  the  return  of  summer  and 
decrease  of  demand,  together  with  overproduction,  broke  the  back  of 
the  combination,  and  paper  gradually  declined  until  it  is  now  back 
again  to  the  old  price,  ranging  from  5J  to  7 cents  per  pound.  Had  it  not 
been  for  the  fact  that  we  happened  to  have  time  contracts  at  a reason- 
able rate,  the  cost  of  the  paper  used  by  us  in  the  first  half  of  1881  would 
have  been  an  average  of  over  50  per  cent,  greater  than  for  the  corres- 
ponding period  of  1880.  And  we  would  then  have  been  compelled,  dur- 
ing that  time,  to  have  charged  our  ready -print  customers  an  aggregate 
excess  of  over  $25,000  for  the  six  months’  supply.  Now,  I submit  that 
but  for  the  tariff  the  paper  makers  would  not  be  able  to  force  the 
market  in  such  a way  and  to  such  an  extent  as  I have  described. 

Second.  The  non-necessity  and  inconsistency  of  the  tariff  is  shown  by 


1148  TARIFF  COMMISSION.  [w.  it.  ANDREWS. 

the  fact  that  our  papers  makers  are  at  this  time  shipping  paper  to 
Canada  and  other  foreign  countries,  and  actually  paying  entrance  duty 
on  some  of  their  shipments.  The  manufacture  of  print  paper  in  America 
has  now  reached  that  stage  when  it  is  able  to  stand  alone  and  requires 
no  protection  by  way  of  tariff.  Our  Congressman,  Mr.  Kasson,  admits 
that  the  duty  should  be  taken  off*  rags,  and  I understand  that  rags  for 
manufacture  of  paper  are  free.  Why  not  go  farther  and  take  it  from 
wood  pulp,  which  now  enters  very  largely  into  the  manufacture  of  print 
paper?  1 hope  and  believe  that  a thorough  examination  of  this  ques- 
tion will  result  in  a recommendation  by  this  committee  to  the  Congress 
that  paper,  as  well  as  rags  and  pulp,  be  added  to  the  free  list. 

I would  say  byway  of  excuse  for  saying  so  much  of  what  might  seem 
a personal  nature,  that  I intended  it  only  by  way  of  illustration. 

I had  considerable  correspondence  during  the  time  of  the  great  in- 
crease of  the  price  in  print  paper,  two  years  ago,  with  Canadian  paper 
makers,  and  learned  that  I could  obtain  i^aper  at  that  time,  delivered  in 
Des  Moines,  at  a rate  of  about  60  cents  a hundred,  I think  it  was.  That  . 
was  cheaper  than  I could  obtain  the  same  grade  of  paper  for  in  the 
market  here  at  that  time.  But  personally  I did  not  need  to  use  it  at 
that  time.  If  the  combination  had  continued  a sufficient  length  of  time 
1 should  x>robably  have  had  occasion  to  do  so. 


B.  F.  GUE.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


1149 


B.  F.  GUE. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  16,  1882. 

Hon.  B.  F.  Gue,  editor  of  the  Iowa  Homestead,  addressed  the  Com- 
mission as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : I have  been  requested  to 
present  to  you  some  facts  showing  the  bearing  our  tariff  laws  have  on 
Western  agriculture.  Having  been  educated  in  the  school  of  high  “ pro- 
tection,” as  taught  by  the  New  York  Tribune,  which  I have  read  for 
more  than  thirty  years,  and  trying  to  reconcile  its  teachings  with  West- 
ern farm  interests  during  the  twenty-two  years  that  I have  been  en- 
gaged in  farming  on  Iowa  soil,  I have  often  been  puzzled  to  know 
where,  when,  and  how  Western  farmers  are  benefited  by  a protective 
tariff.  I have  observed  that  in  the  Mississippi  Valley  during  the  thirty 
years  that  I have  lived  in  it,  the  production  of  wheat,  corn,  oats,  rye, 
barley,  hay,  flax-seed,  cattle,  hogs,  horses,  sheep,  beef,  and  wool,  is  the 
great  and  overshadowing  business  of  this  part  of  the  country.  I find 
in  our  own  State  by  referring  to  the  last  auditor’s  report  (page  75),  a 
table  showing  the  number  and  value  of  the  live  stock  of  Iowa  from 
1867  to  1881,  a period  of  fifteen  years.  From  this  I learn  that  in  1867 
we  had  686,109  head  of  cattle,  and  in  1881  we  had  1,962,992,  an  increase 
in  fifteen  years  of  1,276,883,  or  nearly  200  per  cent.,  while  the  value 
has  increased  in  the  same  period  more  than  $12,000,000,  or  150  per  cent. 

The  number  of  horses  in  1867  was  343,693,  which  was  increased  in 
1881  to  706,546,  a gain  in  numbers  of  more  than  100  per  cent.  The 
number  of  swine  in  1867  was  776,412,  which  in  1881  had  increased  to 
the  enormous  number  of  2,219,402,  or  about  200  per  cent. 

In  the  season  of  1880-’81  there  were  packed  in  Iowa  648,316  hogs,  for 
which  Iowa  farmers  received  $7,406,298.  How  many  more  were  sent 
alive  to  Eastern  markets  I cannot  learn,  but  the  number  was  very  large. 

Of  grain  produced  in  1881  it  may  be  said  that  the  crops  of  all  kinds 
were  the  lightest  per  acre  that  they  have  been  since  1868.  Still  we  find 
that  of  wheat  we  produced  17,400,000  bushels,  valued  at  $18,270,000. 
Of  corn  we  had  about  200,000,000  of  bushels,  valued  at  $86,000,000. 
Of  oats  we  had  50,000,000  bushels,  valued  at  $17,000,000.  Of  barley 
we  had  3,290,000  bushels,  valued  at  $2,204,000.  Of  potatoes  we  had 
6,000,000  bushels,  valued  at  $7,000,000.  Of  hay  we  had  3,247,900  tons, 
valued  at  $21,000,000. 

Adding  the  product  of  flax,  rye,  and  sweet  potatoes,  these  grain  and 
vegetable  productions  reach  a total  value  of  $157,822,503  in  the  year 
1881,  which  gave  us  the  smallest  crops  that  we  have  harvested,  for  the 
area  planted,  during  a period  of  thirteen  years.  And  in  this  year  of 
partial  failure  we  sent  by  rail  to  Eastern  markets  53,000,000  bushels  of 
corn,  10,500,000  bushels  of  wheat,  13,000,000  bushels  of  oats,  1,600,000 
bushels  of  barley,  760,000  bushels  of  rye,  and  210,000  bushels  of  pota- 
toes, besides  large  amounts  sent  to  Southern  and  Western  markets,  of 
which  we  have  no  exact  record. 

Our  dairy  products  have  increased  as  our  wheat  production  has  di- 
minished. In  1870  our  exports  of  butter  and  cheese  were  valued  at 
$592,229.  In  1881  they  had  grown  to  $20,000,000.  Without  enumerat- 
ing all  of  our  vast  agricultural  productions,  enough  has  been  given  to 


1150 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  F.  (iUE. 


show  that  in  these  is  the  bulk  of  our  wealth  and  resources.  And  al- 
though trade,  transportation,  manufactures,  banking  and  other  indus- 
tries give  employment  to  thousands  of  our  citizens  and  furnish  uses  for 
millions  of  capital,  still  agriculture  must  for  all  time  to  come,  remain 
the  chief  occupation  of  our  people.  Our  soil  of  unsurpassed  fertility, 
our  geographical  position  midway  between  the  rocky  hills  of  New  Eng- 
land and  the  arid  plains  and  barren  peaks  of  the  Kocky  Mountains,  one 
the  great  manufacturing  center,  the  other  the  home  of  the  precious 
metals,  Iowa  with  its  wonderful  grain,  meat,  fruit,  and  vegetable  pro- 
ducing capacity,  must  forever  largely  hell)  to  feed  the  artisans  and 
miners  of  the  new  as  well  as  the  old  world. 

The  assessed  value  of  the  improved  and  unimproved  farming  lands 
of  Iowa  for  1881,  as  shown  by  the  auditor,  is  $241,968,396.  The  actual 
value  of  these  lands,  the  real  market  value , is  well  known  to  be  fully  40 
per  cent,  more  than  the  assessed  value.  This  would  give  us  as  the  true 
value  of  Iowa  farm  lands  in  rouod  numbers,  $338,000,000.  When  we 
add  to  this  the  true  value  of  the  live  stock  on  the  farms  for  the  same 
year,  estimated  at  $130,000,000,  the  fences,  buildings,  tools,  and  imple- 
ments, estimated  at  $220,000,000,  we  have  a grand  total  of  capital  in- 
vested iu  Iowa  farm  property  amounting  to  $688,000,000. 

All  other  property  of  the  State  as  reported  to  the  auditor,  including 
merchandise,  railroads,  banks,  town  lots,  factories  and  their  products, 
mining  property,  gold,  silver,  and  greenbacks,  household  furniture, 
libraries,  and  newspapers,  making  a liberal  allowance  for  low  assess- 
ments, amounts  to  less  than  $150,000,000,  or  less  than  one-quarter  of  the 
value  invested  in  agricultural  lands,  stock,  and  fixtures. 

According  to  that  census  we  had,  in  1880,  6,720  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments employing  39,863  hands,  with  a capital  of  $31,409,470,  working 
up  $46,220,419  worth  of  raw  material  into  $70,271,877  worth  of  pro- 
ducts. Ten  years  ago  the  total  manufactured  product  was  $46,534,322. 
Twenty  years  ago  the  product  was  $13,719,325. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  above  figures  that  the  entire  amount  of  capital 
employed  in  manufacturing  in  Iowa,  after  20  years  of  the  highest  pro 
tection  known  in  the  history  of  our  State,  is  less  than  one-twentieth  of 
that  employed  in  agriculture  ; and  that  the  number  of  persons  employed 
in  manufactures  is  but  one-forty-sixth  part  of  our  population.  I am 
not  in  favor  of  taxing  the  1,585,000  of  our  citizens  engaged  in  all  other 
industries  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  profits  of  39,863  employed 
in  manufacturing. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  the  present  tariff  affects  our  Iowa  people.  The 
only  classes  directly  benefited  by  its  protective  features  are  the  13 
percent,  employed  in  mining  and  manufacturing  and  the  few  farmers 
who  grow  wool. 

First,  let  us  see  how  the  tariff  has  affected  Iowa  wool-growers.  In 
1867  we  had  in  this  State  1,354,608  sheep.  In  1881,  after  a period  of 
fifteen  years  of  our  greatest  gain  in  population,  wealth,  and  productive 
capacity,  with  a climate  and  soil  particularly  adapted  to  sheep-raising 
and  wool-growing,  we  are  humiliated  to  learn  that  our  flocks  had  dwindled 
down  to  436,561  head — a loss  of  918,077  in  fifteen  years — an  average 
loss  to  the  State  of  more  than  60,000  a year.  Estimating  the  average 
value  of  sheep  at  $3  per  head,  our  State  has  suffered  a loss  of  $2,754,231 
since  1867  in  the  partial  destruction  of  our  flocks  during  that  period  ; 
while  our  population  has  increased  more  than  half  a million,  and  the 
live  stock  of  other  classes  had  made  an  average  increase  of  more  than 
160  per  cent.  Every  thoughtful  person  will  inquire  why  it  is  that  in  a 
State  as  well  adapted  to  sheep-raising  and  wool-growing  as  to  the  pro- 


B.  F.  GUE.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES 


1151 


duction  of  horses,  cattle,  and  swine,  these  latter  industries  flourish  in 
a most  remarkable  degree,  while  wool-growing  has  declined,  until  at 
the  last  enumeration  the  total  value  of  sheep  had  dwindled  down  to 
one-quarter  of  what  it  was  fifteen  years  before.  We  find  by  examina- 
tiou  of  our  tariff  legislation  that  in  1867  (the  very  year  when  wool  grow- 
ing in  Iowa  had  reached  its  greatest  production)  the  wool-growers  and 
woolen  manufacturers  of  the  country,  or  a portion  of  them,  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  some  more  tariff  would  greatly  increase  the  pros- 
perity of  their  respective  interests ; and  Congress  at  that  time,  being  in 
the  same  way  of  thinking,  increased,  at  the  request  of  the  representa- 
tives of  these  two  branches  of  domestic  industry,  the  duties  on  the  im- 
portation of  wool  and  woolens  to  a degree  unprecedented  in  our  former 
tariff  experience ; the  duties  on  wool,  other  than  cheap  carpet  wools,  rang- 
ing from  37  to  110  percent.,  and  on  woolens  from  40  to  150  per  cent,  and 
upwards,  the  heaviest  duties  being  imposed  on  the  cheapest  woolens, 
adapted  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  poor,  and  the  lightest  on  the  more 
expensive  fabrics  demanded  by  the  rich.  That  tariff  has  now  been 
in  operation  fifteen  years,  and  we  have  seen  in  the  above  figures  from 
official  sources  how  disastrous  its  effects  have  been  on  Iowa  wool-grow- 
ers. David  A.  Wells,  who  was  Commissioner  of  Internal  Be venue  under 
President  Lincoln,  says  of  its  effects  upon  the  country  at  large : 

1.  The  American  wool  grower  has  received  on  the  average  during  this  period  a 
smaller  price  for  his  product  than  under  the  low  tariff  of  1857,  when  wools  costing 
less  than  20  cents  per  pound  were  admitted  free  of  duty,  and  all  wools  costing  above 
that  paid  but  24  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  In  fact,  for  extended  periods  under  the  exist- 
ing tariff,  American  wools  have  touched  lower  prices  than  ha  ve  ever  been  experienced 
since  the  woolen  manufacture  of  the  country  generally  ceased  to  be  a household  in- 
dustry ; the  wools  receiving  the  least  protection  commanding  the  highest  prices. 

2.  The  number  of  sheep  owned  anil  quantity  of  wool  produced  east  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  has  largely  and  continually  diminished. 

3.  The  business  of  manufacturing  woolens  in  the  United  States  under  the  existing 
tariff  has  paid  a smaller  percentage  of  profit  on  the  capital  invested  than  any  other 
leading  branch  of  domestic  industry. 

4.  The  American  people,  during  the  same  period,  have  paid  higher  prices  for  their 
woolen  clothing  than  the  people  of  any  other  nation,  their  compeers  in  wealth  and 
civilization. 

5.  In  place  of  the  existing  tariff  rendering  the  country  more  independent  of  foreign 
nations  in  respect  to  its  supply  of  wool  and  woolens  (as  it  was  confidently  affirmed  it 
would  be),  the  exact  reverse  has  occurred,  the  importation  of  foreign  wools  during  the 
year  1880  having  been  in  excess  of  128,000,000  pounds,  as  compared  with  24,000,000 
pounds  in  1868  and  48,000,000  in  1878;  while  during  the  same  year  (1880)  the  United 
States  bought  of  foreign  countries  manufactured  products  of  wool  to  the  value  of 
$33,613,000.  On  the  other  hand,  the  United  States  sold  during  this  same  year  to  for- 
eign countries  wool  of  domestic  production  to  the  extent  of  only  191,551  pounds,  and 
manufactures  of  wool  to  the  value  of  only  $216,576 ! 

Now  let  us  see  who  in  Iowa  has  been  benefited  by  this  disastrous  at- 
tempt to  protect  the  woolen  industry. 

Has  it  been  the  owners  of  Iowa  woolen  mills'?  By  turning  to  the 
official  records  we  find  that  in  1867,  when  this  increase  of  tariff  duties 
on  wool  was  made,  we  had  in  Iowa  89  woolen  factories.  After  fifteen 
years  of  protection,  with  our  immense  increase  in  wealth  and  x>opula- 
tion,  we  find  but  forty  of  these  factories  in  existence,  the  other  49  hav- 
ing disappeared  with  the  918,000  sheep  that  were  during  the  same  period 
protected  out  of  existence  in  one  State.  On  cattle,  swine,  and  horses, 
rye,  oats,  and  corn,  butter,  hay,  and  beef,  wherein  protection  cuts  no 
figure,  as  we  can  produce  them  cheaper  than  any  other  nation  on  earth, 
our  State  has  made  enormous  gains,  showing  that  farmers  have  suc- 
ceeded far  better  with  the  products  undisturbed  by  protection  than  with 
the  solitary  one  that  Congress  sought  to  protect  for  them. 

If  our  wool  growers  and  manufacturers  are  not  benefited  by  the 


1152 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[B.  f.  gue. 


tariff,  wlio  in  the  West  is?  I have  consulted  many  manufacturers  of 
iron  products  and  have  yet  to  find  one  in  the  West  who  shows  that  tariff 
protection  is  of  any  benefit  to  him.  In  our  city  we  have  several  firms 
manufacturing  barb  wire  and  farm  implements.  Upon  inquiry  at  one 
of  the  largest  of  these  factories,  owned  by  Given  & Carpenter,  they 
informed  me  that  they  derive  no  benefit  from  protective  duties,  as  they 
simply  tax  the  increased  cost  of  the  material  up  to  the  purchaser  of 
their  implements. 

D.  B.  Buford,  of  Bock  Island,  one  of  the  most  extensive  and  success- 
ful plow  makers  in  the  world,  says : 

There  is  not  one  article  that  we  make,  or  one  interest  of  ours  in  the  world,  that  is 
in  the  least  degree  benefited  by  the  tariff.  On  the  contrary,  almost  everything  that 
we  buy  is  enhanced  in  value  by  the  present  tariff,  and  of  course  our  customers,  in  turn, 
have  to  pay  more  for  what  they  buy  of  us.  Almost  every  manufacturer  in  the  West 
labors  under  this  disadvantage.  We  ship  large  amounts  of  our  products  abroad  where 
they  have  to  compete  with  foreign  makers.  Here  the  disadvantage  is  even  more 
severely  felt.  In  New  Zeland,  where  we  are  now  shipping  our  goods,  we  come  into 
direct  competition  with  makers  who  are  not  hampered  with  these  duties.  We  formerly 
did  a remunerative  business  in  Manitoba,  but  the  Canadian  Government  has  stopped 
that  by  placing  a retaliating  duty  upon  our  products.  Elsewhere  we  are  compelled 
to  enter  the  field  and  fight,  hampered  by  increased  cost  of  materials  caused  by  the 
duties  upon  iron  and  steel.  Every  consumer  has  to  ultimately  pay  the  enhanced  cost 
simply  as  a bonus  for  something  called  protection.  The  country  would  be  better  off 
without  it. 

Mr.  Lucius  Wells,  formerly  manager  of  Deere  & Co.,  Moline,  111.,  who 
made  97,900  plows  in  1881,  says  that  the  cost  of  every  implement  turned 
out  by  this  house  is  enhanced  from  15  to  25  per  cent,  by  the  present 
tariff,  with  no  compensating  benefit. 

Charles  E.  Bussell,  of  Davenport,  says  : 

In  1870  there  were  within  the  borders  or  Iowa  fifty-five  establishments  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  of  agricultural  implements.  If  there  be  any  industry  in  the  world 
which  ought  to  flourish  in  Iowa  it  is  the  making  of  agricultural  machinery.  That  in- 
dustry has  been  “ protected”  by  a duty  of  30  per  cent.  In  1880,  the  census  shows  that 
we  still  have  in  this  State  fifty-five  implement  makers,  as  in  1870.  But  looking  a little 
further  we  find  even  more  instructive  facts.  In  1870  these  implement  factories  paid 
$182,138  in  wages  to  552  hands,  or  an  average  of  $328  a year  to  each  employ^.  In  1880 
they  paid  $235,380  to  663  hands,  or  an  average  of  $236  to  each  employ 6. 

In  1870  there  were  545  establishments  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  lumber,  em- 
ploying 3,563  hands,  and  paying  $1,666,214  in  wages,  or  an  average  of  $467  to  each 
employ  A In  1880,  under  the  operations  of  a so-called  protective  duty  of  $3  a thousand 
feet,  the  number  of  establishments  had  sunk  to  321,  paying  $905,962  to  5,747  employes, 
or  an  average  of  $171  a year  to  each  employ  A 

Thus,  in  the  West,  no  one  discovered  yet  appears  to  be  benefited  by 
so-called  protection. 

But  if  no  benefit  has  accrued  to  Iowa  factories  or  farmers  from  the 
high  tariff' of  18G1  and  1867,  how  has  it  affected  farmers  in  other  respects  ? 
It  is  estimated  that  the  farmers  of  Iowa  buy  annually  for  use  on  their 
farms  25,000  plows.  We  learn  from  Given  & Carpenter,  plow  makers  of 
this  city,  that  in  the  iron-beam  plows  there  is  used  58  pounds  of  steel, 
the  duty  on  which  is  2J  cents  a pound,  making  the  tax  on  each  plow 
$1.30.  On  a sulky  plow  the  tariff  tax  is  $1.37.  The  tax  on  a hay  rake 
would  be  $1.10,  and  so  on  through  the  whole  list  of  farm  implements. 
On  the  25,000  plows  purchased  annually  by  Iowa  farmers  the  aggregate 
tax  would  be  about  $27,000.  When  we  add  a proportionate  tax  to  every 
article  of  farm  implements  in  which  steel  is  used,  we  find  the  annual  tax 
on  Iowa  farmers  is  a very  large  sum. 

When  we  add  to  these  taxes  the  tariff  duties  of  95  per  cent,  on  our 
ilannel  goods,  57  per  cent,  on  our  coats,  95  per  cent,  on  hats,  45  per  cent, 
on  our  towels,  50  per  cent,  on  our  dishes,  35  per  cent,  on  knives  and 


B.  F.  GUE.J 


KEDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


1153 


forks,  68  per  cent,  on  sugar,  69  per  cent,  on  salt,  59  per  cent,  on  glass, 
25  per  cent,  on  harness,  25  per  cent,  on  books,  57  per  cent,  on  carpets, 
100  per  cent,  on  blankets,  20  per  cent,  on  lumber,  40  per  cent,  on  fence 
wire,  and  similar  taxes  on  scores  of  other  necessaries  of  life  used  by 
every  family  in  Iowa,  the  aggregate  tariff  taxation  becomes  immense. 

While  these  tariff  bills  were  pending,  our  late  distinguished  Senator, 
Hon.  James  W.  Grimes,  in  a speech  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
made  a vigorous  fight  for  his  constituents,  in  which  he  said: 

I will  not  consent  to  tax  the  farmers  of  my  State  upon  the  iron  they  use,  for  the 
benefit  of  Pennsylvania,  and  upon  their  jack-knives  for  the  benefit  of  Connecticut 
and  Massachusetts,  and  upon  their  woolens  for  the  benefit  of  New  England,  and  then 
add  to  that  a tax  upon  tea  and  coffee  and  sugar,  the  necessaries  of  every  man’s  house. 
I am  in  favor  of  a revenue  tariff.  That  is  legitimate  and  proper;  but  the  moment  the 
government  undertakes  to  go  beyond  that,  and  take  money  from  my  pocket,  or  take  the 
profit  of  my  labor,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Senator  from  Vermont,  that  moment  the  gov- 
ernment transcends  its  obligation  audits  duty. 

After  the  passage  of  the  bill,  our  great  Senator,  in  a letter  to  a friend, 
used  the  following  language : 

You  may  rely  on  the  truth  of  what  I say  when  I tell  you  that  there  were  not  three 
men  in  the  Senate  whose  honest  convictions  were  for  the  bill.  They  voted  for  it  by 
a sort  of  coercion ; one  because  wool  was  in  it,  another  because  iron  was  in  it,  and 
another  because  a drawback  on  ship  materials,  &c.,  but  all  condemning  it  as  an  en- 
tirety. 

No  such  combinations  were  ever  formed  before  to  secure  the  passage  of  a bill.  Large 
sums  of  money  were  raised  by  the  parties  interested,  and  used  as  you  can  well  imagine 

how. 

. If  there  is  anything  I try  to  stand  up  for  on  all  occasions,  it  is  fair  play,  and  I con- 
fess I was  irritated  when  I saw  all  these  combinations  to  put  money  in  the  pockets  of 
the  manufacturers  at  the  expense  of  the  consumers,  who  are  not  here.  As  the  bill 
stands  it  would  increase  the  cost  of  all  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  except  food,  50  per  cent. 
Salt  is  raised  by  the  bill  from  176  to  240  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  jeans  100  per  cent.,  steel 
100  per  cent.,  machinery  70  per  cent.  On  top  of  all  this,  silks  65 per  cent.,  and  blank- 
ets, necessary  to  keep  us  warm,  144 — comforts  of  the  most  expensive  description,  such 
as  the  rich  only  buy,  50  per  cent.,  and  poor  comforts,  for  the  poorer  people,  90  per  cent. 
Lumber  to  build  a house  to  shelter  a family  or  to  fence  a field,  $2  per  M,  whilst  ship- 
timber,  spars,  cordage,  iron,  and  copper,  for  vessels  propelled  by  sail,  are  free. 

I cannot,  in  justice  to  the  people  I in  part  represent,  refrain  from  de- 
manding that  these  heavy  war  taxes  shall  be  reduced.  The  government 
does  not  need  the  proceeds  of  such  oppressive  taxation.  We  learn  from 
official  sources  that  the  revenue  derived  from  last  year’s  taxes  will  ex- 
ceed the  legitimate  requirements  of  the  government  by  more  than 
$150,000,000,  and  this  after  having  created  1,500  new  offices  and  clerk- 
ships, with  aggregate  salaries  of  more  than  $2,000,000  annually,  having 
appropriated  nearly  $19,000,000  for  improving  rivers,  harbors,  creeks, 
fish-ponds,  and  digging  canals  which  will  be  frozen  over  just  when  the 
crops  are  ready  to  be  moved,  and  other  unnecessary  appropriations. 
Why  should  not  the  heavy  taxes  on  the  necessaries  of  life  be  reduced 
to  the  full  amount  of  this  $150,000,000  of  surplus  revenue?  We  do 
not  want  a dollar  of  tax  taken  off  banks,  patent  medicines,  perfumery, 
whisky,  or  tobacco ; the  users  of  these  luxuries  can  well  afford  to  pay 
them.  But  in  behalf  of  more  than  a million  and  a half  of  laboring  men 
of  moderate  means  in  Iowa,  who  cannot  afford  to  support  stockholders 
of  wealthy  corporations  at  Saratoga  in  the  summer,  and  at  Paris  in  the 
winter,  I ask  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Commission,  to  recommend  a sweep- 
ing reduction  of  tariff  taxes  on  all  the  necessaries  of  life  that  are  now 
taxed. 

The  farmers,  mechanics,  merchants,  and  laboring  men  and  women  of 
the  West  ask  for  no  government  aid  in  tariffs  or  subsidies  to  help  them 
make  money.  Our  industrious,  enterprising,  hardy,  and  self-reliant  peo- 
H.  Mis.  6 73 


1154 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[B.  F.  GUE. 


pie  are  abundantly  able  to  support  themselves  and  pay  their  own  way, 
and  out  of  their  boundless  energy  and  resources  they  will  cheerfully  pay 
their  full  and  just  share  of  all  legitimate  expenses  of  their  National  Gov- 
ernment without  complaint.  But  when  the  stockholders  of  New  Eng- 
land cotton  mills,  woolen  factories,  carpet  and  cutlery  establishments, 
or  of  the  iron  and  rolling  mills  of  Pennsylvania,  or  the  wood-pulp  mills 
or  salt  wells  of  New  York,  or  the  lumber  regions  of  Michigan,  or  the 
sugar  mills  of  Louisiana  ask  the  government  to  levy  a tax  upon  the 
moderate  earnings  of  our  farmers  to  add  to  their  dividends  money 
never  earned,  we  firmly  and  emphatically  protest.  The  business  that 
must  be  supported  by  the  taxation  of  laboring  men,  or  sustained  by 
subsidies  forced  out  of  unwilling  tax-payers,  ought  to  fail,  and  the  cor- 
poration that  has  not  the  ability  to  succeed  with  healthy  competition 
ought  not  to  exist.  The  pension-roll  is  already  large  enough  without 
adding  the  great  army  of  manufacturers  to  it.  The  healthy  doctrine  of 
the  u survival  of  the  fittest’7  may  just  as  well  be  applied  to  iron,  cotton, 
and  wood-pulp  manufacturers  as  to  the  uncivilized  races  and  newspa- 
pers. We  have  had  too  many  subsidies  for  a true  Republican  government 
already.  Railroads  have  under  that  policy  absorbed  millions  of  acres 
of  the  people’s  public  lands;  steamships  have  taken  theirs  in  cash; 
rivers  and  harbors,  creeks  and  cranberry  marshes  have  claimed  their 
share;  iron  mills  and  shoddy  mills,  Woolen  mill  sand  cotton  mills,  starch 
mills  and  quinine  mills  are  all  clamoring  for  subsidies.”  Where  it  will 
end,  no  man  can  tell.  In  the  name  of  common  honesty,  in  the  cause  of 
justice  and  equal  rights,  we  ask  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Commission,  to 
recommend  a reform  in  which  this  odious  practice  of  robbing  one  citi- 
zen to  enrich  another  may  be  at  once  and  forever  ended. 

In  the  views  I have  here  expressed,  I believe  1 represent  the  senti- 
ment and  desires  of  more  than  three-quarters  of  the  farmers  of  Iowa. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  In  West  Virginia  the  number  of  sheep  has  increased,  and 
the  wool  interest  has  become  quite  important.  In  correspondence  with 
prominent  men  of  the  sheep  industry,  they  urge  me  to  try  to  prevent 
any  reduction  of  the  duty  on  wool,  saying  that  it  would  be  utterly  ruinous 
to  their  now  growing  interest.  From  the  figures  you  present,  I do  not 
think  that  the  world’s  history  will  show  greater  prosperity  in  so  short  a 
time  than  in  this  State  of  Iowa  % — Answer.  We  think  so. 

Q.  That  has  grown  up  under  this  present  tariff  almost  entirely,  has 
it  not  ? — A.  But  you  will  recollect  that  where  this  greatest  increase  in 
prosperity  has  been  is  where  we  get  no  possible  benefit  from  the  tariff, 
because  it  is  where  we  can  produce  cheaper  products  than  in  any  other 
part  of  the  globe. 

Q.  That  is  a matter  of  opinion.  Notwithstanding  this  tariff,  this 
State  has  grown  and  her  prosperity  is  marvelous. — A.  Yes ; I will 
adopt  that  u notwithstanding  the  tariff.” 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fair  inference  that  the  tariff  has  had  something  to  do 
with  this  prosperity  % — A.  One  of  the  greatest  factors  in  our  prosperity 
has  been  the  agricultural  products,  which  the  tariff  has  not  affected  ; 
while  upon  wrool,  which  has  been  affected,  the  tariff  has  been  most  dis- 
astrous. 

Q.  In  levying  a tariff  for  revenue,  you  do  not  believe  it  is  right  or 
proper  to  afford  such  incidental  protection  as  would  give  encouragement 
to  an  industry  % — A.  Any  tariff  is  protection,  so  far  as  the  amount  of 
the  tariff  on  that  article  is  concerned.  I believe  that  a fairly  adjusted 
revenue  tariff,  reduced  down  to  a sufficient  amount  on  the  necessaries 


B.  F.  GUE>.  1 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


1155 


of  life  and  luxuries  to  give  us  a sufficient  revenue  to  pay  the  interest  on 
the  public  debt  and  reduce  it  as  fast  as  it  becomes  due,  and  to  pay  all 
legitimate  expenses  of  the  government,  would  be  submitted  to  cheerfully 
by  every  citizen  of  the  West. 

Q.  In  laying  that  tariff  for  revenue  (to  enable  the  government  to  pay 
its  debts,  and  all  that),  do  you,  or  do  you  not,  think  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  gentlemen  who  make  the  laws  to  discriminate,  wherever  they 
have  the  opportunity  to  do  so,  in  favor  of  American  industries  as  against 
those  of  other  countries  ? In  other  words,  do  you  not  think  that  the 
American  legislators  should  legislate  for  Americans  and  not  for  for- 
eigners ; that  they  should  not  permit  the  American  citizens  to  be  de- 
pendent upon  foreigners  in  any  contingency  possibly  ? — A.  You  have 
asked  several  questions.  I will  take  them  up  as  I remember  them.  As 
1 say,  any  tariff  is  a protective  tariff  to  a certain  extent ; to  the  amount 
of  the  increased  cost  of  the  article  over  and  above  the  cost  of  a foreign 
article,  freight  taken  out.  I think  that  is  a fair  proposition.  I have  no 
objection  to  that  kind  of  a tariff ; I am  in  favor  of  it. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  in  that  statement  that  the  entire 
amount  of  duty  levied  from  time  to  time  goes  to  enhance  the  price  of  an 
article  ? — A.  I have  not  given  you  any  such  statement. 

Q.  You  gave,  for  instance,  on  plow  steel  2J  cents  a pound  as  the 
tax. — A.  Yes ; I gave  that  as  given  to  me  by  manufacturers  in  this 
.city. 

Q.  You  figured  out  from  that  that  there  was  $27,000  of  additional 
cost  to  plows  by  reason  of  that  2^  cents.  Is  that  $27,000  the  precise 
amount,  or  is  it  stated  approximately? — A.  It  is  just  about  the  precise 
amount.  I give  the  statement  of  Given  & Carpenter  as  to  the  fact. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  the  fact  that  the  cost  is  increased  by  the  amount 
of  the  tariff? — A.  I have  no  means  of  knowing,  as  I am  not  a manu- 
facturer. 

Q.  I mean  generally  ? — A.  I have  no  means  of  knowing. 

Q.  One  of  the  most  protected  articles  in  this  country  is  steel  rails,  I 
believe,  is  it  not  ? — A.  I think  that  was  discussed  yesterday  pretty  fully, 
and  that  statement  I believe  was  made. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  present  price  of  English  steel  rails  is  ? — A. 
I do  not. 

Q.  We  were  assured  by  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  who  is,  I think,  good 
authority,  that  it  was  $28  a ton. — A.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  Commission 
that  I am  willing  to  answer  any  questions  that  I can;  but  I understand 
that  the  object  of  calling  witnesses  here  is  to  get  what  they  know  about 
a matter,  and  not  to  present  to  them  arguments  on  the  part  of  the 
Commission.  Am  I correct? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  It  is  with  reference  to  the  particular  thing, 
as  I understood  you  a moment  ago. 

The  Witness.  Was  not  that  all  discussed  yesterday  fully? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  No,  sir.  The  subject  I am  upon  now  was 
not  referred  to  yesterday. 

The  Witness.  Then  I would  suggest  that  you  refer  to  British  statis- 
tics to  get  those  facts,  as  they  are  much  more  reliable  than  I can  give. 
If  I had  them  I would  give  them  to  you  willingly.  Don’t  you  think  that 
is  fair  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Yes;  it  is  quite  fair.  You  speak  as  to  salt. 
That  is  one  of  the  things  you  enumerated. 


1156 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


(b.  f.  gue. 


The  Witness.  I gave  the  statement  of  Senator  Grimes  in  his  speech 
in  Congress. 

Q.  It  may  have  been  true  then,  and  it  may  be  true  now.  You  would 
hardly  deny  that  it  is  a fact  that  home  competition  has  reduced  the  price  of 
salt  so  that  it  is  less  than  it  was  before  the  passage  of  this  tariff  act,  and 
less  than  the  foreign  price?— A.  You  are  talking  upon  a subject  that  I 
am  not  posted  upon,  so  far  as  foreign  prices  are  concerned. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  I understood  your  suggestion  to  be  that  that 
is  one  of  the  things  you  are  heavily  taxed  upon,  and  I happen  to  think 
differently. 

The  Witness.  There  is  a high  tariff*  on  salt,  is  there  not  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  Eight  cents  a hundred. 

The  Witness.  What  is  it  for,  if  it  is  not  for  protection  ? 

Commissioner  Ambler.  It  is  undoubtedly  for  protection  and  for  rev- 
enue. The  point  I want  to  get  at  is  as  to  whether  there  is  not  a cheap- 
ening by  increasing  competition  at  home  ? 

The  Witness.  I think  there  is. 

Q.  I am  not  saying  that  what  we  have  now  is  proper  protection,  but 
the  effect  of  proper  protection  is  to  enhance  the  price  in  the  first  in- 
stance.— A.  I understand  that  it  is.  I understand  that  the  object  of  pro- 
tection is  to  enable  our  manufacturers  to  charge  more  for  an  article  than 
they  could  if  it  came  in  competition  with  others ; that  is,  to  give  them 
a monopoly  of  the  business  against  foreign  competition. 

Q.  That  is,  to  give  to  those  who  choose  to  go  into  the  business  in  this 
country  a monopoly  against  foreign  competition. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  being  true,  primarily,  it  stimulates  production  in  this  coun- 
try on  the  particular  thing,  assuming  that  it  is  a thing  that  we  may 
properly  produce  here. — A.  I should  think  so. 

Q.  And  then  comes  the  other  end  of  the  proposition,  that  is  to  say, 
that  home  competition  has  a tendency  to  reduce  the  prices  ; is  that  a 
fact  ? — A.  Yes,  if  the  competition  is  lively  enough. 

Q.  It  gets  lively  enough  if  the  subject  of  it  can  be  profitably  pro- 
duced in  the  country,  and  protection  is  ample. — A.  It  does,  except  the 
producers  make  a combination,  as  they  generally  do,  to  keep  up  the 
prices. 

Q.  As  I understand  your  argument,  the  effect  of  it  is  that  the  entire 
tendency  of  the  tariff  for  all  time  is  to  enhance  the  prices  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  is,  as  I suppose  you  know,  a different  school  of  politics  or- 
ganized, who  think  that  in  the  end  it  compensates  by  increasing  and 
stimulating  industry. — A.  Yes ; I have  read  that  argument.  The  JSTew 
York  Tribune  is  of  that  opinion,  and  I have  read  it  for  thirty  years. 
When  I first  began  to  read  it  the  argument  was  this,  and  this  almost 
entirely : That  we  only  want  protection  for  our  industries  wThile  they 
are  in  their  infancy  and  are  not  able  to  compete  with  Great  Britain.  I 
have  been  watching  to  see  when  those  infant  industries  would  be  willing 
to  run  alone ; not  simply  able,  but  willing  to  run  alone.  I haven’t  yet 
seen  one  of  them  that  has  reached  that  period  where  it  is  willing  to  run 
alone  without  protection. 

Q.  That  may  be  the  case,  but  let  us  go  one  step  further.  Is  it  a fact 
that,  generally,  so  far  as  articles  covered  by  this  tariff  are  concerned, 
since  its  enactment  there  has  been  a great  decrease  in  prices  ? — A.  I 
think  that  there  has  been  a great  fluctuation  in  prices. 

Q.  Is  it  a fact  that,  generally  speaking,  it  has  resulted  in  a decrease? 
• — A.  On  some  productions. 

Q.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  it  is  general  ? — A.  1 am  not  well  enough 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


b.  p.  oute.l 


115? 


posted  in  all  the  industries  of  the  country  to  say  whether  it  has  been  or 
not.  I think  it  has  been  in  some. 

Q.  Taking  the  entire  scope  of  the  country,  is  it  certain  that  there 
would  be  the  same  general  reduction  if  the  tariff  had  not  been  passed? — 
A.  No  one  could  tell  what  would  have  happened  under  another  state 
of  affairs. 

Q.  And  for  that  reason  we  are  still  in  the  realm  of  argument  upon 
the  subject. — A.  I admit  it. 

Q.  Is  it  your  judgment  that  there  ought  to  be  a radical  reduction  of 
the  tariff*  generally  at  this  time? — A.  That  is  my  opinion. 

Q.  Have  you  to  such  an  extent  dwelt  upon  the  subject  that  you  could 
give  us  your  idea  as  to  what  that  reduction  should  be? — A.  No,  I can- 
not; I am  not  an  expert  in  the  tariff*. 

Q.  Is  it  your  judgment  that  there  ought  to  be  a tariff*  upon  manu 
factored  articles  sufficient  to  compensate  for  the  difference  between  the 
w^ages  of  other  countries  and  the  wages  of  this? — A.  That  is  a question 
that  would  lead  to  a long  argument,  because  it  would  be  necessary  to 
discuss  the  whole  ground. 

Q.  I just  wanted  to  know  the  extent  to  which  you  and  other  gentle- 
men representing  this  Iowa  Free-Trade  League  would  go. — A.  No,  sir; 
I represent  the  farmers  of  Iowa,  and  not  the  Free-Trade  l eague.  I 
publish  the  only  weekly  agricultural  paper  in  the  State. 

Q.  I want  to  get  your  ideas  as  a representative  man  upon  the  sub- 
ject, if*  you  can  give  them ; but,  if  you  do  not  feel  willing  to  give  an 
’opinion  upon  the  subject,  of  course  I will  not  press  it. — A.  When  we 
come  to  the  intricacies  of  the  tariff*,  I do  not  consider  myself  competent 
to  discuss  them,  because  it  is  a fearfully  and  wonderfully  made  docu- 
ment, one  that  I have  never  been  able  to  understand,  and  I have  never 
seen  two  protectionists  who  agreed  upon  it. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  The  tariff  on  calico  is  cents  a square  yard,  and  upon  other  cot- 
ton goods,  such  as  pillow-casing,  sheetings,  &c.,  it  is  about  the  same. 
You  can  buy  calico  to-day  in  the  city  of  New  York  for  3£  or  4 cents. 
Has  not  the  protection  on  that  class  of  goods  reduced  the  price  by  stim- 
ulating competition  in  this  country? — A.  That  is  probably  a subject 
upon  which  there  would  be  a wide  difference  of  opinion,  and  it  would 
take  perhaps  a week  for  us  to  go  over  the  whole  ground  of  discussion. 
You  gentlemen  have  your  decided  views  upon  that  question,  and  I am 
not  here  to  controvert  them,  other  than  by  presenting  my  views. 

Q.  You  ought  to  know  about  calico  matters. 

The  Witness.  In  what  respect? 

Commissioner  Underwood.  You  should  know  the  tariff  and  the 
prices. 

The  Witness.  I think  there  are  hundreds  of  articles  enumerated  in 
the  tariff  act,  the  figures  of  which  I could  not  keep  in  my  head.  But 
you  gentlemen  have  those  figures  before  you,  without  getting  my  evi- 
dence. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  calico  and  bleached  goods  as  cheap  as  they  are 
now  ? — A.  I never  did. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Your  statement  in  regard  to  the  decrease  of  the  wool  growing  in 
Iowa  is  an  extraordinary  one.  I cannot  understand,  with  a duty  of  10 
cents  a pound  put  upon  an  article,  and  the  home  market  limited,  why 
the  Iowa  farmer  should  quit  wool  growing.  I would  like  to  ask  if  there 
is  not  some  other  reason. — A.  I am  not  able  to  answer  that  question. 


1158 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fB.  F.  OUf.. 


When  I first  came  to  the  State  I engaged  in  wool  growing.  That  was 
in  1852.  I sold  my  wool  that  year  in  Chicago  at  40  cents  a pound.  I 
think  that  is  much  higher  than  the  average  price  of  wool  has  been  since; 
but  I was  not  able  to  make  the  business  as  profitable  as  I wished,  and  1 
abandoned  it  after  a few  years.  Other  people  have  continued  in  the 
business;  but  a great  majority  of  those  who  were  in  the  business  have 
abandoned  it,  as  shown  by  the  census.  I wras  as  much  surprised  as  any 
one  in  reading  those  facts,  although  I was  aware  that  there  had  been 
an  immense  falling  off  in  sheep  raising  and  w7ool  in  this  country. 

Q.  Your  statement  is  really  an  extraordinary  one.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion as  to  its  being  correct,  and  for  that  reason  I wanted  to  know  if  there 
was  not  some  other  cause  for  it  than  the  effect  of  the  tariff*.  In  the 
county  adjoining  where  I live,  which  was  a great  wool-growing  county, 
they  introduced  mining,  and  dogs  came  along  with  that  class  of  popula- 
tion, and  the  sheep  were  gradually  lessened  in  eight  or  ten  years.  Is 
there  any  such  reason  in  Iowa  ? — A.  I can  give  you  the  history  of  the 
dog  law.  I happened  to  be  a member  of  the  legislature  when  that  ques- 
tion was  prominently  before  it  for  a number  of  years.  From  1852,  the 
time  I came  to  the  State,  up  to  1862,  the  dog  law  was  just  what  it  is 
to-day.  In  1862  we  passed  a stringent  dog  law  for  protecting  sheep. 
But  as  the  owners  of  dogs  were  in  a very  large  majority  over  the  own- 
ers of  sheep,  they  brought  pressure  enough  to  bear  upon  the  extra  ses- 
sion of  the  legislature — which  was  held  for  the  purpose  of  raising  men 
and  money  to  carry  on  the  war — to  repeal  that  law  before  it  had  been  in 
operation  six  months.  With  the  exception  of  that  six  months,  when  that 
law  was  in  operation,  we  have  had  precisely  the  same  dog  law — the  same 
encouragement  of  dogs  from  1852  to  1882 — and  it  is  this : We  protect  dogs 
by  a protective  tariff*.  Of  course  it  is  not  a general  protective  tariff*, 
but  a State  protective  tariff.  We  discriminate  against  sheep  by  taxing 
all  our  sheep  in  the  hands  of  farmers,  or  wherever  they  can  be  found, 
while  all  dogs  we  exempt  from  taxation. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  farmers  of  Iowa  had  about  that  time  a 
great  wool-growing  craze;  that  they  thought  the  country  was  better 
adapted  for  wool  than  anything  else ; and  that  afterwards  they  quit 
raising  sheep  and  turned  their  attention  to  wheat,  and  then  again  after- 
wards found  that  Iowa  was  better  fitted  for  corn  and  grazing  f — A.  I 
was  farming  all  those  years.  The  diminution  of  sheep  was  a gradual 
process.  It  had  reached  its  highest  point  in  1866  and  1867.  In  1865 
there  were  a great  many  sheep,  and  there  were  a great  many  for  ten 
years  after  that,  probably;  but  in  1867,  without  any  cause  that  I can 
see  except  the  tariff,  there  came  the  turning  point.  How  the  tariff 
affected  it  I am  unable  to  say,  but  in  that  very  year  it  was  a fact,  as 
shown  by  the  records,  that  our  sheep  interest  began  to  decline,  and  con- 
tinued to  decline  until  about  three  years  ago.  Since  then  it  has  been 
gaining  slightly.  The  lowest  point  was  reached  three  years  ago,  l 
think. 

Q.  You  speak  of  representing  a million  and  a half  of  laboring  men. 
One  of  the  gentlemen  who  has  appeared  before  us  here  stated  that  the 
laborer  in  this  country  was  paid  from  $1.75  to  $3  a day.  Is  that  about 
your  view? — A.  That,  I think,  is  the  wages  generally  paid  in  towns  and 
in  factories,  that  is,  $1.75  for  unskilled  labor.  In  the  country  farmers 
have  hired  their  help  for  several  years  on  an  average  of  about  $18  to 
$20  a month,  with  board,  which  would  perhaps  amount  to  $12  more.  But 
there  is  this  difference:  the  farmer’s  help  is  paid  for  rainy  days  and  all, 
and  day  laborers  are  only  paid  for  the  time  they  actually  work. 

Q.  Ho  you  know  about  the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  Germany  and  in 
England  ? There  is  a large  emigration  from  those  countries. — A.  I have 


n.  F.  frUE.] 


REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES. 


1159 


read  such  conflicting  statements  in  regard  to  that  from  the  different  ad- 
vocates of  free  trade  and  of  a protective  tariff  tMt  the  only  way  to  come 
at  that  is  to  refer  to  the  official  statistics,  and  1 haven’t  those  before  me. 
In  giving  testimony  before  this  body  I do  not  like  to  guess  at  it. 

Q.  We  want  the  expression  of  the  views  of  the  people  of  this  section 
particularly,  and  therefore  that  is  the  reason  I desire  to  ask  you  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  men  who  labor  in  this  section  of  the  country 
would  advocate  such  changes  in  the  present  tariff  laws  as  would  reduce 
the  rate  paid  for  labor  in  this  country  and  increase  it  abroad,  because 
that  would  be  the  natural  turn  of  affairs  if  our  trade  was  turned  over 
there.  The  wages  would  rise  there  and  be  reduced  here  until  an 
equilibrium  would  be  established  between  the  two.  Now,  are  your  peo- 
ple fully  prepared  for  that  ? — A.  You  have  stated  a theory  that  is  dis- 
puted by  some,  and  upon  that  theory  I am  not  prepared  to  say  in  how 
much  of  it  you  are  absolutely  correct,  and  in  how  much  of  it  there  may 
be  some  honest  difference  of  opinion.  It  would  involve  the  discussion 
of  the  entire  tariff  question,  and  I think  we  haven’t  time  to  go  into 
that  to-day. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Would  you  advise  us  to  take  the  official  statements? — A.  I would, 
certainly;  but  I do  not  suppose  you  need  that  advice  from  me. 

Q.  I wanted  to  know  whether  you  had  confidence  in  them. — A.  I cer- 
tainly have;  I have  confidence  in  all  facts. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  You  state  the  fact  of  the  decline  in  sheep  husbandry  in  Iowa  as  a 
proof  of  the  malign  influence  of  a protective  tariff*  upon  that. — A.  Per- 
haps I would  not  make  as  unqualified  a statement  as  that. 

Q.  That  inference  is  drawn  from  the  tenor  of  your  statement. — A. 
That  is  an  inference  due  to  the  fact,  but  I do  not  say  that  it  is  due  alone 
to  that. 

Q.  With  your  statement  of  the  fact  of  the  decline  of  sheep  husbandry 
in  Iowa  I entirely  agree.  I also  state  that  the  fact  is  the  same  in  Ohio 
and  many  other  leading  States.  I also  agree  with  you  that  the  decline 
commenced  about  1807.  Are  you  not  aware  that  there  has  been  a 
transference  of  the  sheep  husbandry  from  those  States  into  other  re- 
gions?— A.  There  has  been  a great  increase  in  the  sheep-keeping  in- 
dustry in  some  of  the  extreme  Western  States  within  the  past  three  or 
four  years. 

Q.  And  that  has  come  from  a transference  of  the  flocks  from  Ohio, 
Illinois,  and  other  States  into  the  States  of  Colorado  and  Texas. — A. 
There  has  been  such  a change. 

Q.  And,  of  course,  to  accomplish  that  transference  there  has  been  a 
sale  of  sheep,  and,  consequently,  a loss  of  sheep  in  those  States;  but 
that  loss  of  sheep  to  those  States  has  not  been  so  great  a calamity,  after 
all. — A.  So  far  as  I recollect,  in  relation  to  this  sheep  industry,  it  has 
grown  up  in  those  Western  States  within  the  past  five  years  largely.  It 
does  not  extend  back  anywhere  near  to  1867. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  there  are  now  in  this  country  something  like 

51.000. 000  sheep,  as  shown  by  the  census  ? — A.  I haven’t  seen  the  census 
of  1880. 

Q.  And  are  you  aware  that  in  1860  there  was  produced  nearly  60,000,000 
pounds  of  wool,  according  to  the  census  returns,  and  that  on  the  same 
rate  of  increase  for  the  present  year  the  production  would  be  very  nearly 

3.000. 000.000 ? — A.  I haven’t  seen  these  statements.  We  have  been 
very  much  provoked  at  the  delay  in  receiving  the  census  returns. 


1160 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fl?.  F.  OFF. 


Q.  You  speak  of  a decrease  having  takeu  place  in  18G7.  Are  you 
aware  that  in  1866,  or  about  that  time,  there  was  an  enormous  falling 
off  in  the  demand  for  woolen  goods,  owing  to  the  end  of  the  war  ; that 
the  previous  demand  for  woolen  goods  had  tended  to  stimulate  sheep 
industry  in  the  southern  hemisphere ; that  upon  the  restoration  of  cotton 
culture  in  the  South  there  was  an  immediate  throwing  back  upon  the 
world  of  the  whole  of  the  wool  products,  and  that  there  were  enormous 
importations  of  wool  from  the  southern  hemisphere  into  the  United 
States  ? — A.  So  I have  understood. 

Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  that  unprecedented  increase  had  a de- 
moralizing effect  upon  sheep  husbandry  ? — A.  It  certainly  had  upon  the 
price  of  wool. 

Q.  Are  you  not  aware  that  the  law  of  1867  was  made  upon  solicita- 
tion to  arrest  such  au  effect  as  that  ? — A.  I stated  that  it  was  made  at 
the  request  of  sheep  farmers  and  wool  manufacturers. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  When  you  speak  of  hats  being  taxed  90  per  cent.,  do  you  refer  to 
wool  hats  ? — A.  I cannot  tell  you  just  the  figures.  I got  that  statement 
from  a publication,  and  I submitted  it  to  a gentleman  to  compare  it 
with  the  tariff  list,  and  he  said  it  was  substantially  correct ; but  there 
are  so  many  grades  of  cloth  of  which  coats  are  made,  and  so  many 
grades  of  hats  and  various  articles,  that  one  sum  will  not  represent  a 
fair  average  of  the  protective  duties. 

Q.  I will  say,  for  your  information,  that  95  per  cent,  is  the  duty  on 
wool  hats.  You  say  100  per  cent,  on  blankets ; that  is,  of  course,  wool 
blankets  ? — A.  I suppose  so. 

Q.  You  say  in  your  printed  direct  statement,  “ Now,  let  us  see  how 
the  present  tariff  affects  our  Iowa  people.  The  only  classes  directly 
benefited  by  its  protective  features  are  the  13  per  cent,  employed  in 
mining  and  manufacturing  and  the  few  farmers  who  grow  wool.” — A. 
In  setting  that  up  they  have  omitted  the  words  “it  is  claimed,”  and  in 
the  hurry  I did  not  stop  to  correct  it.  It  should  read,  “ It  is  claimed 
that  the  only  classes  directly  benefited,”  &c.  I am  not  able  to  say  how 
they  are;  but  a good  many  protectionists  do  claim  that.  I make  that 
explanation  in  justice  to  myself  and  you. 

Q.  I find  by  the  official  records  that  the  total  importation  of  wool 
blankets  in  1879  was  something  over  $1,400  worth,  in  1880  something- 
over  $1,200  worth,  in  1881  $1,954  worth — practically  no  importation  at 
all  of  wool  blankets.  Now,  do  I understand  you  that  the  farmer  of 
Iowa  who  uses  a domestic  blanket  is  taxed  100  per  cent,  on  that? — A. 
He  is ; the  manufacturer  takes  advantage  of  it  and  raises  his  prices  to 
correspond. 

Q.  I do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  that. — A.  Suppose  you  are  a 
woolen  manufacturer,  and  there  is  a tariff  put  upon  blankets  for  your 
protection.  You  are  very  likely,  no  matter  what  the  cost  may  be,  to 
take  advantage  of  that  protection,  and  charge  me,  if  I want  to  buy  it, 
just  as  much  as  you  can  under  that  tariff  protection. 

Q.  Unless  I am  something  more  than  human,  am  I not  pretty  sure  to 
do  it  ? — A.  You  are  sure  to  do  it. 

Q.  Especially  when  there  are  substantially  no  importations  of  the 
kind  ? — A.  Yes.  If  you  get  the  tariff  so  nearly  prohibitory  that  it  pre- 
vents competition  entirely,  then,  of  course,  you  and  your  companions 
have  a very  great  advantage  of  us  who  are  using  them,  and  you  can  put 
your  price  up  to  correspond  with  the  actual  value  that  the  government 
has  legislated  into  your  hands. 


reduction  of  DUTIES.  1161 

Q.  Whatever  be  the  cause,  if  there  is  practically  no  importation, 
then  there  is  no  competition  ; it  is  a home  competition  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Then,  in  all  human  probability,  the  manufacturer  and  the  producer 
will  get  the  advantage  of  that  extra  tax0?-— A.  The  manufacturer;  not 
the  producer. 

Q.  I understand  .you  that,  if  there  be  a certain  kind  of  iron  ore  pro- 
duced here,  and  there  is  no  importation  of  that  kind  of  iron  ore,  the 
producer  taxes  the  farmer  just  so  much  when  it  enters  into  his  agri- 
cultural implements  ? — A.  I think  it  does,  if  the  tariff  allows  him  to ; I 
think  he  would  be  very  likely  to  do  it.  I think  that  is  what  the  tariff 
is  for.  Of  course,  a deduction  would  be  made  of  the  freight  that  it 
would  cost  to  bring  it  over  from  foreign  countries. 

Q.  The  farmer  is  not  protected  ? — A.  It  is  claimed  that  he  is  protected 
in  the  wool  business ; but  1 haven’t  been  able  to  see  it. 

Q.  The  fact  remains  that  the  prices  have  gone  down  on  these  very 
articles  of  hats,  blankets,  &c. — A.  I am  glad  to  hear  it.  1 have  not 
discovered  it  in  purchasing.  Probably  our  merchants  don’t  give  us  the 
benefit  of  it. 

Q.  What  I want  to  get  at  is  just  this,  that  the  tariff  imposes  a duty 
of  20  cents  on  wheat,  1 cent  a pound  on  beef  and  pork,  2 cents  on  hams 
and  bacon,  and  4 cents  on  cheese,  and  so  on.  You  say  that  that  is  no 
protection  at  all  ?: — A*.  Nq  benefit  to  us  here  in  the  Mississippi  Valley. 
If  we  have  to  pay  it,  it  is  a burden  to  us. 

Q.  The  consumer  who  uses  the  wheat,  corn,  and  barley  does  not  have 
to  pay  any  tax  ? — A.  If  he  uses  it  in  this  country  he  does  not.  We  are 
very  heavy  exporters  of  these  products  I have  mentioned,  while  the 
woolen  goods  and  the  cotton  goods  are  not  produced  to  any  great  ex- 
tent in  our  country.  We  have  to  buy  them  from  other  places. 

Q.  I have  just  shown  you  that  not  $4,000  worth  of  blankets  were  im- 
ported in  three  years.  We  imported  12,000  bushels  of  wheat  in  1870, 
39,000  in  1880,  and  10,000  in  1881. — A.  That  does  not  affect  us  here, 
because  we  have  an  immense  surplus  here  to  send  out  of  the  country. 

Q.  This  is  a fair  comparison  of  the  wheat  import  and  export  between 
the  manufacture  and  importation  of  these  manufactured  articles. — A. 
It  is  a question  of  locality. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  that  the  competition  between  500  woolen  mills  of 
this  country,  where  blankets  can  be  made  with  ease  and  facility,  does 
not  decrease  prices  ? — A.  If  there  was  no  combination. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  possible  that  there  can  be  a combination,  since 
they  are  so  scattered? — A.  I think  it  is  very  possible.  It  seems  that 
they  have  an  association  of  producers  of  pig  iron,  which  lately  held 
a meeting  somewhere  in  the  East,  and  they  proposed  to  control  the 
price  of  that  product.  In  their  meeting  they  would  not  admit  any  one 
unless  he  was  a producer  of  pig  iron,  and  they  were  universally  in  favor 
of  adding  $2  a ton  to  the  duty.  If  that  recommendation  is  followed, 
we  would  have  to  pay  that.  The  men  interested  in  making  these  arti- 
cles are  generally  the  men  who  are  interested  in  the  sale  of  them,  and 
they  want  bigger  prices  in  the  market. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  If  it  is  wrong  for  those  gentlemen  to  combine,  is  it  right  for  these 
men  here  to  form  these  leagues? — A.  If  they  combine  to  take  some- 
thing from  their  neighbors,  it  is  wrong.  It  depends  upon  what  the  in- 
terests are.  If  they  are  illegitimate  interests,  and  taxes  are  forced  upon 
the  Western  people,  then  it  is  wrong. 


1162 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOHN  B.  ALLEY. 


JOHN  B.  ALLEY. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  1G,  1882. 

Hon.  John  B.  Alley,  of  Lynn,  Mass.,  appeared  before  the  Commis- 
sion by  request,  and  made  the  following  statement: 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  : As  you  all  know,  the  city  of 
Lynn  is  proverbial  for  being  at  the  head  of  the  great  manufacturing  in- 
dustry of  boots  and  shoes,  particularly  ladies’  shoes.  Lynn  has  been 
distinguished  as  the  shoemaking  town  of  the  country,  1 suppose,  for 
more  than  one  hundred  years.  The  commencement  of  the  shoe  business 
there  dates  back  something  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  years.  It  had 
progressed  considerably  at  a very  early  period,  when  they  imported  a 
very  celebrated  shoemaker  by  the  name  of  Dagger  from  England  in 
1750.  He  brought  a great  many  apprentices  with  him,  and  consequently 
the  business  began  to  improve.  It  continued  to  improve  gradually  un- 
der the  old  colonial  government.  In  1783,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary  war,  the  business  was  very  much  depressed,  and  it  continued 
so  depressed  from  that  time  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States;  and  in  fact  until  a protective  tariff  was  enacted  in  1791. 
A respectable  man,  who  was  largely  instrumental  in  obtaining  the  pas- 
sage of  this  first  protective  tariff  act — I believe  it  was  the  first — during 
Washington’s  administration  in  1791,  or  thereabouts,  told  me  that  from 
the  conclusion  of  the  Revolutionary  war  until  the  passage  of  that  tariff 
act  he  worked  for  his  board.  He  had  to  get  his  clothes  the  best  way  he 
could.  In  those  days  he  said  their  living  was  very  meager;  they  lived 
chiefly  upon  bean  porridge  and  brown  bread,  and  had  meat  once  a 
week  where  he  boarded.  During  those  several  years  he  worked  con- 
tinuously for  his  board.  A young  man,  perhaps  I might  say  one  of  the 
most  enterprising,  one  of  the  most  talented  and  intellectual  young 
men  that  Lynn  ever  produced — I say  this  from  recollection  of  his  own 
statement  which  I heard  him  make  to  my  mother — said  that  in  1787  (the 
year  the  convention  was  sitting  in  Philadelphia)  he  went  to  Philadel- 
phia and  went  to  work  at  shoemaking.  He  carried  letters  to  a very 
distinguished  quaker  merchant,  Mr.  Zachariah  Collins,  of  Philadelphia 
(who  was  a native  of  Lynn,  and  I believe  brought  up  there,  and  had  a 
great  many  relatives  there),  and  spoke  to  him  of  the  Lynn  shoemakers; 
and,  finally,  Mr.  Collins  helped  him  to  commence  the  shoe  business  on  a 
large  scale,  for  those  times,  in  Philadelphia,  obtaining  his  shoes  from 
Lynn.  After  two  or  three  years,  finding  that  the  business  of  Lynn  was 
so  depressed,  and  that  after  the  war  had  closed  great  quantities  of  shoes 
were  imported  from  England  and  Prance,  though  mostly  from  England, 
they  found  that  the  business  could  not  be  maintained  with  any  degree  of 
profit,  as  the  foreign  manufacturer  was  able  to  compete  successfully 
with  their  productions.  Mr.  Collins,  who  was  on  intimate  terms  with 
leading  members  of  Congress,  told  the  young  man  that  he  would  advise 
him  to  make  an  effort  to  get  protection  upon  shoes,  and  thereby  pro- 
mote the  shoe  interest.  Lynn  at  that  time  had  become  noted  through- 
out the  country  as  being  a great  shoe  town.  I remember  reading  a let- 
ter, written  by  General  Washington,  stating  that  in  his  tour  through 
New  England  in  the  fall  of  1789  he  found  Lynn  the  great  shoe  town  of 
the  country.  So  that  you  see  one  hundred  years  ago  it  was  regarded  as 


JOHN  B.  ALLEY.  J 


BOOTS  AND  SHOES. 


1163 


the  great  shoe  place  of  the  country.  Mr.  Breed  was  the  name  of  the 
young  man.  He  suggested  to  Mr.  Collins  that,  as  he  (Mr.  Collins)  was 
on  intimate  terms  with  leading  men,  and  a gentleman  of  wealth  and  en- 
tertaining finely,  lie  would  like  to  have  him  invite  some  of  the  leading 
members  of  Congress  to  talk  over  this  matter  at  dinner,  and  have  him 
there.  This  Mr.  Collins  did.  1 remember  him  telling  this  to  me,  and 
among  others,  Mr.  Madison,  subsequently  President  of  the  United 
States,  who  at  that  time  was  engaged  to  a young  quaker  girl  in  Phila- 
delphia— Dolly  Madison,  as  she  is  known  in  history — and  whom  he  after- 
wards married.  This  young  girl  (afterwards  Dolly  Madison)  was  a 
friend  of  this  young  Breed,  and  also  a friend  of  the  Collins  family.  Mr. 
Madison  was  invited  to  dinner.  I do  not  remember  who  the  other  geusts 
were.  So  they  talked  it  over,  and  Mr.  Madison  said  to  Mr.  Breed, 
u If  you  will  get  up  a petition  and  have  it  signed  numerously  in  the 
town  of  Lynn,  and  send  it  to  the  Massachusetts  legislature,  and  the 
legislature  will  petition  Congress  for  a tariff  act  sufficient  to  protet 
the  shoe  interests  of  the  country,  that  will  be  the  best  course,  and  we 
will  promise  our  influence  in  getting  it  through.  So  that  course  was 
pursued.  This  gentleman  whom  I first  mentioned,  one  of  the  most  in- 
telligent and  respectable  citizens  of  Lynn  in  after  life — he  was  then  a 
young  man  and  particular  friend  of  this  Mr.  Breed — told  me  the  story; 
that  he  got  a letter  from  Mr.  Breed,  and  Mr.  Breed  related  the  circum- 
stances and  inclosed  a petition  in  due  form,  which  he  took  around  and 
got  signed  very  numerously,  and  sent  it  to  the  legislature  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  that  legislature  petitioned  Congress,  and  Congress  en- 
acted the  law.  I rather  think  it  was  the  first  protective  tariff  law  that 
was  passed  by  Congress.  You  may,  perhaps,  know,  Mr.  President? 

The  President.  Yes;  it  was. 

Mr.  Alley.  That  law  was  sufficiently  protective  to  exclude  all  the 
common  work  from  England  and  all  other  European  countries ; and  the 
consequence  was  that  it  gave  an  impetus  to  the  trade  of  Lynn,  and  other 
shore  towns  grew  up  subsequently;  but  Lynn  was  the  principal  town. 
And  they  soon  began  to  extend  their  traffic  by  sending  their  shoes  to 
all  parts  of  the  country.  So  that  nearly  all  the  shoes  that  were  con- 
sumed in  three  or  four  years  after  that  in  Philadelphia  and  in  the  adja- 
cent country,  of  ladies’  manufacture,  were  furnished  exclusively  from 
Lynn,  and  very  little  was  made  in  Philadelphia  at  that  time.  Iu  a few 
years  the  trade  began  to  increase,  not  only  in  quantity,  but  also  in 
quality,  very  much,  until  at  the  present  day  the  boot  and  shoe  and 
leather  interest  of  this  country  exceeds  altogether  that  of  any  other 
productive  interest  of  the  country.  And  now  they  are  enabled  by  in- 
ventions in  machinery  and  the  progress  of  the  arts  in  manufacturing  to 
compete  with  the  world,  and  very  few  shoes  are  imported.  Some  shoes 
are  imported  now  of  the  very  finest  quality,  and  I suppose  that  would 
be  the  case  no  matter  what  tariff  you  should  put  on,  because  there  are 
a great  many  fools  in  America,  as  well  as  in  all  other  parts  of  the  world, 
who  think  anything  of  foreign  manufacture  which  they  wear  must  be 
better,  necessarily,  as  well  as  more  stylish  and  fashionable.  Conse- 
quently, there  are  shoes  and  boots  imported  from  France  and  England 
to-day ; not  many  from  England,  hut  some  few  from  France.  But  so 
far  as  the  general  manufacture  of  shoes  is  concerned,  they  can  manu- 
facture as  cheaply  in  Lynn,  and  do  manufacture  better  goods  than  they 
do  on  the  other  side,  altogether  superior  to  England. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  manufacture  of  leather : We  have  got  so  within  a 
few  years  that  we  are  able  to  export  leather  extensively  to  all  the  coun- 
tries of  Europe,  and  we  can  compete  with  the  world  in  the  manufacture 


1164 


Tariff  commission. 


[JOHN  B.  ALLEY. 


of  leather,  with  the  exception  of  some  portions  of  upper  leather,  such  as 
goat  skins  and  manufactured  morocco.  Some  of  the  finer  qualities  are 
still  imported  from  abroad,  and  some  of  the  finer  qualities  of  calf  skin 
are  imported.  The  calf  skin  and  goat  skin  interest  has  actually  been 
terribly  depressed  in  consequence  of  importations.  The  ordinary  leather 
or  the  sole-leather  we  can  manufacture  better  and  cheaper,  and  we  now 
send  large  quantities  of  leather  abroad  to  nearly  all  the  European  coun- 
tries— Germany,  England,  France,  and  Switzerland.  I am  a manufac- 
turer of  sole-leather.  My  house  is  in  Boston.  I am  also  a manufacturer 
of  upper  leather,  splits,  and  boot  leather,  and  that  class  of  goods.  We 
send  a great  deal  of  it  now  to  Liverpool,  and  from  there  it  is  sent  to 
various  other  countries  in  Europe,  and  they  are  beginning  to  cry  out 
about  it  now  very  loudly.  I saw  something  some  time  ago  that  was 
written  by  Bismarck  about  it,  suggesting  that  some  action  ought  to  be 
taken  by  the  German  Government  to  prevent  this  vast  importation  of 
leather.  I think  Bismarck  rather  favored  protection,  though  he  was  not 
very  strong  upon  it. 

That,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  is  the  history  of  the  shoe  inter- 
est, as  I understand  it.  I presume  there  is  no  one  living  at  the  present 
time  who  remembers  all  about  the  passage  of  that  act  and  what  occa- 
sioned it;  and  I only  remember  it  from  having  lived  quite  a long  period, 
some  sixty-five  years,  and  from  the  fact  that  this  Mr.  Breed  was  an  in- 
timate friend  of  our  family,  and  I heard  him  talk  it  over  with  my  mother. 
Being  a boy,  I remembered  it.  Most  of  our  family  ha  ve  passed  away,  but 
I am  left  to  tell  this  story,  Mr.  President. 

By  the  President  : 

Question.  Can  you  tell  me  whether  it  is  understood  or  generally 
known  that  the  women  and  children  of  America  are  the  best  shod  of 
any  people  in  the  world? — Answer.  That  is  said  to  be  the  case.  We 
probably  manufacture  better  shoes — that  is  my  judgment  about  it — than 
are  made  in  Europe.  I have  been  in  Europe  a number  of  times,  and  of 
course  naturally  felt  interested  in  looking  after  other  manufacturers  in 
my  line,  and  my  judgment  is  that  we,  as  a people,  are  better  shod. 

I forgot  to  mention  one  fact:  The  shoe  interest,  from  1791,  perhaps 
for  fifty  years,  really  needed  protection,  and  grew  up  under  a protective 
tariff ; and  I regard  its  present  condition  and  prosperity  in  every  respect 
ascribable  in  a very  great  degree  to  the  fact  that  a protective  tariff  has 
been  in  operation  for  the  most  of  the  time  for  the  first  fifty  years  of  the 
government. 


W.  W.  WHITMEfi.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1165 


W.  W.  WITMER. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  September  16,  1882. 

Mr.  W.  W.  Witmer,  of  Des  Moines,  manufacturer  of  brass  patented 
articles,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission  : I am  one  ol 
the  members  of  a committee  appointed  by  our  Iowa  Free  Trade  League. 
1 was  requested  to  make  a statement  here,  and  I want  to  apologize  in- 
formally in  the  beginning  for  not  having  statistics,  for  just  one  reason, 
that  we  determined  at  too  late  a day  to  appear  before  the  Commission. 
So  that  to  make  a complete  argument  and  use  figures,  it  was  entirely 
too  late. 

But  I want  to  state  what  I believe  to  be  the  views,  not  only  of  the 
Free  Trade  League,  but  of  many  gentlemen,  and  particularly  of  many 
farmers  in  Iowa,  and  they  would  also  apply  to  the  West,  as  I think.  In 
the  beginning  we  undertook  to  call  ourselves  free  traders.  We  dis- 
cussed the  matter  thoroughly,  and  we  agreed  that  we  would  never 
apologize  for  calling  ourselves  free  traders ; we  are  such,  particularly 
as  against  protection.  That  is  to  say,  if  we  had  perfect  equality  or  free 
trade,  if  there  was  no  favor  shown  under  the  laws  to  one  man  as  against 
another,  then  our  views  of  free  trade  would  be  largely  accomplished. 
We  want  liberty.  We  want  the  same  opportunity  for  trade,  for  ex- 
change with  Australia,  Brazil,  Germany,  France,  and  England  as  we 
have  with  Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts.  In  taking  this  position  I 
am  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  we  are  more  nearly  related  to  our 
friends  in  the  East.  I myself  came  from  Pennsylvania  and  have  friends 
and  relatives  there;  but  we  cannot  understand  how,  under  our  system 
of  government,  we  should  be  taxed  in  any  form  for  the  benefit  of  friends 
and  relatives  in  Pennsylvania  or  New  England.  That,  I think,  is  the 
broad  ground  taken  by  the  Iowa  free  traders. 

We  believe  that  a purely  revenue  tariff  means  free  trade.  We  do 
not  demand  that  the  custom  house  shall  be  abolished  or  burned  down. 
We  do  not  demand  that  duties  shall  at  once  cease  on  all  articles  of  im- 
port. On  the  other  hand,  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  support  the  gov- 
ernment by  a duty  on  imports,  so  long  as  a policy  looking  toward  free 
trade  is  inaugurated,  and  that  to  come  just  as  soon  as  the  government 
can  stand  it. 

Now,  upon  that  point  I want  to  refer  to  a topic  that  came  up  yester- 
day. What  do  we  wish?  what  do  we  propose?  I speak  for  myself, 
and  I believe  I speak  the  sentiments  of  our  league  not  only,  but  those 
who  are  our  friends,  and  I believe  they  are  the  large  majority  in  this 
community.  We  believe  that  the  internal -revenue  tax  should  be  main- 
tained in  preference  to  any  protective  duty,  matches  possibly  excepted. 
We  believe  next  to  that  that  the  duties  upon  tobacco  and  all  manufact- 
urers of  tobacco  and  alcohol  should  be  maintained,  so  as  to  make  the 
tax  upon  the  articles  themselves  equal,  whether  they  come  from  foreign 
countries  or  from  this  country. 

Next  to  that,  we  believe  that  a low  duty  should  be  imposed  upon 
coffee  and  tea. 

Next  to  that,  we  believe  that  there  are  a great  many  small  articles  of 
supplies  which  are  dispensed  with,  particularly  by  the  laboring  classes. 


1166 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  W.  W1TMER. 


They  are  dispensed  with,  with  or  without  duty,  aud  they  could  bear  a 
small  duty. 

Next  to  that  we  could  bear  a tax  upon  wools,  or  manufactures  of  wool, 
because  so  long  as  there  was  no  discrimination  it  would  be  regarded  by 
us  as  not  being  a protective  tariff. 

We  believe  that  a list  of  twenty- five  to  thirty  articles  might  be  se- 
lected on  which  a duty  might  be  imposed,  which  would  furnish  a suffi- 
cient revenue.  Or  the  list  might  be  increased,  if  necessary. 

Then  we  believe,  next  to  that,  that  the  expenses  of  the  government, 
as  they  are  known,  should  be  reduced.  A free  trader,  as  I understand, 
necessarily  looks  for  economy  in  all  branches  of  the  government.  For 
illustration,  the  free  traders,  to  a man,  are  opposed  to  the  river  and 
harbor  bill,  or  anything  that  belongs  to  it — that  is,  the  excesses  of  it. 
We  recognize  that  some  things  in  it  are  proper.  We  believe  that  the 
indebtedness  of  the  government  might  be  reduced  more  gradually  than 
it  is;  that  the  revenue  which  is  used  now  need  not  be  so  large  by  a 
very  large  percentage;  and  therefore  that  many  protective  duties  at 
least  could  be  removed. 

Then,  after  a number  of  years,  taking  the  time  given  by  my  friend 
Mr.  Philpott  yesterday,  whether  it  be  a shorter  or  a longer  time,  when 
we  reach  a point  where  the  necessities  still  exist  for  the  imposition  of 
duties  upon  imports,  and  we  find  that  protective  duties  are  necessary, 
rather  than  impose  a duty  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  one  man  as 
against  another,  then  I say  personally,  and  I believe  it  to  be  the  opinion 
of  the  farmers,  particularly,  the  general  masses,  including  the  farmers 
and  merchants  alike  in  this  section  of  the  country,  that  they  would 
rather  submit  to  an  income  tax,  and  I believe  it  to  be  f&irer  by  far  than 
a protective  duty. 

Now,  that  much  in  general  for  the  Free  Trade  League,  and  that  is  all. 

Specifically,  I want  to  say  that  I am  interested  somewhat  in  real 
estate  in  the  city  of  Des  Moines.  Last  year  I purchased  an  old  hotel  in 
the  city.  I made  repairs  upon  it,  amounting  to  about  $10,000  or  $12,000. 
It  had  to  be  refurnished,  and  I found  some  difficulty  in  getting  a ten- 
ant, but  the  chief  difficulty  was  in  finding  a man  who  had  sufficient 
capital  to  furnish  it.  The  house  in  past  years  had  not  been  in  excellent 
condition,  and  had  no  reputation  to  go  on.  I wanted  nothing  but  a 
first-class  man,  and  nothing  but  first-class  furniture  in  the  house.  I 
finally  found  a man  who  furnished  it  and  put  into  it  about  $10,000  to 
$12,000  worth  of  furniture.  Now,  without  going  into  details,  I want  to 
say  simply  that  if  that  furniture  has  cost  more  by  reason  of  the  duty 
which  is  levied  upon  the  articles,  it  will  be  beyond  really  what  I would 
wish  to  acknowledge  for  myself;  but,  making  some  considerable  allow- 
ance, adopting  methods  and  rules  which  I have  been  accustomed  to 
adopt  when  engaged  in  newspaper  work  here,  I think  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  that  furniture  cost  the  man  who  put  it  there  at  least  $2,000  to 
$2,500  more  than  it  ought  to  have  cost,  or  than  it  would  have  cost  if  he 
had  been  at  liberty  to  buy  his  furniture  abroad  and  import  it  at  the 
usual  expense  of  freight,  without  paying  the  duty.  The  usual  items,  of 
course,  are  carpets,  linen  goods,  table-ware,  dishes,  bedding,  and  the 
like;  and,  in  fixing  up,  paint,  oil,  colors,  &c.  Now,  adopt  the  same 
rule,  say,  for  the  house  in  which  this  Commission  sits,  and  the  expense 
would  be  about  $5,000  for  one  complete  outfit. 

The  Commission  may  not  have  thought  of  it,  but  I have  the  testimony 
of  gentlemen  engaged  in  the  business,  and  have  made  some  inquiry  for 
myself  in  regard  to  my  own  house,  and  1 find  that  such  articles  as  sheets, 
pillow-casing,  towels,  &c.,  must  be  renovated  about  once  every  year ; 


VV.  W.  WITMER.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1167 


carpets,  about  every  three  years ; dishes,  about  every  six  months ; and 
general  bedding,  about  every  five  years ; and  that  will  apply  to  the  fur- 
niture ; plated  ware,  such  as  you  find  on  the  tables,  probably  about 
once  every  two  or  three  years  ; stoves,  ranges,  or  furnaces,  about  every 
five  years.  Adopting  a very  liberal  policy,  it  may  be  safe  to  say  that 
the  furniture  in  this  house  must  be  renewed  every  five  years.  If  that 
be  true,  then  this  house,  according  to  the  rule  which  I have  adopted, 
pays  a tax  in  the  shape  of  duty  of  $5,000  every  five  years. 

Now,  take  the  four  leading  hotels  in  this  city,  and  it  will  aggregate  a 
sum  of  $12,500  to  $15,000.  If  this  is  extravagant,  make  any  reduction 
we  please,  it  makes  no  difference  as  to  the  argument  which  I desire  to 
draw  from  it ; but  it  is  a tax  with  no  benefits ; and  with  the  most  serious 
objection  of  all,  that  is,  your  host  does  not  enjoy  the  pleasure  of  having 
a tax  receipt.  It  is  a tax  equal  to  all  the  municipal,  school,  and  State 
taxes  which  he  has  to  pay  during  the  same  time;  but  for  those  he  gets 
a receipt;  for  this  he  does  not.  That  is  the  real  objection  to  the  pro- 
tective tariff  upon  imports. 

Now,  we  will  concede,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  the  duty  does 
not  go  to  the  amount  I have  indicated ; but  we  still  say  that  if  it  is  any 
per  cent,  of  that,  there  are  no  corresponding  benefits.  Somebody  else 
is  benefited.  The  host  does  not  pay  it  at  all;  the  guests  pay.  This 
Commission  pays  25  to  50  cents  a day  more  per  man  on  account,  not 
only  of  the  furniture,  but  the  help,  shoes,  hats,  clothes,  &c. 

There  is  just  one  other  item  to  which  I want  to  refer.  About  two 
years  ago  I was  engaged  in  newspaper  business,  and  a pressman  in- 
vented a newspaper  folder.  Other  gentlemen  with  myself  undertook  to 
engage  in  the  manufacture  of  it.  Last  year  we  purchased  a small  foundry, 
machinery,  &c.,  to  the  extent  of  about  $7,000  or  $8,000,  and  we  have 
been  at  work  ever  since  at  that.  Now,  here  is  a small  industry;  there  is 
nothing  in  the  world  anywhere  in  competition  with  us.  There  is  but 
one  machine  that  comes  anywhere  near  being  in  competition  with  us, 
and  that  is  located  at  Erie,  Penn.  It  is  a machine  just  calculated  to  do 
the  same  work;  an  invention  which  was  made  at  nearly  the  same  time 
ours  was.  I want  to  call  the  attention  of  this  Commission  to  this  fact: 
that  in  this  instance  we  are  employing  the  same  class  of  labor  which  is 
employed  by  locomotive  works,  engine  works,  or  factories  working  in 
iron.  Everything  we  buy  in  the  shape  of  iron,  steel,  copper,  or  brass  is 
taxed.  I have  endeavored  to  find  an  argument  by7  Avhich  this  infant  in- 
dustry can  be  encouraged  under  a protective  duty.  We  are  paying  a 
tax  to  others ; but  here  is  a little  factory,  which  is  destined  to  grow  to 
a large  one,  taxed  all  the  time  on  every  tool  and  everything  we  use,  in 
some  form  or  other,  at  some  percentage ; and  yet  this  is  a factory  the 
like  of  which  you  will  find  in  almost  every  town  in  the  West.  You  will 
find  in  the  valley  over  here  just  such  little  factories  all  around.  We 
are  kept  down,  held  back,  and  bothered  by7  the  expense  we  are  put  to 
in  hiring  our  help,  high  rates  of  living,  high  prices  of  tools,  high  prices 
of  machinery,  high  prices  of  materials  which  enter  into  the  manufacture 
of  that  machine. 

Now,  as  a free-trader,  or  as  anything  else,  1 have  never  been  able  to 
find  any  man  who  is  able  to  explain  that  particular  situation. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Are  you  still  manufacturing? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  kind  of  goods? — A,  Nothing  but  a folder;  we  are  doing  a 
little  brass  work. 


1168 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[VV.  W.  WITHER. 


Q.  What  wages  do  you  pay? — A,  We  pay  from  $1.75 — I think  that 
is  the  lowest  for  unskilled  labor — to  $3  a day. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  what  wages  would  be  paid  in  England  or  Germany 
to  the  same  class  of  labor? — A.  I have  a little  Englishman  working  in 
my  shop,  who  has  told  me  repeatedly,  and  I can  tell  you  now,  what  his 
views  are  upon  the  question  itself— — 

Commissioner  Oliver.  We  do  not  want  his  views. 

The  Witness.  No,  of  course  not 5 but  I say  that  by  way  of  explain- 
ing what  I may  say.  He  says  that  skilled  labor,  such  as  he  claims  to 
be  able  to  give,  is  paid  just  as  much  in  England  as  here ; that  he  has 
made  higher  wages  there  than  here;  that  he  was  better  appreciated,  to 
use  his  own  language. 

Q.  You  do  not  believe  that  they  pay  in  England  $1.75  to  $3  for  that 
class  of  labor? — A.  Yes,  Ido. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  would  not  average  one-third? — A.  I will 
not  argue  the  question. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  It  is  a matter  of  fact  very  easily  ascertained. 

The  Witness.  If  it  is,  I have  looked  for  it,  but  have  not  been  able 
to  ascertain. 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  you  ought  to  have  some  little  fair  proportionate 
protection  against  the  products  made  by  this  labor,  which  is  only  paid 
one- third  of  what  you  are  compelled  to  pay? — A.  No,  sir;  I do  not.  I 
would  like  to  answer  a little  further  than  that  upon  that  point.  I do 
not  want  to  make  any  argument.  I would  deem  it  but  fair  if  the  man 
from  whom  I buy  my  steel,  my  brass,  my  copper,  enjoys  protection  or 
benefits  under  the  law,  that  the  government  should  as  well  tell  me  that 
I should  enjoy  a protection  against  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  for  I 
feel  very  much  that  competition,  and  it  is  the  only  competition  I do  feel. 
I cannot  see  any  difference  between  myself  here  and  my  competitor  in 
Pennsylvania.  If  I had  my  business  in  Pennsylvania  I would  have  a 
good  fortune. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  You  complain  of  the  price  you  paid  for  furniture.  Have  you  ever, 
in  the  history  of  your  life,  known  furniture  as  low  in  price  as  it  is  now  ? — 
A.  Well,  I cannot  speak  as  to  that,  because  I have  not  investigated  it. 
I think  I can  say  as  to  wooden  furniture,  such  as  bedsteads,  that  they 
are  probably  cheaper  than  I have  ever  known ; but  I believe  it  might 
be  cheaper  still.  And  I might  say,  as  to  that  class  of  furniture,  that  I 
do  not  conceive  that  we  have  any  very  great  advantage  to  gain  from 
free  trade. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  known  carpets  as  cheap  as  they  are  now  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir ; I only  know  by  experience  at  home. 

Q.  Let  us  know  what  quality  and  when ? — A.  I cannot  tell  you;  I 
shall  have  to  be  excused  when  I have  no  specific  information. 

Q.  The  testimony  we  have  indicates  that  they  are  now  manufactured 
at  less  cost  and  cheaper  than  they  have  ever  been  before,  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  and  elsewhere. — A.  I have  no  doubt  of  that. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  known  pottery  as  cheap  as  it  is  ? — A.  I have  known 
it  to  be  cheaper  abroad. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  is  higher  abroad  now  than  it  was  fifteen 
or  twenty  years  ago  ? — A.  I do  not  know  that  as  a fact. 

Q.  You  stated  in  part  of  your  statement  that  you  wanted  to  enjoy  the 
same  free  trade  with  foreign  markets  that  you  do  with  Pennsylvania 
and  Massachusetts.  You  could  not  do  that  without  abolishing  all  the 
duties  upon  imports,  and  you  say  that  rather  than  have  duties  upon 
imports,  you  would  prefer  the  income  tax  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


w.  w.  witmer.1  FREE  TRADE.  1169 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  an  income  tax  has  been  tried  in  this  country? 
— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  .you  not  see  some  impracticability  in  that? — A.  I do  not. 

Q.  Does  it  not  throw  the  burden  of  the  government  upon  the  men 
who  honestly  give  in  their  incomes,  and  work  favorably  to  those  who 
fail  to  honestly  return  their  incomes  ? — A.  I agree  to  that. 

Q.  Is  that  a satisfactory  mode  of  raising  revenue? — A.  I cannot  answer 
it  by  yes  or  no.  It  is  very  unsatisfactory  when  it  is  not  necessary.  At 
home,  the  assessor  comes  around  and  he  looks  at  my  pocket  and  he  sees 
a gold  watch.  My  neighbor  has  his  watch  in  a bureau  drawer,  and  the 
assessor  does  not  see  it.  I have  no  notes  and  mortgages  to  return.  My 
neighbor  makes  it  very  convenient  to  exchange  his  notes  and  mortgages 
for  government  bonds  about  the  same  time  the  assessor  comes  round,  or 
into  greenbacks,  or  sends  them  off.  His  conscience  is  a little  elastic, 
and  he  is  not  very  rich  that  day.  The  same  difficulty  which  you  refer 
to  in  regard  to  the  income  tax  applies  precisely  as  to  the  jewelry,  notes, 
mortgages,  and  other  things  of  that  character.  Now,  if  it  is  possible  to 
get  anything  like  a fair  report  upon  the  one,  it  should  be  upon  the  other. 
A man  who  will  swear  that  he  has  an  income  less  than  the  law  would 
tax,  when  iniact  it  is  greater,  would  swear  also  that  he  had  no  notes 
and  mortgages,  if  he  had  them. 

Q.  The  duties  upon  imports  do  not  involve  notes  and  mortgages;  that 
is,  under  your  State  system. — A.  I understand.  I say  if  it  was  possible 
for  the  State  to  do  so,  then  it  is  certainly  possible  for  the  United  States 
to  do  so. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  is  not  possible  for  the  State  to  get  accurate 
information  upon  those  things? — A.  I do;  and  yet  it  tries  it. 

Q.  But  it  always  fails. — A.  Of  course  it  is  difficult ; but  I very  naturally 
incline  to  ask  the  question  whether  you  may  not  abolish  the  personal 
tax,  as  indicating  the  policy?  If  one  is  objectionable,  the  other  is. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  if  the  duties  on  imports  were  abolished,  the 
part  that  the  State  of  Iowa  would  have  to  pay  to  the  general  gov- 
ernment is  about  $9,000,000? — A.  No,  sir;  I believe  it  would  be  more, 
but  if  that,  or  half  of  it,  I object  to  it  as  the  free-trader  objects  to  it. 

Q.  How  would  you  get  the  $9,000,000? — A.  I have  indicated  that. 

Q.  Yes;  you  have  indicated  that  you  would  still  collect  that  by  du- 
ties upon  imports  and  upon  specific  articles. — A.  Yes;  largely. 

Q.  And,  among  others,  you  specified  wool.  Do  you  not  know  that 
wool  is  now  taxed? — A.  Yes;  but  I would  not  tax  it  so  high. 

Q.  What  rate  would  you  propose  upon  wool  and  woolen  goods  in 
preference  to  the  one  that  now  exists  ? — A.  I believe  a 10  or  15  per  cent, 
duty  upon  wool  would  yield  a pretty  large  revenue;  and,  if  imposed 
alike  upon  wool  and  woolen  goods,  it  would  answer  the  free-trader’s 
idea  of  free  trade. 

Q.  How  much  importation  of  wool,  woolen  goods,  and  tea  and  coffee 
(those  are  the  articles  you  specified)  would  it  require,  at  the  rate  you 
propose,  to  raise  the  amount  of  revenue  necessary  to  carry  on  the  gov- 
ernment and  pay  the  debt  and  the  pensioners  ? — A.  I cannot  answer 
that. 

Q.  Would  it  not  greatly  exceed  the  whole  amount  of  our  exports? — 
A.  No;  I think  not. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  it  is  for  the  best  interests  of  the  country  that 
the  imports  should  exceed  the  exports? — A.  I have  no  objection  what- 
ever. That  suggests  the  balance  of  trade. 

II.  Mis.  0 74 


1170 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHARLES  A.  M’XAIR. 


CHABLES  A.  McNAIB. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Charles  A.  McNair,  of  Saint  Louis,  representing  the  Missouri 
Furnace  Company,  made  the  following  statement: 

I am  an  iron  manufacturer  of  Saint  Louis.  I do  not  propose  to  make 
a tariff  speech,  but  I desire  to  say  that  the  iron  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States  have  just  had  a convention  at  Cresson,  Pa.,  and  have 
appointed  committees  to  represent  the  iron  interest  before  this  Commis- 
sion. I have  simply  come  to  say  to  you  that  our  interests  here  require 
that  we  should  have  the  protection  that  we  have  now  under  the  laws. 
We  cannot  sustain  ourselves  as  manufacturers  of  iron  if  the  protection 
which  we  now  enjoy  is  removed.  There  is  a large  amount  of  money 
invested  in  these  interests  in  this  city,  all  of  which  would  be  lost  or 
destroyed  if  the  protection  were  removed.  As  a manufacturer  here  in 
Saint  Louis,  I would  be  very  glad  to  answer  any  questions  that  the 
Commission  may  put  to  me. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  How  many  blast-furnaces  have  you  in  Saint  Louis  and  the 
immediate  neighborhood  ! — Answer.  We  have  ten  in  Saint  Louis. 

Q.  Are  they  all  running! — A.  No,  sir;  there  are  only  four  running 
to-day  and  two  of  those  will  stop  very  soon. 

Q.  All  modern  furnaces! — A.  They  have  all  been  built  since  1870, 
and  some  of  them  since  1874. 

Q.  Only  four  out  of  the  ten  are  running! — A.  Yes,  sir.  We  had  six 
running  up  to  a short  time  ago. 

Q.  To  what  do  you  attribute  the  fact  that  you  are  only  running  a 
little  over  one-third  of  your  capacity! — A.  It  is  chiefly  because  the 
market  is  not  as  good  as  it  was.  There  is  not  the  same  demand  for 
pig-iron  that  there  was  six  months  ago.  Most  of  the  furnaces  that  were 
in  operation  were  making  iron  for  use  in  Bessemer  mills.  The  Bessemer 
mills  are  not  running  as  strongly  as  they  were;  they  are  not  taking  as 
much  iron  as  they  were.  That  is  the  chief  reason;  there  is  no  profit 
in  tne  business. 

Q.  What  do  you  recommend  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  rates! — A.  I 
leave  that  entirely  to  the  convention ; I do  not  wish  to  express  any 
opinion  on  that  subject.  As  one  of  the  manufacturers  of  Saint  Louis 
I desire  to  put  myself  on  record  as  very  strongly  in  favor  of  protection. 
It  is  not  necessary,  I sux)pose,  for  me  to  give  my  reasons;  the  Commis- 
sional  ready  understand  what  they  are. 


ARCHIBALD  MEANS.] 


SPELTER  AND  ZINC. 


1171 


AKCHIBALD  MEANS. 


Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Archibald  Means,  of  Peru,  111.,  manager  of  the  Illinois  Zinc 
Company,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Gentlemen:  The  spelter  and  zinc  interest  which  we  represent,  is 
comparatively  a new  business  in  the  West,  which  has  developed  in  the 
last  fifteen  years,  and  mostly  in  the  last  seven  years,  in  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, Missouri,  and  Kansas.  Commercially,  zinc  in  slabs  and  plates  is 
known  as  spelter,  and  when  rolled  into  sheets  is  known  on  the  market 
as  sheet  zinc.  For  several  years,  in  the  beginning  of  the  development 
of  this  industry,  much  of  the  spelter  was  produced  from  zinc  ores  that 
had  been  thrown  out  as  debris  from  the  lead  mines  in  Wisconsin,  Illinois, 
and  Missouri,  and  from  surface  deposits  of  ore,  and  consequently  at  a low 
cost  per  ton ; the  lead  and  zinc  ores  being  associated  in  nearly  all  these 
mining  districts. 

We  are  not  aware  that  the  condition  of  the  manufacture  of  spelter  has 
been  presented  to  Congress,  and  we  are  glad  to  have  an  opportunity  of 
presenting  the  facts  to  you,  and  beg  your  consideration  of  them,  in  the 
direction  of  a lurther  development  of  this  industry. 

’ We  make  the  following  estimate  of  the  production  of  spelter  for  the 
year  ending  August  31,  1882,  viz : 


Tons. 

In  Illinois 15,  500 

In  Missouri 6,675 

In  Kansas 4,250 


Total  Avestern 

Tlie  importation  of  foreign  spelter  in  last  fiscal  year,  as  given  by  New  York 
Metal  Report,  was 


26, 425 
11,  346 


Total  western  and  imported 


37, 771 


The  capacity  of  the  thirteen  western  manufactories  at  the  present 
time  is  carefully  estimated,  viz : 

Tons. 


In  Illinois.. 
In  Missouri 
In  Kansas . . 


17,000 
13,  200 
9, 050 


Total 39,250 

The  present  capacity  for  production  is  therefore  fully  adequate  to  sup- 
ply this  market. 

The  estimated  production  of  Europe  for  the  year  1881  was  203,000 
tons.  The  business  on  the  continent  is  mainly  carried  on  by  large  com- 
panies, some  of  which  annually  produce  a larger  amount  of  spelter  than 
all  the  western  manufactories,  viz,  in  Illinois,  Missouri,  and  Kansas. 
For  some  years  past  these  foreign  companies  have  been  controlled  by  a 
combination,  which  is  styled  a syndicate,  the  object  of  which  is  to  pro- 
tect their  interests  and  supply  their  own  market  at  a paying  price  to 
them.  The  result  of  this  combination  has  been  to  maintain  the  price 
at  home,  while  their  surplus  product  was  largely  placed  on  this  mar- 
ket, as  the  exhibit  herewith  will  show,  to  the  amount  of  11,346  tons 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1882,  against  2,085  tons  for  the  pre- 
vious year,  thus  rendering  the  business  fluctuating  and  uncertain. 


1172 


TAR  I FF  COMMISSION. 


[ARCHIBALD  MEANS. 


Against  this  combination  of  foreign  capital  and  cheap  labor,  we  re- 
spectfully ask  for  an  increase  of  duty  on  spelter  and  sheet  zinc. 

The  duty  on  spelter  now  is  1J  cents  per  pound,  and  on  sheet  zinc  2J 
cents  per  pound,  which  seems  obviously  too  low,  and  not  in  proportion 
to  the  duties  on  other  articles  in  proportion  to  the  cost.  On  bar  iron, 
for  instance,  the  duty  averages  about  cents  per  pound,  the  duty  on 
standard  sizes  being  1 cent  per  pound,  which,  with  iron  at  2J  cents  per 
pound,  is  more  than  40  per  cent,  of  its  value.  Steel  ingots,  which  are 
worth  less  than  spelter,  pay  a duty  of  2-|  cents  per  pound.  Apply  these 
duties  to  spelter  at  5J  cents  value,  and  sheet  zinc  at  6f  cents  value, and 
we  should  have  a duty  of  2J  cents  per  pound  on  spelter,  and  2f  cents  on 
sheet  zinc. 

The  mining  for  zinc  ores  is  now  an  independent  branch  of  the  business, 
and  all  the  smelting  companies  purchase  the  ores  they  consume  from 
the  miners.  As  the  demand  for  ores  has  increased  the  cost  of  the  ores 
has  largely  increased,  because  of  the  increased  expense  of  mining  ; the 
cost  of  the  ore  to  the  smelting  companies  being  fully  three-fifths  of  the 
cost  of  the  manufactured  spelter. 

We  will  also  state  that  the  wages  now  paid  our  employes  are  lower 
than  is  paid  in  this  country  to  the  same  class  of  skilled  labor  in  other 
manufactories. 

Our  product  is  largely  consumed  by  manufacturers  in  more  advanced 
articles  of  manufacture  in  the  eastern  and  central  States,  and  the  trans- 
portation is  paid  by  us  to  meet  the  price  of  the  foreign  article.  The 
present  rate  from  Saint  Louis  to  New  York  is  $7  per  ton,  and  from  South- 
west Missouri  and  Kansas  60  cents  per  100,  which  is  nearly  one-half  of 
the  present  duty  on  the  foreign  spelter. 

The  process  of  the  manufacture  of  spelter  is  by  distillation,  and  a 
large  number  of  men  are  employed  for  the  amount  of  out-put.  A block 
of  eight  furnaces  whose  average  out-put  would  be  8 tons  daily,  employs 
125  men,  it  requiring  a greater  amount  of  labor  to  the  ton  than  any  other 
metal  except  gold,  silver,  and  copper. 

The  number  of  men  employed  in  these  States,  independent  of  those 
engaged  in  mining  ore  and  coal,  is  about  3,000  men,  and  the  value  of 
the  manufactured  product  annually  about  $4,000,000. 

In  view  of  the  conditions  herein  presented,  the  higher  cost  for  mining 
zinc  ores,  the  low  cost  of  labor  employed  in  this  business,  and  the  un- 
equal and  inadequate  duty  now  levied  as  compared  with  other  articles 
of  manufacture,  we  think  we  can  ask  with  confidence  that  you  will  give 
our  petition  favorable  consideration  for  an  increase  of  duty  on  spelter 
to  2^  cents  per  pound  and  on  sheet  zinc  to  2f  cents  per  pound. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  What  is  the  present  price  of  American  spelter? — Answer. 
It  ranges  from  $5.25  to  $5.40  at  the  present  time.  New  York  is  the 
commercial  center,  and  in  speaking  of  the  price  of  spelter,  of  course  I 
speak  of  the  price  of  it  there. 

Q.  What  is  the  price  of  foreign  spelter  in  New  York  ?— A.  About 
$5.25,  or  it  has  been  about  that  price. 

Q.  Is  there  any  difference  in  the  quality  of  the  two? — A.  There  is 
some  difference  in  the  quality  of  spelter.  The  eastern  manufacturers, 
in  the  States  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey,  make  an  article  of  spelter 
which  is  superior  to  ours.  It  is  a pure  article  of  spelter,  but  it  cannot 
be  produced  and  sold  at  our  prices.  We  are  selling  spelter  at  5J  cents, 
while  their  price  is  8£  or  9 cents.  It  brings  this  higher  price  on  account 
of  its  purity,  and  is  used  for  many  purposes  for  which  the  common 


ARCHIBALD  MEANS.] 


SPLLTER  AND  ZINC. 


1173 


western  spelter  cannot  be  used.  Some  of  the  manufacturers  prefer  for- 
eign spelter  for  various  reasons ; it  seems  to  us  because  of  their  preju- 
dice in  favor  of  it  more  than  anything*  else.  I do  not  see  that  there  is 
difference  enough  in  the  quality  to  make  the  difference  in  the  price. 
Some  kinds  contain  more  lead  than  others.  Foreign  spelter  is  not  free 
from  lead. 

Q.  I asked  the  question  to  elicit  the  fact  whether  after  all  it  was  not 
more  a matter  of  prejudice.  A great  many  people  think  foreign  arti- 
cles of  all  kinds  are  better  than  domestic  articles.  If  you  should  get 
the  higher  rate  of  duty  for  which  you  ask,  would  there  not  still  be  a 
certain  proportion  of  foreign  spelter  brought  into  the  country  ? — A.  I 
hardly  think  there  would  be.  Some  of  the  merchants  on  the  seaboard 
will  buy  foreign  spelter  and  zinc  for  the  reason  that  they  can  export  it, 
or  it  can  go  into  articles  of  export,  and  they  get  a rebate  for  so  much 
of  it  as  enters  into  the  manufactured  article.  To  that  extent  those  who 
export  will  want  to  buy  the  foreign  article  to  get  that  rebate. 

Q.  They  buy  it  of  foreigners  and  put  it  in  with  some  of  their  articles 
and  get  enough  per  cent,  rebate  in  sending  it  off  to  other  countries  to 
make  it  profitable  to  them  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  not  the  development  of  this  interest  in  the  three  States  you 
have  named,  Illinois,  Missouri,  and  Kansas,  been  greater  than  in  all 
the  other  States  of  the  Union  combined? — A.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  a great 
deal  of  ore  in  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  and  Missouri. 

Q.  When  was  this  duty  of  1J  cent  on  spelter  and  2J  on  zinc  imposed  ? — 
A.  I think  it  was  about  1861. 

Q.  Did  not  the  protection  given  by  this  duty  have  a tendency  to  in- 
crease the  production  in  this  country  very  largely? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I 
suppose  that  is  true  to  a large  extent. 

Q.  Did  you  not  build  your  factories  and  reach  this  large  production 
under  the  protection  that  the  law  gave  you  fifteen  years  ago  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  certainly.  We  have  been  living  under  the  laws  as  they  are.  But 
there  are  certain  conditions  which  are  changed  since  the  development 
of  the  industry.  In  other  words,  ores  cost  us  to-day  100  per  cent,  more 
than  they  did  ten  years  ago,  and  previous  to  that  time  they  cost  still  Jess. 
The  reason  for  chat  is,  that  in  the  beginning  of  this  industry  much  of 
the  spelter  was  produced  from  zinc  ores  that  had  been  thrown  out  as 
debris  from  the  old  mines  in  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  and  Missouri,  and  that 
was  collected  at  a mere  nominal  cost  of  a few  dollars  per  ton.  In  1872 
I paid  about  $7.50  a ton,  while  to-day  some  grades  of  ore  bring  $22  a 
ton.  Latterly  much  of  the  shallow  mining  has  been  done.  Now  we  have 
a different  condition  of  things  surrounding  our  industry.  The  mining 
interest  has  developed,  and  it  is  now  a matter  of  the  actual  cost  of 
labor,  so  that  the  ores  themselves  are  costing  a great  deal  more  to  mine. 
We  expected  that  the  mining  interest  would  be  here  to  represent  their 
views  in  this  matter,  and  therefore  I have  not  referred  to  them  in  my 
remarks. 

Q.  How  lias  the  business  attained  such  large  proportions? — A.  It 
has  been  carried  on  in  a desultory  way.  There  have  been  as  many  as 
five,  while  now  there  are  only  two  establishments  in  our  country.  In 
Saint  Louis  there  are  three  concerns,  one  of  which  has  suspended  opera- 
tions. Some  of  them  have  suspended  on  account  of  the  low  price  of 
spelter. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  deposits  of  ore ; are  they  large  or  small  ? — 
A.  The  ore  deposits  seem  to  be  in  pockets  or  nests  or  running  in  ter- 


1174 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ARCHIBALD  MEANS. 


races.  Sometimes  a pocket  is  quite  large,  and  it  will  be  mined  in  paying 
quantities,  and  then  gradually  drop  down  until  it  does  not  pay  the  ex- 
pense of  taking  it  out.  It  is  not  regular. 

Q.  Does  it  run  in  veins  or  lodes  ? — A.  Some  in  veins.  So  far  as 
Southwestern  Missouri  is  concerned,  I do  not  think  it  can  be  said  to  be  a 
vein ; it  seems  to  be  in  areas. 

Q.  Has  the  value  of  these  ore-beds  increased  or  enhanced  in  price  ? — 
A.  Ore  lands  have. 

Q.  Has  not  the  raising  of  the  price  of  the  ore  by  the  owners  of  the 
mines  had  more  to  do  with  the  price  of  spelter  than  Ifhe  cost  of  the  labor 
necessary  to  get  the  ore? — A.  No;  I think  not.  I should  have  been  glad 
if  the  mining  interests  had  been  here  to-day  to  state  the  facts  in  regard 
to  their  business.  They  claim  that  the  wages  of  labor  is  inadequate; 
that  is,  that  the  men  do  not  get  fair  wages.  The  prospecting  is  done  by 
men  who  lease  a lot  of,  say,  200  feet  square  in  some  cases,  from  the  min- 
ing company,  and  they  pay  a royalty,  such  a proportion  of  the  ores  which 
they  may  mine  or  get  out  of  that  piece  of  ground. 

Q.  How  much  is  that ; what  is  the  average  worth? — A.  It  varies  in 
different  places.  It  is  usually  one-eighth,  or  12£  per  cent,  given  to  the 
owner  of  the  land. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  ask  an  advance  of  this  duty  from  1J  to  2J 
cents  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  expect  would  be  the  effect  of  that  on  the  price  of  the 
article? — A.  It  will  do  just  this:  it  will  leave  the  competition  largely  be- 
tween the  producers  of  spelter  at  home,  and  the  business  will  not  be  sub- 
ject to  the  interposition  of  the  dealers  in  the  foreign  article.  That  is 
the  object  in  view;  simply  to  let  the  American  manufacturer  supply  it 
and  take  his  chances. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  You  think  there  would  be  no  danger  of  a syndicate  here? — A.  No, 
sir. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  Would  it  advance  the  price  of  spelter  in  this  country? — A.  No, 
sir;  I think  not,  materially. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  possible,  on  account  of  the  few  persons  engaged 
in  the  business,  to  make  a combination  rather  than  to  provoke  competi- 
tion?— A.  No,  sir;  I think  not.  I have  had  some  experience  in  that 
matter  in  past  years,  endeavoring  to  protect  ourselves  here.  We  have 
never  asked  any  legislation  on  the  subject.  We  have  endeavored  sev- 
eral times,  but  have  failed  always,  to  get  a combination  that  would  do 
us  any  good.  Whatever  arrangement  wTas  made  would  be  temporary 
and  not  permanent. 


ADOLPHUS  MEIEK-1 


FREE  TRADE. 


1175 


ADOLPHUS  MEIEE. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Adolphus  Meier,  of  the  firm  of  Adolphus  Meier  & Co.,  of  Saint 
Louis,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Gentlemen:  I notice  from  the  daily  journals,  referring  to  the  pro- 
ceedings had  before  your  body,  that  all  testimony  and  information  is  re- 
ceived, be  it  in  favor  of  higher  or  lower  duties  than  those  existing  at 
present,  or  of  retaining  the  present  tariff. 

The  large  mass  of  information  collected  in  this  way  is  awakening  more 
interest  in  the  tariff  question  among  the  people  generally,  and  the  daily 
proceedings,  as  published  by  the  press  of  the  country,  place  this  informa- 
tion within  the  reach  of  every  citizen  who  feels  an  interest  in  the  prog- 
ress and  welfare  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Having  been  engaged  in  mercantile  and  manufacturing  pursuits  in 
this  city  since  1837,  we  have,  in  this  period  of  forty-five  years,  witnessed 
the  changes  produced  by  tariff  legislation  and  by  burdensome  iuternal- 
revenue  laws  on  the  general  trade  of  the  country,  and  we  wish  to  sub- 
mit our  views  on  this  subject  to  your  body,  and  to  point  out  what  we 
deem  is  demanded  and  imperatively  necessary  to  be  done  at  the  present 
time. 

Our  business,  during  the  forty-five  years  mentioned  above,  has  been 
jobbers  and  importers  of  foreign  and  domestic  hardware  for  thirty-five 
years;  exporters  of  leaf  tobacco  for  forty  years;  interested  as  managers 
and  stockholders  in  the  manufacture  of  cotton  goods,  pig  iron,  and  rail- 
road iron  for  periods  ranging  from  ten  to  thirty-five  years.  Without 
referring  to  the  past,  and  to  the  necessity  existing  at  the  time  to  call 
into  life  our  exorbitant  and  unwise  tariff  for  the  purpose  of  raising  an 
immense  revenue  to  pay  war  expenses,  or  to  the  questionable  advan- 
tage the  present  tariff  may  have  had  in  creating  artificially  an  enormous 
industry  by  the  rapid  erection  of  numerous  factories  and  workshops, 
we  will  limit  our  remarks  to  the  present  condition  of  the  question,  to 
the  prospects  of  the  future,  and  to  the  influence  the  present  import 
duties  may  have  on  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country  at  large. 

We  claim  that  the  present  import  duties,  being  collected  from  nearly 
every  article  of  luxury  and  necessity  imported  into  this  country,  are 
the  cause  of  the  high  cost  of  living,  and,  consequently,  of  the  high  prices 
of  labor,  and  that  this  enhances  the  cost  of  manufacturing  iu  this 
country,  so  that  our  own  people,  who  are  practically  the  only  consumers 
of  our  manufactured  goods,  have  to  pay  this  extra  cost — a tax  on  their 
daily  wants.  The  revenue  the  present  tariff  produces  is  mostly  paid 
by  the  sons  of  toil — the  tillers  of  the  ground,  the  miners,  mechanics, 
artisans,  and  laborers — while  the  men  of  wealth  contribute  but  a small 
percentage  of  the  revenue,  by  the  consumption  of  articles  of  daily  ne- 
cessity, so  that  the  effect  is  to  make  the  rich  richer  and  the  poor  poorer. 

The  high  cost  of  manufacturing  in  this  country,  as  caused  by  the 
present  tariff,  prevents  the  people  of  the  United  States  from  competing 
with  other  nations  less  favorably  situated  for  the  export  trade  in  manu- 
factured goods  to  foreign  countries,  prevents  us  from  re-establishing  a 
merchant  marine  that  in  ante:bellum  days  was.  the  admiration  of  tbe 
world,  makes  us  pay  large  amounts  of  money  tor  freight  to  foreign  capi- 


1176 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f ADOLPHUS  MEIER. 


talists,  and  leaves  us  only  raw  products  for  export  to  liquidate  our 
balances. 

If  the  great  commercial  and  manufacturing  countries  of  the  Old  World 
cannot  dispose  of  a part  of  the  product  of  their  workshops  to  this 
country  to  keep  their  own  labor  employed,  it  follows  that  they  cannot 
take  from  us  our  surplus  grain  and  provisions,  excepting  at  such  low 
prices  that  it  may  mean  ruin  to  the  American  farmer,  who  is  taxed 
through  the  tariff  on  every  article  he  wears,  eats,  or  uses. 

The  demand  by  some  manufacturers  for  a still  higher  tariff  we  look 
upon  as  a sign  of  the  times,  and  it  clearly  illustrates  that  in  many 
brandies  of  manufacturing  there  is  no  profit,  and  therefore  it  is  natural 
for  some  manufacturers  to  demand  more  protection,  under  the  belief 
that  such  a change  will  insure  them  better  profits  5 but  they  are  either 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  every  additional  protection  means  a corre- 
sponding advanced  price  for  labor  and  materials,  or  they  have  no  faith 
in  the  stability  of  the  present  system,  and  ask  for  an  increase  of  duties 
in  the  hope  of  receiving,  as  speedily  as  possible,  profits  large  enough  to 
pay  for  their  investments. 

So  far  as  the  future  of  our  industries  is  concerned,  we  cannot  take  a 
hopeful  view  of  their  condition,  if  the  present  high  and  discriminating 
tariff  is  kept  011  the  statute  book.  While  the  population  of  the  United 
States  is  growing  at  a more  rapid  rate  than  that  of  any  other  civilized 
country,  the  consuming  power  of  the  people  may  be  equal  to  the  pro- 
duction of  manufactured  commodities,  but  a time  will  come  when  a 
slower  annual  increase  in  population  takes  place,  owing  to  a restricted 
or  diminished  immigration  ; in  the  event  of  which,  the  continuous  excess 
of  production,  compared  to  any  possible  consumptive  demand,  will  make 
itself  felt,  as  has  already  been  the  case  in  the  period  of  time  from  1873 
to  1879,  and  it  was  only  the  remarkable  coincidence  that  three  crop 
failures  occurred  successively  in  most  European  countries,  while  we  were 
blessed  with  superabundance,  that  enabled  us  to  dispose  of  our  surplus 
food  products  at  such  remunerative  prices  as  to  restore  a temporary 
equilibrium  between  the  demand  and  supply  of  manufactured  goods. 
But  one  partial  failure  of  the  crops  in  this  country  last  year  immedi- 
ately brought  about  a similar  condition  of  affairs  as  existed  prior  to 
1879,  to  wit,  overproduction  of  nearly  all  kinds  of  manufactured  goods, 
a falling  market  for  them,  but  a high  market  for  labor  and  materials. 
There  is  a want  of  elasticity  to  our  manufacturing  trade  that  makes 
itself  felt  at  once  upon  the  occurrence  of  any  slight  disaster ; we  cannot 
get  relief  from  foreign  trade  in  such  times,  and  we  immediately  choke 
on  our  own  overproduction. 

Hence,  we  should  build  up  our  foreign  commerce  in  exports,  but  that 
can  only  be  done  gradually;  and  it  will  be  necessary  to  reduce  duties  to 
a point  that  will  enable  us  to  manufacture  at  a lower  cost  than  can  be 
done  at  present. 

We  cannot  see  that  the  working  man  is  in  any  way  protected  by  the 
present  tariff',  for  his  cost  of  living  is  increased  even  in  a larger  ratio 
than  his  wages;  and  if  wages  remain  very  high  for  a few  years  it  causes 
an  influx  of  European  surplus  labor,  which  of  course  will  be  employed 
in  some  manner,  and  labor,  being  an  article  of  demand  and  supply,  as 
any  other  commodity,  we  may  see  labor  decline  by  oversupply,  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise  selling  below  cost  on  account  of  overproduction, 
aud  yet  the  cost  of  living,  such  as  rent,  food,  and  fuel,  kept  up  to  a point 
that  will  prevent  any  savings  out  of  the  earnings  of  the  working  classes ; 
aud  where  there  are  no.  savings  there  is  no  accumulation  of  capital. 

In  reference  to  the  question,  what  influence  the  tariff'  has  on  the  gen- 


ADOLPHUS  MEIER. J 


FREE  TRADE. 


1177 


eral  prosperity  of  the  country  at  large,  I have  partially  touched  on  this 
point  in  my  previous  remarks 5 hut  I may  add  that  the  United  States 
are  not  adding  to  their  national  wealth  in  each  decade  as  much  as  they 
would  if  the  tariff  was  reformed  to  a more  just,  equitable,  and  less  bur- 
densome basis. 

The  superior  skill  of  the  American  artisan  and  mechanic,  the  constant 
anxiety  and  work  of  the  American  farmer,  is  not  being  properly  compen- 
sated, notwithstanding  apparently  remunerative  wages. 

Values  of  a good  many  things  are  inflated,  and  the  savings  of  the 
working  people,  if  they  have  any,  can  only  be  invested  in  securities  or 
real  estate  at  an  inflated  value,  thus  making  a return  in  the  shape  of 
interest  on  such  investments,  even  at  a low  rate,  very  problematical,  and 
involving  the  risk  of  a partial  loss  of  capital,  when  values  are  fixed  on 
a lower  basis,  under  any  subsequent  reduction  of  our  tariff  or  internal- 
revenue  taxes. 

We  will  not  dwell  at  length  upon  the  burden  entailed  upon  the  peo- 
ple by  the  internal-revenue  taxes,  especially  the  tax  on  bank  deposits, 
being  virtually  a tax  on  capital,  nor  will  we  argue  the  detrimental  in- 
fluence of  high  local  taxes  or  consider  the  threatening  danger  arising  to 
the  manufacturer  byre-establishing  a silver  dollar  of  87^  cents’ value  in 
gold,  and  their  continued  coinage,  notwithstanding  the  reluctance  of  the 
people  to  use  this  coin ; but  these  influences  certainly  add  to  the  evil 
effects  of  the  present  tariff. 

We  predict  that  if  the  present  high  tariff  is  maintained,  and  perhaps 
even  increased  on  some  articles  an  industrial  crisis  will  become  inevit- 
able, and  it  will  be  the  most  severe  and  trying  calamity  the  country  has 
ever  had,  for  it  will  throw  thousands  and  thousands  of  workingmen  out 
of  employment,  close  our  mills,  mines,  and  workshops,  destroy  credit 
and  confidence,  and  particularly  will  it  impoverish  the  man  who  works 
for  his  daily  labor. 

In  our  business  of  cotton  manufacturing,  we  are  free  to  say,  we  need 
no  tariff  of  any  kind;  we  know  we  can  compete  with  any  country  in 
this  branch  if  we  are  allowed  to  purchase  our  machinery  where  it  is  the 
cheapest;  and  if  cotton  mills  could  be  erected  in  this  country  at  as  low, 
or  nearly  as  low,  a cost  as  they  are  in  Europe  the  United  States  would 
very  soon  acquire  a large  share  of  the  trade  in  cotton  goods  to  foreign 
countries,  and  spin  and  weave  the  bulk  of  its  own  cotton  crop,  instead 
of  exporting  nearly  three-fourths  of  our  annual  raw  material.  So  far 
as  we  are  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron,  we  think  this  article 
could  stand  a reduction  in  the  tariff  to  about  $2  or  $3  per  ton,  while  for 
manufactured  iron  and  steel  a very  material  reduction  of  the  duties 
seems  to  us  as  necessary.  We  ask  for  free  admission  of  iron  ore,  as 
that  will  reduce  the  value  of  it  here  and  enable  steel  and  rail  manufact- 
urers to  use  American  steel  for  their  rails,  instead  of  importing  foreign 
steel  blooms,  the  latter  being  imported  at  a considerable  less  rate  of 
duty  than  steel  rails,  which  pay  nearly  100  per  cent,  on  first  cost — all  of 
which  is  very  injurious  to  the  manufacturers  of  pig  iron  in  this  country. 

The  United  States  have  inexhaustible  deposits  of  ores  and  fuel,  and, 
under  ordinary  expenses  for  labor,  coal,  and  freight,  and  a materally 
reduced  cost  of  plant,  the  furnaces  and  iron  mills  of  this  country  could, 
we  think,  compete  with  their  European  rivals  in  all  our  home  markets, 
and  possibly  also  in  South  America,  Mexico,  and  the  West  India  Isl- 
ands. If  it  needs  a protection,  such  as  we  now  suffer  under,  to  sustain 
the  iron  and  steel  business  of  this  country,  where  the  raw  material  is  in 
such  abundance,  there  must  be  something  radically  wrong  if  iron  ores 
can  be  imported  cheaj)er  than  they  can  be  got  here. 


1178 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ADOLPHU3  MEIER. 


While  we  emphatically  believe  that  every  country  with  as  many 
natural  resources  and  advantages  as  this  country  possesses  must  be 
more  prosperous  under  free  trade  and  low  prices,  as  against  burden- 
some protection  and  high  prices,  we  cannot  urge  a sudden  change  of 
policy,  as  this  would  tend  to  greatly  unsettle  values  and  possibly  might 
produce  disaster. 

We  favor  for  tariff  reform  the  following  plan  : 

I.  A large  reduction  in  the  number  of  articles  to  be  taxed. 

II.  Absolutely  free  trade  in  all  raw  materials  that  this  country  is 
capable  of  producing. 

III.  A very  moderate  tariff,  say  10  to  15  per  cent.,  on  all  articles  par- 
tially manufactured. 

IV.  A general  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  manufactured  goods  at  the 
rate  of  about  20  per  cent,  per  annum,  until  the  average  tax  does  not 
exceed  25  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the  imports  of  this  class. 

V.  A full  taxation  on  imports  of  all  articles  that  this  country  cannot 
produce,  such  as  coffee,  tea,  indigo,  silks,  coco,  rubber,  drugs,  and  all 
articles  of  luxury. 

VI.  Free  trade  in  books  and  works  of  art. 

VII.  Specific  duties,  whenever  practical,  as  there  is  less  room  for 
false  entries. 

VIII.  Abolishment  of  custom-houses  when  they  are  not  necessary. 

Whenever  a settled  and  defined  policy  has  been  at  work  on  this 

question  for  a few  years,  under  a reform  similar  to  above,  we  believe 
there  will  be  a rebound  in  our  prosperity,  such  as  the  world  has  never 
before  witnessed. 

We  believe  the  present  tariff  prevents  the  annual  production  of 
wealth  from  being  properly  distributed  among  the  mass  of  the  people ; 
whenever  this  is  cured — and  the  tariff,  as  it  now  exists,  is  the  great 
obstacle  to  the  cure — the  pulse  of  trade  will  quicken,  a new  start  will 
be  made,  and  another  great  step  will  be  taken  by  this  nation  to  the 
front  rank  of  all  nations,  in  the  peaceful  rivalry  of  that  commercial 
and  industrial  supremacy  that  is  within  our  grasp. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Question.  Your  suggestions  are  somewhat  radical  in  their  character, 
and  1 will  ask  you  a few  questions  in  regard  to  them.  You  are  in  busi- 
ness here  in  Saint  Louis,  are  you? — Answer.  Yes,  sir;  we  are  engage.- 
in  business  here;  have  a trade  throughout  the  West,  and  also  an  export 
trade. 

Q.  I will  ask  you,  as  a business  man,  this  question:  If  we  were  to 
adopt  your  recommendations,  do  you  not  think  the  result  would  be,  for 
a time  at  least,  serious  trouble? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q You  think  the  adoption  of  what  you  recommend  would  not  inter- 
fere with  business ; that  the  business  of  the  country  would  go  along 
smoothly,  easily,  and  quietly ; and  there  would  be  no  jerk  or  strain  ? — A- 
I think  it  would  have  no  influence  whatever  upon  business.  I provide  for 
a gradual  diminution  of  duties  on  manufactured  goods.  I do  n ot  recom 
mend  a sudden  change,  such  as  taking  the  duty  entirely  off  articles  now 
paying  40  or  45  per  cent.,  but  I would  recommend  a reduction,  say,  to 
25  per  cent.,  and  in  that  way  have  the  change  gradual. 

Q.  As  I understand  your  suggestions,  the  plan  you  recommend  would 
require  a series  of  years  before  it  could  be  fully  carried  out? — A.  I pro- 
vide for  a gradual  reduction,  continuing  over  a period  of  three,  four, 
or  five  years. 

Q.  As  a business  man,  do  you  not  think  that  the  American  people 


ADOLPHUS  MEIER.  J 


FREE  TRADE. 


1179 


would  be  apt  to  discount  at  once,  and  quickly,  any  action  such  as  you 
propose;  and  would  not  that,  of  itself,  cause  a great  deal  of  trouble 
throughout  the  country? — A.  That  might  be  the  case  for  a time;  but  if 
you  change  the  tariff  in  any  respect  they  will  do  the  same  thing.  We 
are  subject  to  more  radical  changes  in  this  country  than  in  any  other 
part  of  the  world — changes  in  weather,  changes  in  crops,  overflows,  &c. 
— and  yet  we  adapt  ourselves  readily  to  the  situation.  I intended  my 
remarks  to  apply  principally  to  the  subject  of  cotton  manufacturing,  a 
business  with  which  I have  been  connected  for  twenty  years.  We  are 
also  interested  in  rolling-mills.  So  far  as  cotton  manufacturing  goes, 
having  tried  this  tariff  for  twenty  years,  and  finding  that  we  only  export 
3 per  cent,  of  our  goods  against  97  per  cent,  of  goods  received  from  for- 
eign countries,  any  one  can  see  that  we  are  not  getting  ahead  as  we 
ought  to. 

Q.  When  you  went  into  business,  twenty  years  ago,  what  was  the 
price  of  the  common  print  or  calico  that  is  usually  sold? — A.  From  7$ 
to  8 cents. 

Q.  What  is  the  price  of  it  now? — A.  From  6J  to  7 cents. 

Q.  Is  not  that  reduction  in  price  a great  advantage  to  the  consumer 
in  this  country  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  not  attribute  that  result  to  protection,  at  least  to  some 
extent  ? — A.  No,  sir  ; I attribute  that  result  certainly  to  the  fact  that 
in  every  manufacturing  business  the  methods  are  gradually  improving, 
and  owing  to  the  improvements  iu  machinery  the  manufacturers  are 
enabled  to  produce  cheaply,  although  the  cost  of  labor  may  be  tempo- 
rarily higher.  We  could  produce  goods  still  cheaper  and  get  more  of 
the  world’s  trade  if  we  had  not  such  high  taxes  to  pay  for  our  materials 
and  labor. 

Q.  Do  you  think  these  improvements  in  machinery  would  have  been 
made,  or  that  the  capitalists  of  New  England  would  have  advanced  their 
money  to  put  into  these  enterprises,  if  they  had  not  had  some  pro- 
tection in  the  way  of  a duty  placed  on  the  foreign  articles,  iu  that  way 
giving  them  the  benefit  of  the  home  market  ? — A.  If  we  go  back  to  that, 
I admit  that  high  protection,  for  the  time  being,  may  be  a benefit. 

Q.  That  is  it  exactly  ; didn’t  it  have  the  effect  of  inducing  these  peo- 
ple to  invest  their  capital  and  develop  these  industries  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  think  the  time  for  protection  has  gone  by  so  far  as  cotton 
goods  are  concerned  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Still  we  have  developed  that  i ndustry  under  the  protective  system, 
and  now  sell  the  cheapest  prints  in  the  world.  Do  you  not  think  the 
same  policy  should  be  applied  to  other  manufactures  ? — A.  I do  not 
admit  that  we  make  the  cheapest  prints  in  the  world.  I know  that 
American  prints  are  exported  to  Asia  and  Africa,  where  there  is  a large 
consumption  of  those  goods,  at  a difference  only  in  value  of  from  15  to 
20  per  cent.,  but  that  is  done  to  keep  our  factories  going.  Our  home 
consumers  are  paying  20  per  cent,  more  for  the  same  goods. 

Q.  The  recommendation  you  make  is  that  the  revenue,  which  you 
acknowledge  must  be  raised  in  some  way,  should  be  raised  by  placing 
a duty  upon  articles  not  produced  in  this  country? — A.  Eaw  materials, 
I said.  1 favor  a revenue  upon  all  raw  materials  which  we  are  not 
capable  of  producing. 

Q.  You  recommend  the  raising  of  our  revenue  in  that  way? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  Those  articles  that  we  can  produce  we  ought  to  tax,  and  those  we 
cannot  produce  ought  to  be  admitted  free. 

Q.  You  recommend  also  a duty  on  tea  and  coffee  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Of  course  we  must  look  to  the  interests  of  the  people  in  this  mat- 


1180 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ADOLPH  OS  METER. 


ter.  Do  you  think  it  a wise  political  policy  to  tax  an  article  that  is 
consumed  in  every  household  in  the  country — an  article  that  the  labor- 
ing men  of  the  country  use  ? — A.  We  are  taxing  the  laboring  men  on 
everything  now,  and  if  we  tax  them  only  on  coffee  and  tea  and  a few 
things  of  that  kind  they  will  be  better  oft  than  at  present.  Coffee  and 
tea  were  on  the  tax  list  at  one  time. 

Q.  Yes ; but  that  was  done  as  a war  measure. — A.  Yes,  and  it  was 
taken  off'  as  a political  measure  to  satisfy  the  people.  The  mass  of  the 
people  do  not  understand  these  questions,  and  perhaps  they  never  will 
thoroughly  understand  them. 

Q.  I ask  you  as  a business  man  if  it  would  be  wise  to  tax  tea  and 
coffee  ? — A.  I think  it  would. 

Q.  Then  you  would  also  object  to  the  policy  of  taking  the  taxes  off 
spices  and  other  foreign  productions? — A.  I would  be  in  favor  of  taxing 
coffee  10  cents  a pound  and  tea  20  cents  a pound,  and  of  placing  a tax 
upon  all  articles  of  luxury. 

Q.  That  is  to  say,  you  believe  in  placing  a direct  taxation  ujion  the 
people  ? — A.  Yes,  sir,  as  nearly  as  possible ; that  is  the  point. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  I presume  you  are  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  in  that  section  of 
the  country  known  as  the  South  the  people  are  starting  on  a career  of 
manufacturing,  particularly  the  manufacturing  of  cotton  goods.  What 
effect  would  your  suggestions,  if  carried  out  to  their  legitimate  conse- 
quences, have  upon  these  small  factories  in  the  South  ? — A.  I think  they 
would  be  more  prosperous  than  they  are  at  present. 

Q.  But  you  stated  just  now,  in  regard  to  the  manufacturing  industries 
of  the  North,  that  the  tariff  was  found  advantageous  to  those  industries. 
If  such  was  the  fact,  then  if  the  North  required  protection  in  order  to 
start  its  factories,  why  would  a change  of  that  system  affect  the  South 
advantageously  ? - A.  Whether  the  tariff  is  the  direct  and  only  cause 
of  that  prosperity  of  the  Northern  cotton  manufacturers  is  hard  to  de- 
termine. 1 say  that  the  Southern  manufacturer  now  could  not  reap  the 
same  benefit,  because  competition  is  already  closer,  and  if  free  trade 
was  established  he  would  get  his  labor,  machinery,  and  everything  of 
that  kind  at  a lower  cost  than  now  in  competing  for  his  home  own  market. 

Q.  You  think,  then,  the  strugglinginfantfactories  of  the  South  would 
be  benefited  by  free  trade? — A.  Yes,  sir,  because  I am  well  aware  that 
many  of  those  factories  are  not  profitable  at  present. 

Q.  You  cannot  deny  that  the  manufacturers  themselves  think  they 
have  advantages  from  the  tariff  system? — A.  Some  of  them  think  so. 

Q.  The  most  of  them  think  so,  do  they  not  ? — A.  I think  many  of  the 
intelligent  manufacturers  now  are  beginning  to  change  their  ideas  on 
that  subject. . 

Q.  Do  you  not  think  the  majority  of  the  manufacturers  understand 
their  own  interests  ? The  most  of  them  who  appear  before  us  recom- 
mend the  maintaining  of  the  present  system.  Therefore  itis  safe  to  pre- 
sume that  they  think  it  is  advantageous  to  them,  because  they  advo- 
cate it. — A.  1 have  no  doubt  they  do,  but  I see  many  manufacturers 
who  think  it  is  a burden,  and  that  they  are  not  getting  any  benefit  from 
it. 

Q.  In  the  beginning  of  our  manufacturing  industries  we  stood  in  a cer- 
tain relation  to  the  manufacturing  industries  of  England.  They  were 
in  their  full  strength  and  ours  were  in  their  infancy.  Is  not  that  the 
fact  now  with  regard  to  the  Southern  factories  ; do  they  not  stand  now 
in  the  same  relation  to  the  Northern  factories  that  the  Northern  men 
did  towards  the  English  when  the  present  tariff  system  was  adopted? — 


ADOLPHUS  MEIER-l 


FREE  TRADE. 


1181 


A.  No,  sir ; the  Southern  manufacturer  has  many  advantages  which 
would  offset  any  free  trade-policy. 

Q.  I think  the  South  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  factories  of 
the  North  now  that  the  factories  of  the  North  did  towards  England 
then.  At  that  time  the  English  people  were  very  anxious  that  we 
should  not  levy  this  tariff,  and  said  it  was  not  necessary.  Can  you  not 
imagine  that  the  cotton  manufacturer  at  the  North  who  sees  the  advan- 
tages that  would  accrue  to  the  manufacturer  of  the  South  under  the 
present  system,  would  say  that  he  no  longer  needed  a tariff  in  order  to 
check  the  development  of  these  Southern  factories? — A.  No,  sir;  I do 
not  think  there  is  any  such  feeling. 

Q.  You  think  he  is  too  good  a man  to  have  any  such  feeling  ? — A.  No, 
sir,  I do  not  think  that;  but  I do  not  think  it  would  be  for  his  interest. 
The  South  can  sustain  itself  in  cotton  manufacturing  either  with  a mod- 
erate duty  or  free  trade. 

Q.  You  advocate  the  reimposition  of  the  tax  on  coffee.  Are  you 
aware  that  it  is  a system  of  government  adopted  in  many  countries 
outside  of  the  United  States,  particularly  those  that  produce  tropical 
plants,  to  impose  an  export  duty  on  goods  just  in  proportion  as  the 
American  government  reduces  the  import  duty  upon  all  articles  which 
they  make  or  which  are  the  natural  growth  of  the  country  ? — A.  I am 
aware  of  that. 

Q.  I)o  you  not  realize  the  fact  which  has  always  occurred,  that  when 
certain  articles  of  this  description  are  imported  free,  the  foreign  gov- 
ernment immediately  places  an  export  duty  on  those  articles,  and  the 
American  public  are  made  to  pay  as  high  or  a higher  price  for  those 
tropical  goods  when  they  come  in  as  they  did  when  the  duty  was  im- 
posed by  our  owi#  government? — A.  Whenever  a country  places  an 
export  duty  on  its  products  the  people  of  that  country  pay  the  duty. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  for  many  years  alter  the  import 
duty  on  coffee  was  removed  our  people  paid  a higher  price  per  pound 
for  it  than  they  did  during  the  existence  of  a moderate  duty  upon  it? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I know  that;  but 

Commissioner  Kenner.  That  is  a conceded  fact,  but  I do  not  care 
to  enter  into  any  discussion  in  regard  to  it. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  prints  or  calicoes  are  manufactured  in  Europe 
cheaper  than  they  are  in  America? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  price? — A.  I am  not  so  familiar  with 
the  details  of  that  matter.  There  is  a difference  in  their  width.  The 
English  prints  are  36  inches  wide  and  ours  are  only  21  inches  wide. 
But  the  cost  of  the  gray  cloth  and  of  the  common  cloths  made  of  cot- 
ton, such  as  the  great  mass  of  the  people  in  the  East  Indies  and  China 
use,  are  always  cheaper  in  England  than  here.  We  are  getting  some 
export  trade  for  our  goods,  because  the  quality  of  our  cloth  is  superior 
to  that  manufactured  in  Europe,  and  they  will  always  take  a certain 
percentage  of  American  goods  on  account  of  their  better  quality.  But 
we  cannot  manufacture  these  goods  cheap  enough  to  command  that 
trade.  Our  export  of  cotton  goods  last  year  amounted  to  $13,000,000, 
while  the  export  of  cotton  goods  from  Europe  amounted  to  $395,000,000. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  Do  you  mean  Europe  or  Great  Britain? — A.  I mean  Great  Brit- 
ain, France,  Germany,  and  Belgium;  Great  Britain  especially. 

Q.  Are  we  not  manufacturing  prints  in  this  country  at  5J  cents  a 


1182 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ADOLPHUS  MEIER. 


yard? — A.  They  may  he  selling  some  at  that  price.  I doubt  whether 
they  are  manufacturing  them  at  that  price. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  wholesale  j) rices  of  these  goods  in  New 
York  City? — A.  i am  not  familiar  with  the  colored  goods,  but  I am  fa- 
miliar with  the  plain  white  goods. 

Q.  My  impression  is  that  they  are  selling  them  at  4 cents  a yard.- — A. 
They  are  not  standard  grades  of  goods,  then,  because  they  are  worth 
now  6^-  cents,  and  in  some  instances  7 cents,  and  there  is  no  money 
made  on  them  at  that  price. 

Q.  I know  that  in  some  small  places  they  are  selling  at  from  4 to  6 
cents  a yard. — A.  These  goods  are  frequently  sold  at  a less  price  than  the 
cost  of  manufacture,  in  order  to  create  a trade.  Sometimes  a country 
will  sell  goods  very  low  indeed  because  of  certain  conditions  of  trade. 
The  tailure  of  our  crops  last  year  had  a tendency  to  curtail  the  consump- 
tion and  bring  down  the  price  of  goods.  With  a large  export  trade  to 
Europe  prices  will  rise,  but  the  tariff  will  not  have  any  influence  in  that 
case.  So  far  as  the  prices  are  concerned,  the  standard  make  of  prints 
is  about  6|  cents,  with  about  5 per  cent,  off  for  the  trade.  Owing  to  the 
high  tariff  there  is  a large  additional  cost  for  the  colors  used  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  these  goods. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Yon  say  that  you  are  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  all  duties  upon 
raw  materials  not  produced  in  this  country,  and  subsequently  you  said 
you  were  in  favor  of  the  introduction  of  iron  ores  free  of  duty.— A.  Yes, 
sir;  that  is  a raw  material.  ^ 

Q.  But  it  is  produced  in  this  country  not  only  in  large  quantities  but 
in  every  variety. — A.  If  I wanted  to  enumerate  every  article  that  could 
be  produced  here  and  in  other  countries  I would  have  to  go  through  the 
whole  list.  1 mean  that  in  a general  sense. 

Q.  H ave  we  not  every  variety  of  iron  ores  in  this  country? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  I think  we  have. 

Q.  And  are  they  notin  great  abundance? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  good  policy  to  develop  these  resources  of  our 
country? — A.  I think  it  is. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  tend  to  develop  these  resources  if  the  iron 
ore  from  the  Mediterranean  and  from  Europe  was  introduced  here  free 
of  duty? — A.  I think  it  would. 

Q.  In  what  way?  Please  explain. — A.  Because  many  of  these  ores 
make  very  good  mixtures  with  our  own  ores. 

Q.  Do  not  the  different  varieties  of  our  own  ores  do  that  also? — A. 
Not  altogether,  as  I understand.  I think  a competition  with  foreign 
countries  would  be  a great  benefit  to  the  development  of  our  manufact- 
ures. 

Q.  You  know  the  fact,  I suppose,  that  English  ore  is  brought  in  as 
ballast? — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  some  instances. 

Q.  And  your  idea  is  that  that  should  be  encouraged? — A.  I do  not 
think  it  would  follow  that  if  we  had  free  trade,  or  even  a moderate  tariff, 
ships  would  come  out  in  ballast  at  all. 

Q.  There  are  portions  of  this  country,  particularly  my  own  State  of 
West  Virginia,  where  we  are  beginning  to  discover  and  develop  our 
wounderful  natural  resources,  particularly  of  iron  and  coal.  They  are 
at  present  infant  industries.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  well  to  check 
them? — A.  1 do  not  admit  that  they  would  be  checked.  On  the  con- 


ADOLPHUS  MEIER.] 


FREE  TRADE. 


1183 


trary,  I think  they  would  be  encouraged.  If  you  have  such  wonderful 
resources  of  coal  and  iron,  you  ought  to  get  along  with  small  protection. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  well  for  us  to  have  to  depend  upon  for- 
eign countries  for  these  essentials? — A.  No,  sir.  I think  under  free  trade 
we  would  soon  assume  a similar  position  to  France  and  Great  Britain. 
Whenever  locomotives  are  scarce  in  England  they  buy  them  in  France, 
and  vice  versa . They  exchange  their  commodities  all  the  time,  and  we 
would  do  the  same  thing. 

Q.  You  know  how  the  present  condition  of  English  trade  has  been 
attained  I — A.  Yes,  sir;  I do  ; but  we  cannot  compare  English  past  his- 
tory with  our  own.  If  you  want  to  go  into  all  that  detail,  you  will 
have  to  investigate  every  county  in  the  State  to  see  what  its  natural 
resources  are. 

Q.  Then  it  is  your  idea  that  it  would  be  an  advantage  to  our  ore  pro- 
ducers to  have  the  European  ores  brought  in  free  of  duty  ? — A.  No, 
sir;  1 do  not  say  that.  I say  anything  that  brings  down  the  cost  of 
production  and  labor  is  beneficial,  and  if  the  tariff  is  the  instrument 
that  keeps  it  up,  it  would  be  a benefit  to  the  American  people  to  have 
it  abolished,  for  the  cost  of  living  is  in  the  same  ratio. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  What  do  you  call  raw  material? — A.  I call  raw  material  every- 
thing that  is  produced  directly  out  of  the  ground. 

Q.  Is  corn  a raw  material? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Everything  in  which  no 
.manufacturing  process  has  taken  place  is  a raw  material. 

Q.  Is  pig  iron  a raw  material  ? — A.  No,  sir ; it  is  a partially  manu- 
factured article. 

Q.  Is  not  ore  a partially  manufactured  article? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  gives  the  value  to  the  ore? — A.  The  cost  of  raising  it  out  of 
the  ground. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  cost  of  the  manufactured  article,  and  the  cost  of 
the  labor  which  digs  it  up? — A.  I regard  everything  that  is  produced 
in  its  natural  state  without  any  mechanical  process  as  a raw  material. 

Q.  Of  course  iron  ore  in  the  ground  is  a raw  material,  but  when  you 
dig  it  up  and  send  it  to  foreign  countries  is  it  still  a raw  material? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  what  head  would  you  put  the  cost  of  digging,  and  shipping, 
and  freight,  &c.? — A.  Those  are  items  that  simply  add  to  the  cost  of  it. 
I do  not  call  it  a manufactured  article.  The  article  itself  undergoes  no 
change  any  more  than  if  you  take  corn  and  ship  it  to  Liverpool;  it  is 
still  a raw  material. 

Q.  You  count  the  labor  of  making  the  corn,  and  taking  the  ore  out  of 
the  ground,  as  nothing? — A.  Oh,  no,  sir.  I do  not  say  that. 

Q.  Is  not  the  raw  material  of  one  man  the  basis  of  the  manufacture 
of  another? — A.  I call  every  article  a raw  material  that  lias  not  changed 
its  character  by  mechanical  manipulation. 

Q.  You  think  the  ores  from  Spain  or  Africa,  which  are  developed  at 
a cost  of  labor  at  from  12  to  15  or  20  cents  a day,  should  be  admitted 
into  this  country  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  ores  produced  in  America 
with  the  cost  of  labor  at,  say,  $1.50  a day  ? — A.  Yres,  sir;  and  I think  we 
would  soon  adjust  our  mod(?s  of  transportation  so  that  with  the  cost  of 
bringing  the  ore  in,  and  the  increased  demand  for  it,  they  could  not 
compete  with  us,  and  they  would  not  bring  it  in. 

Q.  Who  would  suffer  while  you  were  adjusting  these  matters? — A.  I 
do  not  think  anybody  at  all  would  suffer. 

Q.  Not  if  the  price  of  labor  was  brought  down  in  this  country  to  an 


1184 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[ADOLHIIUS  MEIER. 


average  of  20  cents  a day,  as  it  is  in  Africa  or  Spain'? — A.  You  assume 
that  it  will  be  brought  down,  a fact  which  I do  not  admit.  I do  not 
admit  that  our  labor  would  have  to  come  down  to  20  cents  a day.  Per- 
haps we  might  raise  up  the  price  of  their  labor  to  $1  a day.  We  do  not 
know  what  the  effect  will  be  until  we  try.  I am  not  afraid  of  their  com- 
petition. I believe  every  country  enjoys  certain  natural  advantages, 
and  that  these  things  will  all  adjust  themselves  properly. 

Q.  You  think  the  cotton  manufacturers  of  the  South,  with  their  prox- 
imity to  the  cotton  fields  and  their  saving  of  transportation,  would  have 
an  advantage  more  than  compensating  for  a tariff  upon  their  manufact- 
ures?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  You  spoke  of  the  interchange  of  commodities  abroad,  and  in- 
stanced the  case  of  France  and  England.  Which  of  the  two  countries 
named  do  you  consider  has  been  the  most  prosperous  for  the  last  ten 
or  twelve  years  ? — A.  I think  England  is  a more  prosperous  country  than 
France. 

Q.  And  makes  more  money? — A.  That  is  hard  to  determine.  But 
England  has  shown  that  with  three  successive  crop  failures,  and  with 
the  disadvantage  of  having  to  carry  on  great  wars  in  the  east,  it  cm 
maintain  a good  state  of  prosperity.  Whereas  if  the  prosperity  of 
France  is  looked  into  it  will  be  found  that  it  is  mostly  on  the  outside, 
and  is  not  a genuine  prosperity. 

Q.  But  there  is  no  interchange  in  the  way  you  have  named,  because 
the  tariff  of  France  is  higher  proportionately  and  on  the  average  than 
our  own  tariff*. — A.  I know  it  is  on  some  things,  but  not  as  a rule. 

Q.  It  is  on  everything  that  you  have  named. — A.  But  they  have  a 
reciprocity  treaty  there  which  we  have  not. 

Commissioner  Porter.  That  has  been  repealed. 

The  Witness.  But  I am  speaking  of  the  time  when  that  treaty  was 
in  existence.  Whenever  there  was  a scarcity  in  England  they  could 
import  from  France,  and  vice  versa.  In  regard  to  the  paying  oft' of  the 
French  war  debt,  although  France  has  paid  it  to  Germany,  yet  the  debt 
is  still  owing  among  themselves. 

Commissioner  Oliver.  They  have  abandoned  the  reciprocity  treaty 
and  have  become  protectionists. 


E.  A.  HITCHCOCK.] 


STEEL  AND  GLASS. 


1185 


E.  A.  HITCHCOCK. 

* Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18,  1882. 

Mr.  E.  A.  Hitchcock,  of  Saint  Louis,  addressed  the  Commission  as 
follows : 

In  regard  to  the  ma  tter  of  the  tariff  on  steel,  I would  state  tha  t I returned 
yesterday  morning  from  the  iron  and  steel  convention,  which  has  been 
held  at  Cressou,  Pa.,  some  account  of  the  proceedings  of  which  you  doubt- 
less have  seen  in  the  papers.  As  that  convention  appointed  a committee 
consisting  of  two  members  representing  each  of  the  various  interests  of 
ore,  steel,  and  iron,  both  in  the  raw  and  manufactured  state,  and  as  that 
committee  will  report  to  you  when  you  return  East,  I do  not  think  it 
would  be  proper  forme  to  anticipate  here  the  results  of  the  deliberations 
of  that  convention.  But  perhaps  I may  say  generally,  with  respect  to  the 
eleven  large  steel  mills  of  the  country,  one  of  which  is  located  in  this 
city,  that  the  conditions  surrounding  them  are  somewhat  different,  and 
they  ought  not  all  to  be  put  upon  the  same  basis.  Those  in  Cleveland, 
Joliet,  and  in  this  city  are  differently  situated  from  those  in  Pennsylva- 
nia and  New  York.  I say  this  because  a great  hue  aud  cry  has  been 
raised  all  over  the  country  at  the  bugbear  of  steel  rails  and  pig  iron, 
and  the  manufacturers  of  Pennsylvania  are  pointed  at  as  great  monop- 
olists. This  may  or  may  not  be  true;  they  will  defend  themselves  at 
the  proper  time.  But  the  Western  mills  desire  the  full  protection  that 
will  be  asked  for  in  the  report  that  will  be  submitted  to  you  by  that 
committee.  We  say  it  is  a question  of  labor  and  protection  to  the 
laboring  man.  The  company  I represent  has  three  departments:  iron, 
ore,  and  manufactured  articles  of  steel.  We  employ  3,000  men,  ami 
manufacture  only  steel.  We  have  no  accessories.  We  have  no  other 
enterprises  connected  with  the  business  from  which  we  can  derive  a 
profit,  and  when  the  steel  industry  is,  as  at  present,  most  extraordinarily 
depressed,  even  with  the  protection  that  is  asked  for  now,  there  is  no 
money  in  the  iron  business.  However,  that  matter  will  be  submitted 
to  you  by  this  committee  appointed  at  our  convention. 

What  we  desire  above  all  things  in  Missouri  is  immigration,  and  we 
cannot  get  that  immigration  into  this  State  unless  we  properly  develop 
all  the  resources  of  the  State  so  as  to  furnish  employment  to  the  immi- 
grants. It  will  not  do  for  our  farmer  friends  to  say  that  they  will  take 
all  that  labor  and  develop,  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  State.  The 
State  will  only  prosper  as  all  its  resources  are  developed,  and  labor  is 
employed  in  that  development.  We  want  that  labor  to  develop  the 
State,  and  the  manufacturers  to  assist  m supporting  that  labor,  and  wre 
must  have  it,  particularly  in  connection  with  our  large  iron  interests. 
The  gentleman  who  has  just  addressed  you  [Mr.  Adolphus  Meier]  rec- 
ommended the  abolishment  of  the  duty  on  ore.  Ko  State  in  the  coun- 
try except  Michigan  is  so  favorably  situated  as  Missouri  iu  respect  to 
ore  deposits.  Yet  I am  told  by  Mr.  Ely,  who  represents  the  ore  section 
of  that  State,  that  out  of  fifty  millions  of  capital  invested,  there  are  but 
very  few  companies  paying  any  dividends  at  all;  three-fourths  of  that 
capital  has  paid  no  dividends  for  years.  We  want  that  ore  interest 
protected  in  this  State,  and  indirectly  we  want  pig  iron  protected,  be- 
ll. Mis.  (i 75 


1186 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  A HITCHCOCK. 


cause  we  want  labor  to  come  in  here  and  develop  the  interests  of  this 
great  State  of  Missouri.  That  is  all  I have  to  say  about  iron  and  steel. 

Coming  to  the  matter  of  plate  glass,  I would  say  that  it  was  not  the 
intention  of  the  Plate  Glass  Company  to  make  any  representations  to 
the  Commission  at  all  on  the  matter  of  the  duty  on  plate  glass.  We 
desire  that  the  duty  should  remain  as  it  is.  It  is  a new  industry.  There 
are  but  three  or  four  factories  in  the  United  States,  and  they  have  been 
struggling  along  for  the  last  ten  years,  and  it  is  only  within  a few  years 
that  any  of  them  have  made  a profit,  and  that  has  been  so  small  that  if 
you  distribute  it  over  the  number  of  years  that  they  have  been  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass,  it  amounts  to  almost  nothing.  In 
the  future,  under  the  protecting  influences  which  the  government  has 
heretofore  extended,  it  certainly  will  prosper,  and  the  day  will  come 
when  we  can  afford  to  stand  alone  without  any  protection,  and  when 
that  day  comes  we  shall  not  ask  for  any  protection.  I will  submit  for 
your  information  some  statistics,  prepared  in  1878,  which  cover  the  whole 
ground,  and  give  an  unanswerable  reason  why  this  young  industry  should 
be  protected.  The  statistics  have  not  materially  changed  since  they 
were  prepared;  but  one  point  is  not  included,  viz,  a table  showing  the 
difference  in  the  price  of  labor  (for  three  fourths  of  the  cost  of  the  man- 
ufacture of  plate  glass  is  represented  by  labor),  which  proves  that  we 
pay  in  this  country,  as  compared  with  England,  Belgium,  and  France, 
all  the  way  from  two  to  four  and  five  hundred  per  cent,  increased  wages. 
We  cannot  compete  with  those  countries  unless  we  are  protected  to 
some  extent. 

To  my  mind  one  of  the  most  important  matters  connected  with  this 
new  industry  is  the  fact  that  we  are  educating  at  these  two  or  three 
factories  skilled  men,  who  will  be  required  in  the  other  factories  which 
will  ultimately  be  established  in  this  country.  I regard  it  as  a training 
school,  and  as  exceedingly  valuable,  looking  at  it  in  that  aspect.  As 
the  American  people  are  notoriously  a people  in  favor  of  education  and 
do  not  begrudge  being  taxed  for  educational  purposes,  I think  in  that 
view  alone,  if  for  no  other,  we  should  receive  a reasonable  protection. 
When  you  analyze  these  reports  you  will  find  that  the  American  people 
are  taxed  less  than  two  cents  per  capita  as  regards  this  manufacture  of 
plate  glass.  I believe  they  are  willing  to  pay  even  more  than  that  if 
they  are  satisfied  that  the  result  will  ultimately  be  that  the  new  manu- 
factories which  will  spring  up  will  be  supplied  with  skilled  labor  now 
being  educated  in  our  own  factories.  I believe  in  time  we  can  make  all 
the  glass  that  is  needed  in  this  country.  We  do  not  want  foreigners  to 
come  here  and  pay  from  $25,000  to  $40,000  a year  in  office  expenses  and 
take  the  balance  of  the  profit  back  to  Europe,  but  we  want  to  keep  the 
balance  of  profit  in  this  country.  I look  upon  our  present  efforts  as 
being  in  the  direction  of  educating  skilled  men  that  the  country  must 
have  within  a few  years  in  this  branch  of  the  business. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Question.  The  manufacture  of  plate  glass  began  in  this  country  how 
long  ago? — Answer.  I think  1870  was  the  beginning  of  it. 

Q.  How  much  plate  glass  is  manufactured  now  in  this  country? — A. 
At  the  end  of  this  year,  when  our  improvements  are  completed,  we 
shall  have  a capacity  of  2,000,000  feet,  or  about  one-half  of  the  con- 
sumption of  the  United  States.  The  importation  ranges  from  two  to 
four  millions,  depending  on  the  price  of  other  building  material.  This 
spring,  in  New  York,  everything  whs  so  high  that  building  stopped  to 
some  extent,  and  then  the  price  declined.  The  establishment  of  these 


E.  A.  HITCHCOCK.  | 


STEEL  AND  GLASS. 


1187 


plate-glass  factories  in  this  country  has  reduced  the  cost  to  the  con- 
sumer from  $2.50  to  $1  a foot  on  plate  glass.  We  have  accomplished 
that  for  the  consumer  within  the  last  ten  years.  I have  glass  in  my  own 
house  that  was  put  in  twenty  years  ago,  which  cost  $2.50  a foot  on  the 
average,  and  I should  be  very  glad  to  supply  that  same  quality  of  glass 
for  several  years  to  come  to  any  parties  desiring  it  for  $1  a foot.  The 
moment  that  the  duty  on  plate  glass  is  reduced  these  manufacturers 
will  be  crippled,  and  the  foreign  manufacturers  will  return  to  the  policy 
that  prevailed  before  the  American  factories  were  started.  They  will  see 
this  statement  of  mine  no  doubt,  and  will  deny  it,  but  it  is  a fact  that 
can  be  proven.  Combinations  were  made  in  England,  France,  and  Bel- 
gium before  the  American  manufactories  were  started,  and  they  agreed 
not  to  sell  to  America  except  at  a certain  i>rice,  and  we  were  at  their 
mercy.  At  present  they  cannot  combine  against  us,  because  the  Amer- 
ican manufacturers  have  refused  to  go  into  the  combination.  As  long 
as  American  factories  are  in  existence,  they  will  hold  in  check  all  such 
combinations  that  the  foreign  importers  may  try  to  make,  and  any  ar- 
rangements that  they  may  make  will  be  like  ropes  of  sand.  But,  destroy 
these  factories  and  you  will  have  the  prices  back  again  where  they  were 
before  the  war. 

Q.  Plate  glass  is  mostly  imported  from  Great  Britain  and  France  ? — 
A.  Mostly  from  Belgium  and  France.  The  most  extensive  works  are 
in  France.  If  the  present  protection  is  only  continued  for  a few  years 
longer,  I think  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  American  manufacturers  will 
be  able  to  furnish  all  the  glass  needed  in  this  country,  and  at  a price 
much  cheaper  than  it  can  be  furnished  from  Europe.  That  time  has 
not  arrived,  but  I think  it  will  come  soon.  Plate  glass  is  quite  dif- 
ferent from  sheet  glass.  In  sheet  glass  there  are  uniform  sizes,  but 
that  is  not  the  case  with  plate  glass  because  there  are  no  two  windows 
in  different  buildings  where  plate  glass  is  used,  that  are  uniformly  alike. 
Besides,  the  expense  and  risk  of  handling  the  plate  glass  is  greater.  It 
frequently  comes  in  sizes  of  10  by  12  or  15  feet,  and  there  is  great  risk 
of  breakage,  and  men  are  often  dangerously  injured  by  unavoidable 
accidents  occurring  in  the  handling  of  such  large  pieces  of  brittle  mate- 
rial. There  is  also  quite  a waste  in  the  cutting  of  it.  These  are  a few 
of  the  reasons,  I believe,  why  we  are  entitled  to  the  protection  we  ask. 

Q.  Owing  to  the  extraordinary  difficulty  of  making  this  glass,  is  it 
not  a fact  that  its  manufacture  must  be  carried  on  upon  a large  scale  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir.  The  French  Government  not  only  protects  its  manufact- 
urers of  plate  glass  by  a protective  duty,  but  it  gave  them  a subsidy 
for  years  until  the  manufacture  was  firmly  established.  We  do  not  ask 
for  any  such  subsidy  in  this  country ; all  we  ask  is  for  a reasonable 
protection.  It  has  been  stated  that  the  duty  on  plate  glass  is  equal  to 
100  per  cent.  That  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  facts.  It  varies,  ac- 
cording to  the  size  of  the  plate,  from  2J  cents  a square  foot  up  to  50 
cents  a square  foot.  From  statistics  furnished  by  Mr.  Mm  mo  it  is 
shown  that  from  1870  to  1881,  covering  a period  of  from  ten  to  twelve 
years,  there  were  twenty-six  million  dollars’  worth  of  plate  glass  im- 
ported, on  which  there  was  a duty  paid  of  thirteen  million  dollars,  show- 
ing that  the  average  duty  of  those  years  was  about  50  per  cent.,  while 
the  average  rate  of  duty  on  all  articles  running  through  the  tariff*  is 
about  35  per  cent. 

Here  is  a young  industry  which  may  be  regarded  a training  school, 
and  although  it  is  a luxury  in  one  sense,  and  not  a necessity,  yet  I think 
it  is  an  industry  that  the  people  of  the  country  are  willing  to  protect 
when,  as  the  figures  show,  the  cost  per  capita  is  less  than  2 cents.  WTe 


1188 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fE.  A.  HITCHCOCK. 


have  spent  thousands  of  dollars  in  bringing  shilled  workmen  from 
Europe  to  this  country,  and  we  desire  now  to  train  our  American  boys 
and  educate  them  so  that  when  these  other  factories  get  to  work  they 
will  be  able  to  draw  upon  this  supply  of  skilled  workmen  without 
having  to  send  abroad  for  them. 

By  Commissioner  Botelek  : 

Q.  What  amount  of  capital  is  invested  in  this  country  in  the  manu- 
facture of  plate  glass? — A.  1 think,  now,  about  two  and  a half  to  three 
million  dollars.  I am  glad  you  asked  that  question,  because  I can  tell 
you  what  the  experience  of  our  own  factory  has  been.  I took  charge 
of  it  in  1875.  It  had  been  started  by  Mr.  Ward  at  Detroit  because  of 
the  large  deposit  of  sand  which  was  obtained  near  the  factory.  About 
$500,00*0  was  invested  in  the  business.  That  company  failed  and  was 
sold  out,  and  a company  was  reorganized,  and  the  capital  invested  now 
represents  about  a million  dollars.  We  expect  to  put  in  half  as  much 
more  before  we  can  reach  that  degree  of  profit  which  will  put  us  in  the 
condition  of  a regular  paying  business.  We  made  7 per  cent,  last  year 
as  the  result  of  seven  years’  work,  or  at  the  rate  of  1 per  cent,  per  an- 
num. I merely  state  these  facts  in  reply  to  the  absurd  stories  which 
have  been  circulated  in  regard  to  the  enormous  profits  connected  with 
the  manufacture. 

Q.  What  number  of  operatives  do  you  employ? — A.  We  own  about 
700  acres  of  land,  upon  which  we  have  erected  houses  for  our  opera- 
tives, and  we  have  quite  a little  village.  We  do  notallow  any  liquor 
to  be  sold  in  the  village,  and  we  control  all  those  matters  ourselves. 
We  have  about  500  operatives  and  a population  of  about  1,200  people 
in  the  village.  We  believe  that  we  are  doing  a good  work  for  the  peo- 
ple themselves  while  we  are  trying  to  make  money  for  our  stockholders. 

Q.  About  what  number  of  operatives  are  employed  in  this  manufact- 
ure throughout  the  country? — A.  I suppose  about  1,500  to  2,000  opera- 
tives are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass.  This  is  a new  in- 
dustry, which  looks  small  compared  with  other  industries. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  When  did  you  establish  your  steel  works  here  ? — A.  About  seven 
or  eight  years  ago.  It  developed  first  into  a furnace,  then  into  an  iron 
mill,  and  then  into  a steel-rail  mill. 

Q.  Has  your  investment  been  remunerative? — A.  No,  sir;  it  has  not 
been  remunerative.  The  works  at  one  time  failed  and  had  to  be  re- 
organized. During  the  latter  part  of  last  year  they  were  reorganized 
on  the  basis  of  consolidation,  taking  in  the  whole  property. 

Q.  Do  the  peojile  of  this  section  generally  believe  the  location  a good 
one  for  manufacturing  steel  rails? — A.  Yes,  sir;  provided  the  duty  is 
not  reduced  to  such  an  extent  as  to  let  the  foreign  rails  come  into  Gal- 
veston, New  Oi  leans,  and  other  places  in  the  Southwest.  If  they  do, 
it  will  place  us  at  a very  great  disadvantage. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  recommend  that  the  duties  on  plate  glass  shall 
remain  as  they  are  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I believe  there  are  some  37  rates  of  duties  on  glass  ; are  all  those 
different  rates  of  duties  necessary,  or  can  you  suggest  any  way  of  sim- 
plifying them? — A.  No,  sir,  I cannot.  Ido  not  think  the  duties  should 
be  changed  at  all.  It  is  not  fair  to  charge  the  same  rate  on  small  glass 
as  it  is  on  large  plates. 


E.  A.  HITCHCOCK.] 


STEEL  AND  GLASS. 


1189 


By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  The  duties  vary  according  to  the  size  of  the  plate? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Of  course  on  the  large  plates  the  risk  is  greater,  and  that  fact  was  con- 
sidered by  the  glass-men  in  developing  a scale  varying  according  to  the 
size  of  the  plate. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Are  not  the  prices  of  plate  glass  so  well  known  that  there  would  be 
little  or  no  danger  of  undervaluation  if  the  rate  were  ad  valorem  instead 
of  specific,  or  is  the  contrary  the  fact  ? — A.  I think  it  would  be  a great 
mistake  to  change  the  duty  from  a specific  to  an  ad  valorem  one,  and 
that  it  would  open  the  door  to  undervaluations. 

Q.  You  regard  the  present  complicated  system,  then,  as  a necessity,  do 
you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  those  practically  eugaged  in  the  business  find  rliat 
there  are  rarely  complications.  The  glass  is  all  invoiced  on  the  other 
side,  and  the  sizes  are  designated,  and  the  schedule  shows  what  the  duty 
is.  I have  never  understood  that  there  was  any  trouble  arising  from 
the  classification  as  to  size.  The  quality  is  all  the  same. 

Q.  I have  heard  it  said  that  it  took  two  or  three  men  three  or  four 
days  to  go  over  oue  invoice  of  plate  glass. — Q.  That  may  be  so  in  indi- 
vidual cases  where  it  is  necessary  to  be  very  particular.  The  table  I 
have  left  with  you  is  made  up  in  francs.  It  was  prepared  by  our  man- 
ager, who  was  the  leading  manager  in  one  of  the  largest  English  plate- 
glass  factories  near  London.  He  was  employed  by  Hr.  Siemens  for  a 
long  time,  and  in  that  way  he  had  access  to  the  Belgian  and  French 
factories.  I will  vouch  for  the  correctness  of  his  figures. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  When  the  duty  on  plate  glass  was  imposed,  was  it  intended  for 
protection  ? — A.  No,  sir ; it  was  a revenue  duty,  and  was  put  on  before 
there  were  any  American  factories  started  at  all. 

Q.  Is  the  use  of  this  plate  glass  increasing  in  this  country  ? — A.  The 
demand  is  growing  steadily.  I think  the  ratio  is  about  25  per  cent,  per 
annum.  The  price  has  been  reduced  from  $2.50  a foot  to  $1  a foot  as 
a result  of  the  establishment  of  these  American  manufactories. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  I do  not  understand  your  last  statement,  although  I believe  you 
made  it  once  before.  You  say  the  price  is  now  $1  a foot? — A.  Yes,  sir ; 
it  averages  that;  it  is  much  less  on  smaller  sizes. 

Q.  Does  the  value  depend  on  the  size  of  the  plate;  when  you  say  it 
is  worth  $1  a foot,  what  do  you  mean? — A.  I mean  that  is  the  average 
price  of  it.  If  we  can  average  during  the  12  months  of  the  year  $1  a 
foot  for  glass,  we  are  entirely  satisfied,  but  before  the  American  fac- 
tories were  started  the  average  price,  taking  the  large  and  small  glass 
together,  was  $2.50  a foot. 

Q.  Is  that  average  price  the  fair  test  of  the  prosperity  of  the  in- 
dustry?— A.  I think  so. 

Q.  Why  would  it  not,  then,  be  a fair  test  for  the  duty — an  average 
rate? — A.  I say  that  the  average  rate  of  duty  is  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
but  the  difficulty  would  be  to  fix  any  scale  covering  the  different  sizes 
to  make  a fair  average. 

Q.  Could  you  not  take  the  statistics  of  the  custom-houses  for  the  last 
three  or  four  years  and  ascertain  the  average  per  foot? — A.  I do  not 
think  you  could  handle  this  business  the  same  as  some  others,  because 
it  is  in  its  infancy,  and  you  do  not  know  what  the  future  will  develop. 


115)0 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[E.  A.  HITCHCOCK. 


Many  houses  are  now  being  built  where  plate  glass  is  being  used  where 
formerly  only  the  ordinary  glass  was  used. 

By  the  President: 

Q.  What  class  of  people  may  be  considered  as  the  consumers  of  plate 
glass? — A.  There  is  no  special  class,  its  use  is  becoming  quite  general 
in  dwelling-houses,  especially  in  the  more  expensive  class  of  buildings. 

Q.  But  there  is  a growing  demand  for  it,  as  1 understand  you,  for  use 
in  the  smaller  buildings l — A.  Yes,  sir,*  the  price  has  been  reduced  so 
that  now  it  is  in  demand  for  smaller  buildings  as  well  as  those  of  a more 
expensive  character. 

The  following  is  the  table  referred  to  in  my  statement: 


Statement  showing  the  amount  paid  per  month,  in  francs,  to  workmen  in  glass  manufactories. 


Department. 

Prance,  Ger- 
many, and 
Belgium. 

England. 

United  States. 

Casting  department : 

Founders 

225 

253 

500 

Skimmers  and  teamers 

150 

196 

400 

Casters  .... 

90 

135 

200 

Kiln  flrers - ... 

95 

135 

227 

Producer  flrers 

110 

140 

250 

Grinding  department : 

No.  J 

135 

169 

375 

No.  2 

100 

146 

325 

No.  3 

80 

118 

250 

Boys - 

20 

26 

100 

Smoothing  department: 

No.  1 

135 

169 

350 

No.  2 

100 

116 

300 

No  3 

80 

118 

250 

Boys 

20 

34 

90 

Polishing  department: 

No.  1 

160 

196 

400 

No.  2 

125 

157 

300 

Boys 

20 

54 

125 

Cutting  room : 

Chief 

130 

196 

1 

500 

Assistants 

120 

169 

375 

Blockers 

70 

118 

160 

Packers 

65 

135 

250 

Emery  washer ...... ......... 

120 

225 

400 

Crocus  burner. ....... ..... 

120 

169 

375 

Eafiorers  _ _ 

55 

98 

150 

Bricklay ers  

195 

398 

500 

Carpenters 

165 

198 

325 

Crystal  City,  Mo.,  September  15,  1882. 


JOSEPH  E.  WARE.  J 


CLAY. 


1191 


JOSEPH  E.  WARE. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18,  1882. 

Mr.  Joseph  E.  Ware,  representing  the  clay  interests  of  Saint  Louis, 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

I desire  to  state  that  the  government  several  years  ago  put  a duty 
upon  the  following  kinds  of  clay,  viz.,  fire-brick ; pipes,  common  or  white 
clay;  pipes,  colored  clay;  pipes,  bowls;  tiles,  draining,  paving,  and 
rooting;  unwrought  pipe  or  fire  clay;  China  clay  or  kaoline;  clay,  pre- 
pared, and  clay  resembling  kaoline  for  paper  makers.  Since  the  duty 
was  put  on  the  articles  named,  many  people  have  expended  large  sums 
in  constructing  works  in  Missouri,  Illinois,  and  many  other  States  of 
this  Union,  for  the  purpose  of  working  fire  clays,  &e.,  in  various  shapes, 
so  that  at  this  time,  although  the  clay  business  and  manufacture  is  but 
in  its  infancy,  yet  much  good  has  resulted  to  thousands  of  the  laboring 
classes  of  our  extended  country. 

From  the  statistics  published,  it  can  be  shown  that  many  of  the  articles 
named  are  imported  into  the  United  States  on  a large  scale,  which,  not- 
withstanding the  duty  imposed  by  the  general  government,  gives  the 
importers  control  of  a large  portion  of  the  Union.  This  being  a large 
and  extensive  country,  much  of  our  business  has  to  be  done  by  rail, 
giving  the  English,  German,  and  other  manufacturers  an  advantage 
over  us  in  bringing  their  goods  to  our  large  cities  by  water,  which  en- 
ables them  to  sell  at  a less  price  than  we  can  possibly  afford  to.  If  the 
duty  is  taken  off  of  the  articles  named,  the  European  competition  will 
soon  run  us  out,  but  if  the  duty  is  retained,  we  hope  to  see  manufact- 
ures from  clay  increased  in  nearly  every  State  in  the  Union. 

To  claim  that  the  future  magnitude  of  the  fire-clay  feature  of  their 
industry  is  to  be  great  and  important  is  but  a logical  inference  from  the 
vastness  of  the  quantities  of  clay  and  coal  which  the  Missouri  coal 
measures  contain,  the  most  valuable  beds  being  within  this  city  of  Saint 
Louis,  and  in  proper  connection  with  excellent,  workable  veins  of  coal. 

While  expressing  regret  that  circumstances  have  operated  to  retard 
success  in  the  line  of  white-ware  pottery,  notwithstanding  such  a pro- 
fusion of  material  therefor,  and  with  choice  fuel  in  the  most  central 
point  of  distribution  in  this  Union,  it  is  pleasing  to  say  that  the  manu- 
facture of  refractory  materials  in  this  State  has  become  well  established 
for  its  age,  and  the  reputation  of  the  raw,  washed,  or  finished  products 
is  all  that  can  be  desired  ; and  by  reason  of  the  extent  of  the  business 
thousands  of  workmen,  with  their  dependent  families,  obtain  comfort- 
able livelihood. 

The  capital  engaged  in  this  branch  of  industry  is  large,  and  its  safety 
almost  entirely  depends  upon  tlie  sufficiency  of  protection  given  by 
Congress  against  the  interference  of  importers  of  like  products  from 
countries  where  wages  are  three-fourths  lower  than  those  paid  in  Amer- 
ica. 

With  the  skill  and  expertness  of  the  present  day,  and  the  mechanical 
facilities  adapted  to  the  work,  the  losses  of  the  experimental  stage  have 
nearly  ceased,  and  in  the  line  of  present  production,  embracing  silica, 
brick,  washed  and  burnt  clay,  tiles,  chimney-pots,  sewer-pipes,  fire 
bricks,  gas-retorts,  glass  pots,  &c.,  there  is  a widening  field  of  consump- 


1192 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[JOSEPH  E.  WAKE. 


tion  with  a fairly -earned  reputation.  Heretofore  no  unfriendly  or  un- 
fair means  have  been  practiced  to  the  disparagement  of  others ; even 
foreign  competitors  have  found  only  fair  treatment.  But  to  be  able  to 
continue  to  advance  as  we  think  the  trade  invites  us,  tampering  with 
established  principles  and  guarantees  for  protection  should  not  be 
attempted  so  long  as  the  present  disparity  in  workmen’s  wages  exists 
between  this  country  and  Europe. 

With  the  tariff  as  now  rated  and  under  which  classifications  are  ar- 
ranged we  are  generally  satisfied,  excepting  that  the  ad  valorem  duties 
upon  manufactured  articles  of  our  line,  and  certain  articles  which  are 
clearly  part  manufactured  goods,  there  is  opportunity,  we  think,  for  the 
introduction  of,  say,  for  instance,  fire-brick,  at  less  duty  by  two-thirds 
than  the  duty  that  would  be  collected  on  the  raw  clay  entering  therein. 
One  thousand  pressed  fire-brick  weighs  over  3 tons — say  3 tons.  Into 
the  composition  of  1,000  such  bricks  there  enter  2 tons  of  clay  and  at 
least  1 ton  of  grog  or  silica.  The  duty  on  3 tons  of  raw  foreign  mate- 
rial thus  used,  at  $5  a ton,  is  $15,  while  upon  a thousand  of  foreign-made 
brick,  even  if  valued  at  the  price  of  Saint-Louis-made  fire-brick,  the  ad 
valorem  duty  of  20  per  cent,  is  but  $5.  Therefore,  through  this  ine- 
quality of  duty,  for  every  1,000  fire-brick  which  an  importer  brings  in, 
there  is  a gain  of  $10  in  the  3 tons  of  clay  which  are  in  the  manufact- 
ured condition.  Nearly  the  same  inequality  affects  gas-retorts  and 
glass  pots,  &c.,  at  25  per  cent.  By  putting  such  articles  under  the 
head  “other  earthen,  stone,  or  crockery  ware,”  w hich  are  rated  at  40 
per  cent.,  the  equalization  will  be  nearly  fair.  We  would  also  request 
that  the  duty  on  such  part-manufactured  articles  as  burnt  or  washed 
clay  be  placed  at  $7  per  ton.  This  arrangement  will  correct  the  appa- 
rent oversight  and  a great  inequality  be  obliterated.  We  therefore 
respectfully  ask  favorable  action  on  these  important  points. 

The  importation  of  foreign  clay  into  the  United  States  increases. 
During  the  fiscal  years  1879,  1880,  and  1881,  the  quantity  of  clay  im- 
ported of  the  sorts  mentioned  was  53,943  tons;  the  values  and  duty 
paid  thereon  show  that  $5  a ton  was  the  assessed  value;  as  instance 
the  imports  for  1881  as  a ratio  for  previous  years,  being  19,598  tons,  with 
duties  $97,468.98,  on  a total  valuation  or  $193,405.98. 

The  disproportion  between  the  wages  of  clay  miners  and  workers  in 
Europe  and  the  United  States  is  so  great  that  any  lowering  of  the  duty 
of  $5  a ton  on  unwrought  clay  will  be  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  the 
industry  at  large  and  a lessening  of  the  earnings  and  comforts  of  the 
wmrkmen. 

We  respectfully  solicit  the  privilege  to  stand  on  record  as  unfavorable 
to  any  lowering  change  in  the  duty  on  strictly  raw  clays,  and  ask  atten- 
tion to  the  inequality  and  low  classification  of  certain  other  articles 
which  are  shown. 

This  statement  of  our  case  has  been  signed  by  eight  firms  in  this  city, 
viz,  Messrs.  Evans  & Howard;  Christy  Fire-Clay  Company;  Parker, 
Bussell  & Co.;  S.  Mitchell  & Sons;  Saint  Louis  Stone- Ware  Company; 
Laclede  Fire-Brick  Manufacturing  Company;  Missouri  Fire-Brick  Com- 
pany ; Charles  E.  Bradley  & Co. 

We  call  your  especial  attention  to  the  facts  presented. 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1193 


DAVID  n.  MASON. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18, 1882. 

Mr.  David  H.  Mason,  of  Chicago,  111.,  representing  the  Michigan 
Salt  Association,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Commission:  Those  who 
are  hostile  to  the  continuance  of  the  duties  on  salt  have  spread  so  many 
misrepresentations  and  absolutely  false  statements  about  the  salt  in- 
dustry in  the  United  States,  that  an  impression  has  been  created  on  the 
uninformed  public  mind  that  excessive,  and  even  enormous,  protection 
has  been  granted  in  the  tariff  to  the  manufacturers.  On  the  contrary, 
adequate  defense  against  encroachment  from  foreign  competition  has 
not  been  granted  by  Congress,  at  any  time,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Union  until  now.  Even  the  highest  duty  was , symbolically , no  more  than 
a three-rail  fence  around  a farm ; sufficient  to  mark  the  boundary  line, 
but  not  enough  to  keep  out  trespassers.  For  instance,  when,  in  1813  to 
1830,  the  duty  ou  imported  salt  was  20  cents  per  bushel,  and  when  the 
bulk  of  our  domestic  supply  was  derived  from  the  saline  resources  in 
New  York,  that  State  levied  a home  tax  of  12J  cents  per  bushel  for  the 
.use  of  the  brine.  Deducting  that  tax  from  the  import  duty,  only  7 J cents 
a bushel  was  left  to  represent  whatever  there  was  of  protective  force 
in  the  tariff,  reckoned  as  a net  influence.  As,  in  those  days,  the  prices 
of  both  American  and  foreign  salt  fluctuated  in  our  market,  one  year 
with  another,  more  than  7J  cents  per  bushel,  the  duty  was,  in  its  shield- 
ing effect,  our  typical  three-rail  fence.  In  1830  the  duty  was  reduced  to 
15  cents  per  bushel,  leaving  to  be  falsely  called  protection  only  2 J cents 
above  the  State  tax.  In  1832  the  duty  was  further  reduced  to  10  cents 
per  bushel,  but  the  local  tax  of  New  York  remained  unchanged.  Then 
our  home  producers  had  to  meet  foreign  competition  in  their  native  market 
under  a clear  disadvantage  of  2^  cents  per  bushel,  which  was  a legisla- 
tive discrimination  against  them  to  that  amount.  In  1834  the  State  tax 
was  reduced  to  0 cents;  but  the  duty,  under  the  compromise  measure 
of  1833,  going  into  effect  January  1,  1834,  had  fallen  by  that  time  to 
9.4  cents  per  bushel.  The  difference  of  3.4  cents  was  not  in  any  sense  a 
protection  to  the  New  York  manufacturers  against  foreign  aggression. 
4>y  1841,  under  the  sliding  scale  of  tariff*  reductions,  jieriodically  declin- 
ing toward  20  percent,  ad  valorem,  as  the  highest  rate  finally  allowable, 
as  provided  for  in  the  compromise  measure  aforesaid,  the  import  duty 
had  further  fallen  7.6  cents  per  bushel,  or  to  an  amount  only  1.6  cents 
above  the  State  tax.  Next  came  the  high  protective  tariff  of  1842, 
which,  however,  omitted  to  protect  salt,  the  rate  levied  on  the  imported 
article  being  only  8 cents  per  bushel,  while  the  State  tax  continued  at 
6 cents,  leaving  only  2 cents  as  a margin  for  protection. 

After  four  and  one-third  years  under  the  duty  of  8 cents,  followed  the 
tariff*  of  1846,  going  into  effect  December  1 of  the  same  year,  and  fixing 
the  duty  ou  salt  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  equal,  during  the  period  of 
its  continuance  to  a specific  rate  of  only  2.43  cents  per  bushel  on  a gen- 
eral average.  Almost  simultaneously  with  this  reduction  of  the  import 
charge,  New  York  reduced  her  tax  to  1 cent  per  bushel,  at  which  figure 
it  has  remained  ever  since;  consequently,  so  long  as  the  tariff*  of  1846 
was  in  force,  or  10  years  and  7 months,  the  New  York  manufacturers, 
who  then  produced  the  bulk  of  our  domestic  salt,  had  only  the  mockery 


1194 


TARIFF  COMMISSION, 


[DAVID  H.  MASON. 


of  protection  contained  in  the  excess  of  1.43  cents  of  import  duty  over 
the  State  tax.  Then  came  the  act  of  1857  further  diminishing  the 
tariff  rate  to  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  This  rate  lasted  three  years  and 
nine  months.  Taking  the  average  for  that  time,  it  was  equivalent  to  a 
specific  duty  of  1.58  cents  per  bushel,  leaving  for  protection,  if  any- 
body can  venture  to  call  it  such,  not  quite  three-fifths  of  a cent  per 
bushel  after  the  amount  of  the  State  tax  was  deducted. 

The  act  of  March  2, 1861,  going  into  effect  April  1 following,  created, 
for  the  first  time,  a distinction  in  the  tariff  between  salt  in  packages  and 
salt  in  bulk,  imposing  on  the  former  a duty  of  6 cents  per  100  pounds, 
equal  to  3.36  cents  per  standard  bushel  of  56  pounds,  and  on  the  latter 
a duty  of  4 cents  per  100  pounds,  equal  to  2.24  cents  per  standard  bushel. 
By  the  act  of  August  5,  1861,  going  into  effect  from  and  after  its  pas- 
sage, these  rates  were  respectively  increased  to  18  and  12  cents  per  100 
pounds,  relatively  equal  to  10.08  cents  and  6.72  cents  per  bushel.  By 
the  act  of  July  14,  1862,  going  into  effect  August  1 following,  the 
duties  were  further  raised  to  24  cents  per  100  pounds  in  packages,  equal 
to  13.44  cents  per  bushel,  and  to  18  cents  per  100  pounds  in  bulk,  equal 
to  10.08  cents  per  bushel.  Here  was  a greater  reach  toward  tariff  pro- 
tection to  salt  than  ever  before  in  our  history.  But  the  duties  were  di- 
rectly negatived  in  part  by  the  internal-revenue  tax  of  4 cents  per  100 
pounds  of  home-made  salt. 

By  the  act  of  June  6,  1872,  going  into  effect  August  1 following,  the 
duties  on  salt  were  reduced  to  12  cents  per  100  pounds  in  packages,  equal 
to  6.72  cents  per  bushel,  and  to  8 cents  per  100  pounds  in  bulk,  equal  to 
4.48  cents  per  bushel.  Since  then  these  rates  have  remained  unchanged. 
From  that  date,  with  much  injury  to  such  part  of  the  home  industry  as 
is  most  exposed  to  foreign  encroachment,  and  with  strained  competition 
imposed  upon  the  other  part,  the  importations  have  been  on  the  increase, 
mainly  from  England.  In  fiscal  year  1881  these  imports  amounted  to 
1,100,510,401  pounds,  equal  to  10,651,971  standard  bushels,  being  a 
quantity  far  greater  than  ever  before  in  our  history,  in  any  one  year. 

Considering  that  the  manufacture  of  salt  in  the  United  States  never 
has  been  granted  more  than  incidental  protection,  that  an  immense 
capital  is  invested  in  the  business,  and  that  competition  from  abroad  is 
becoming  sharper,  we  submit  that  any  reduction  of  the  duties  at  this 
time  would  be  both  impolitic  and  unjust. 

WHY  THE  AMERICAN  SALT  INDUSTRY  IS  NOT  MORE  WIDELY  DE- 
VELOPED. 

The  resources  of  the  United  States  for  the  manufacture  of  salt  are 
both  inexhaustible  and  generally  diffused.  This  industry  might  flourish 
in  the  South  no  less  than  in  the  North,  the  whole  people  in  both  sections 
being  amply  and  cheaply  supplied  with  the  home  product ; but  the  con- 
ditions of  the  business  are  such  as  to  warn  capitalists  against  venturing 
their  money.  When,  during  the  war,  the  South  was  driven  by  the 
blockades  other  ports  to  seek  salt  from. her  own  territory,  three  thou- 
sand men  were  employed  at  Grand  Saline,  in  Texas,  in  making  this  es- 
sential article.  Their  process  and  appliances  were  of  the  crudest,  hum- 
blest, and  cheapest  description ; yet  the  brine  there,  which  is  better  than 
that  in  Michigan,  although  the  latter  is  exceptionally  good,  was  so  free 
from  natural  impurities  that  the  salt  produced  was  of  excellent  quality. 
So  soon,  however,  as  peace  came,  foreign  salt  poured  in  and  destroyed  the 
incipient  manufacture  at  Grand  Saline.  1 u Louisiana  there  are  immense 
beds  of  mineral  salt,  lying  near  the  surface,  and  of  remarkably  good 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1195 


quality ; but  these  resources  must  remain  a buried  treasure,  reserved 
for  future  generations,  unless  such  a change  takes  place  in  the  circum- 
stances of  foreign  competition  as  will  safely  warrant  the  large  expend- 
iture for  machinery  and  other  accessories  requisite  to  make  the  salines 
available  as  a productive  investment.  Many  cargoes  of  salt  are  sent  to 
this  country  in  ballast,  so  that  in  these  cases  the  cost  of  ocean  trans- 
portation is  wiped  out,  and  the  alien  producer  is  virtually  located  at  the 
landings  in  our  harbors. 

As  regards  the  salt  industry,  many  bitter  experiences  have  taught 
the  lesson  of  caution.  The  shores  of  the  past  in  this  business  are  dotted 
with  wrecks.  There  is  always  the  danger  ahead  of  free  trade  in  salt, 
or  a ruinous  reduction  of  the  duties,  and  those  who  otherwise  would 
embark  their  capital  in  developing  the  saline  resources  in  various  parts 
of  the  United  States  are  withheld  by  the  fear  and  risk  of  unfriendly 
legislation.  Trained  salt  makers  have  looked  over  the  ground  in  the 
South,  and  have  admired  the  remarkable  natural  capacity  of  that  sec- 
tion for  the  manufacture,  but  they  have  gone  away  with  the  firm  con- 
viction that  the  hazard  to  investments,  in  the  present  state  of  foreign 
competition,  far  outbalances  the  local  advantages.  If  a sufficiently 
protective  tariff  on  salt  could  be  assured  for  one  or  two  decades,  the 
salines  of  the  South,  as  well  as  of  the  West,  would  be  quickly  utilized, 
and  only  a few  years  would  elapse  before  the  home-made  salt  would  be 
so  abundant  as  to  crowd  out  the  foreign  article,  as  to  cheapen  the  price 
beyond  precedent  in  our  market,  and  as  to  create  a surplus  which  would 
be  exported. 

Had  it  not  be^n  for  the  wise  policy  adopted  by  the  State  government 
of  Michigan,  the  probability  is  that  the  saline  resources  there  would 
have  been  very  scantily  developed,  if  at  all,  to-day;  for  the  tariff  has 
not  afforded  such  a measure  of  protection  as,  in  itself,  to  set  on  foot 
the  many  works  now  in  operation.  The  legislature  of  1S59,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  inducing  capitalists  to  embark  in  the  manufacture  of  salt,  passed 
a law  declaring  that  there  should  be  paid  trom  the  State  treasury,  as  a 
bounty , to  every  individual,  company,  or  corporation,  on  and  after  pro- 
ducing 5,000  bushels  of  salt,  the  sum  of  ten  cents  for  each  and  every  b ushel 
of  salt  manufactured  under  the  act  from  water  obtained  by  boring  wells 
in  Michigan.  At  once  capital  rushed  into  the  business.  The  tariff  on 
imported  salt  was  then  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  equal  to  an  average 
specific  rate  of  scarcely  1.6  cents  per  bushel,  warning  rather  than  en- 
couraging capitalists  to  invest  their  means  in  making  salt;  but  the 
separate  and  independent  action  by  the  State  of  Michigan  in  behalf  of 
the  development  of  its  own  salines  produced  an  immediate  impulse 
toward  the  manufacture.  When  the  census  of  1860  was  taken,  2,360 
bushels  had  been  realized,  as  a beginning,  by  works  which  had  been  in 
operation  only  ten  days.  Last  inspection  year,  ending  November  30, 
1881,  the  production  amounted  to  13,751,495  bushels.  The  quality  of 
this  salt  ranks  second  to  none  in  this  or  any  other  country. 

But  for  this  timely  and  wise  legislation  on  the  part  of  the  State,  the 
prices  of  salt,  under  the  disturbing  influences  of  our  civil  war,  must 
have  gone  much  higher  than  the  figures  actually  reached.  By  so  con- 
siderable an  increase  of  the  home  supply,  in  an  entirely  new  quarter, 
as  soon  took  place,  the  upward  movement  of  prices  was  restrained  and 
the  consumer  benefited.  It  is  true  that  the  said  law  did  not  long  re- 
main upon  the  Michigan  statute  book,  for  its  continuance  to  date 
would  have  bankrupted  the  State  treasury ; but  it  undoubtedly  was  the 
parent  cause  of  the  extraordinary  development  of  the  salt  resources, 
which  is  now  expanding  so  rapidly.  A like  experiment  in  the  South 
would  be  apt  to  lead  to  a like  result  there. 


1196 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  H.  MASON. 


EXTENT  OF  THE  FOREIGN  COMPETITION  WHICH  WE  ENCOUNTER. 


It  has  been  charged  by  speakers  and  writers,  in  every  form  of  repeti- 
tion, that  the  salt  manufacturers  possess  a monopoly,  and  that  the 
duties  on  salt  are  so  excessively  high  as  to  amount  to  virtual  prohibi- 
tion. The  utter  falsity  of  these  allegations  can  be  seen  in  the  statis- 
tics of  imported  salt  given  below,  covering  a long  series  of  fiscal  years, 
the  pounds  in  the  official  reports  being  reduced  to  equivalent  bushels 
of  5(3  pounds  each,  as  more  in  accord  with  the  commercial  usage  in  this 
country. 


Import  entries  of  salt  under  the  duty  of  24  cents  per  100  pounds  in  packages , and  18  cents 

per  l00  pounds  in  bulk. 


Years  ending  June  30 — 

Bushels. 

Invoice 

values. 

Average 
per  bushel. 

1863  

10, 800, 189 
8, 126,  565 

7,  319,  092fJ 
11,411,780#* 

8,  534,  268f  g 
11, 134,  495i§ 

10,  574,  794 
13,  340,  2583-| 

11,  388,  440/s 
11,  032,  226#g 

723, 277-ff 

$1,  021,  550 
812  651 
758,  467 
1,  093,  900 
1,  019,  596 
1,  383,  087 
1,  268,  891 
1,  442,  835 
1,254,001 
1,214,747 
61,  865 

$0  09.  459 
10. 000 
10. 363 

09.  586 

11.  947 

12.  422 
11.  999 

10.  816 
11.  Oil 
11.011 
08.  553 

1864  

1865  

1866  

1868  

1869  

1870  

1871  

1872  

July  1872  

Totals - 

104,  385,  387|g 
10,  352,  270 

11,  331,  590 
1, 123,  794 

0 10.  856 

Annual  average 

Import  entries  of  salt  under  the  duty  of  12  cents  per  100  pounds  in  packages , and  of  8 cents 

per  100 pounds  in  bulk. 


Years  ending  June  30 — 

Bushels. 

Invoice 

values. 

! Average 
per  busheL 

11  months  1873  * . . ................... 

13, 174,  469| | 
16,  595,  9563g 

14,  735,  320£§ 
15, 483,  703fg 

16,  093,  033|| 

15,  367,  6644  g 
16, 189,  559S8S 

17,  213,  762-lf 
19,  651,  971f  § 
15, 103, 141H 

$1, 721,  319 
2,339,311 
1,  *07,  587 
1,  773,  445 
1,  659,  521 
1,632,865 

$0  13.  066 
14.  096 

]874  

1875  

12.  267 

1876  

11. 454 

1877  

10.  312 

1878  

10.  625 

1879  

1,776,741 

10.  975 

1880  

1,837,432  ! 

10.  674 

1881 

2,090,578 
1,  673,  515 

10.  638 

1882  

11.  081 

Totals ................. ...... 

159,  608,  5c4#s 
16,  115,  050 

18,312,314  | 

0 11.  473 

Annual  average .......... ............ ........... 

1,  846,  620 

* July,  1872,  the  first  month  of  fiscal  year  1873,  was  nnder  the  higher  duties. 


These  two  comparative  tables  tell  an  unvarnished  tale  of  the  extent 
of  the  foreign  competition  which  we  have  to  encounter  in  our  home 
market.  Alter  the  reduction  of  the  duties  in  1872,  the  importations  at 
once  rose,  freshet-like,  and  never  since  in  anjT  one  year  have  fallen  so 
low  as  the  highest  quantity  imported  under  the  previous  duties ; for- 
eigners now  furnish  several  millions  more  bushels  of  salt  to  consumers 
in  the  United  States  than  were  requisite  for  the  entire  home  supply  forty- 
two  years  ago,  and  in  fiscal  year  1881  within  1,33G,054  bushels  of  as 
much  as  was  requisite  for  the  entire  home  supply  thirty-two  years  ago. 

Such  a state  of  things  evidences  the  exact  contrary  of  monopoly  and 
of  prohibitory  duties.  A monopoly  of  the  salt  manufacture  would  not 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1197 


be  possible.  STo  considerable  portion  of  this  country  is  destitute  of  the 
crude  material  of  salt.  These  native  resources  need  only  proper  devel- 
opment to  be  able  to  supply  the  whole  United  States  for  a period  of  time 
beyond  which  human  calculations  do  not  extend.  The  present  salt  manu- 
facturers could  not  by  any  possibility  own  or  control  these  enormous, 
inexhaustible,  widespread,  various  resources.  If  it  is  true,  as  it  is  rep- 
resented to  be,  and  as  it  has  been  represented  in  many  newspapers,  that 
exorbitant  profits  are  made  in  the  business,  why  do  not  American  capital- 
ists hasten  to  enter  such  an  alluring  field  of  investment  which  promises 
such  rich  returns  f Still,  we  do  not  see  any  rush  to  be  first  in  securing 
the  glittering  prize  in  the  wheel  of  fortune  as  is  always  the  case  when 
large  profits  are  certain.  Were  the  fact  as  alleged,  the  home  production 
of  salt  would  soon  be  on  such  an  extensive  scale  as  to  leave  no  room  for 
a single  bushel  of  the  imported  article. 

Almost  every  element  of  cost  in  production,  particularly  wages,  which 
embody  the  bulk  of  the  cost,  is  far  higher  in  the  United  States  than  in 
England,  tbe  chief  source  of  our  imported  salt.  Any  lowering  of  the 
present  tariff  would  place  us  at  a still  greater  disadvantage  as  regards 
the  foreign  competition  which  we  are  compelled  to  encounter  upon  our 
own  soils. 

PROGRESS  AND  VICISSITUDES  OF  THE  SALT  INDUSTRY. 

A retrospect  of  the  salt  industry  in  the  United  States,  covering  six 
census  periods,  will  exhibit  in  a full  and  clear  light  the  fact  that  tbe 
home  manufacture  little  more  than  kept  pace  with  the  numerical  ad- 
vance of  the  country,  while  the  supply  from  abroad  rapidly  increased 
per  capita,  until  the  inauguration  of  the  protective  system  in  1861,  since 
which  date  the  development  has  been  at  a rate  much  faster  than  that 
of  population.  The  growth  of  domestic  production,  of  importation,  and 
of  home  consumption,  at  decennial  periods,  contrasted,  is  given  in  the 
following  tables: 

YEAR  1830. 


Source  of  supply. 

Year 
ended — 

Bushels. 

Values. 

Average 

per 

bushel. 

Produced  in  United  States 

Exports  of  domestic  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Imported  into  United  States* 

Exports  of  foreign  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Domestic  salt  retained 

May  31 
Sept.  30 

Sept.  30 

Sept  30 
Sept.  30 

Sept.  30 

Sept.  30 
Sept.  30 

4,  444,  929 
47,  488 

$935, 173 
22,  978 

$0  21.  039 
48.  387 

4,  397,  441 

912, 195 

20.  744 

5,  374,  046 
101,  866 

671,  979 
20,  064 

12.  504 
19.  696 

5,  272, 180 

651,  915 

12.  365 

4,  397,  441 

5,  272, 180 

912, 195 
651,  915 

Foreign  salt  retained 

Total  retained ... 

9,  669,  621 

1,  564, 110 

1198  TARIFF  COMMISSION.  [david h. mason- 

TEAR  1840. 


Source  of  supply. 

Tear 
ended — 

Bushels. 

Values. 

Average 

per 

bushel. 

Produced  in  United  States 

Exports  of  domestic  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Imported  into  United  States* 

Exports  of  foreign  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Domestic  salt  retained - . 

May  31 
Sept,  30 

Sept.  30 

Sept.  30 
Sept.  30 

Sept.  30 

Sept.  30 
Sept.  30 

6, 179, 174 
92, 145 

$1, 235, 835 
42,  246 

$0  20.  000 
45.  847 

6,  087,  029 

1,193,589 

19.  609 

8, 183,  203 
31,  999 

1,  015, 426 
11,  524 

12. 409 
36.  017 

8, 151,  204 

1,003,901 

12.  316 

6,  087,  029 
8, 151,  204 

1, 193,  589 
1,  003,  901 

Foreign  salt  retained 

Total  retained ...... 

14,  238,  233 

2, 197, 490 

TEAR  1850. 


Produced  in  United  States 

Exports  of  domestic  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Imported  into  United  States* 

Exports  of  foreign  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Domestic  salt  retained ... 

May  31 
June  30 

June  30 

June  30 
June  30 

June  30 

June  30 
June  30 

9,  763,  840 
319, 175 

$2,  222,  745 
75,  103 

$0  22.  765 
23.  530 

9, 444,  665 

2, 147,  642 

22.  739 

11,  224, 185 
31,  046 

1,  237, 186 
9,  668 

11.  023 
31. 141 

11, 193, 139 

1,  227,  518 

10.  969 

9,  444,  665 
11,193,139 

2, 147,  642 
1, 227,  518 

Foreign  salt  retained 

Total  retained 

20,  637,  804 

3,  375, 160 

TEAR  1860. 


Produced  in  United  States 

Exports  of  domestic  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Imported  into  United  States*  

Exports  of  foreign  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Domestic  salt  retained 

May  31 
June  30 

June  30 

June  30 
June  30 

June  30 

June  30 
June  30 

12,717,198 
475,  445  | 

$2,  289,  504 
129,  717 

$0  18. 003 
' 27.  283 

12,241,753  1 

2, 159,  787 

17.  643 

14,  094,  227 
126, 167 

1,431,140 
28,  933 

0 10.  154 
22.  932 

13,  9G8,  060 

1, 402,  207 

10.  039 

12,  241,  753 

13,  968,  060 

2, 159,  787 
1,  402,  207 

Foreign  salt  retained 

Total  retained 

26,  209,  813 

3,  561,  994 

TEAR  1870. 


Produced  in  United  States 

Exports  of  domestic  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Imported  into  United  States* 

Exports  of  foreign  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Domestic  salt  retained 

Foreign  salt  retained 

Total  retained 


May  31 
June  30 

17,  606, 105 
298, 142 

$4,  818,  229 
119,  582 

$0  27. 838 
40. 109 

June  30 

17,  307,  963 

4,  698,  647 

27. 147 

June  30 
June  39 

13,  340,  25 
234,  780| g 

1,  442,  835 
42,  714 

10.  816 
18. 193 

June  30 

13, 105,  477gg 

1, 400, 121 

10.  683 

June  30 
Juno  30 

17,  307,  963 
13, 105,  477gg 

4,  698,  647 
1,  400, 121 

30,  413,  440gg 

6,  098,  768 

Average  prices  of  imported  salt  per  bushel  are  those  in  the  foreign  ports  of  departure. 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1199 


YEAR  1880. 


Source  of  supply. 

Year 
ended — 

Bushels. 

Values. 

Average 

per 

bushel. 

Produced  in  United  States 

Exports  of  domestic  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Imported  into  United  States* 

Exports  of  foreign  salt 

Retained  in  United  States 

Tlnmeatie  an  It,  retained 

May  31 
June  30 

June  30 

June  30 
June  30 

June  30 

June  30 
June  30 

29,  800,  298 
22, 179 

$4,  817,  636 
6,  613 

$0  16.  502 
29.  816 

29,  778, 119 

4,  811,  023 

16. 156 

17,  213,  762ft 
118,  399ft 

1,  837,  432 
8,  861 

10.  674 
7.484 

17,  095,  363»f 

1,828,  571 

10.  696 

29,778,119 
17,  095,  363^1 

4,  8 1 1,023 
1,  8^8,  571 

Foreign  salt  retained ................. 

Total  retained 

46,  873,482ff 

6,  639,  594 

* Average  prices  of  imported  salt  per  bushel  are  those  in  the  foreign  ports  of  departure. 


Let  it  be  noticed,  contrasting  one  decennial  date  witli  another,  that 
the  average  census  value  per  bushel  of  home-made  salt  has  declined 
largely  in  the  end,  though  in  a fluctuating  way,  the  fall  between  1830 
and  1880  amounting  to  4.537  cents,  that  representing  the  movement 
toward  greater  cheapness  of  product  realized  by  the  American  salt 
manufacturers  after  half  a century  of  vicissitudes  without  merited  pro- 
tection in  the  tariff.  The  exceptionally  high  home  price  in  1870  was 
'due  to  the  inflation  of  nearly  all  prices  left  as  a heritage  from  our  civil 
war,  a range  of  dearness  which  involved  all  the  elements  of  cost  in  pro- 
duction, and  swelled  the  outlay  at  every  step  and  turn  of  the  business. 
These  profoundly  disturbing  influences  were  swept  away  by  the  panic 
of  1873,  aud  by  the  subsequent  loug  period  of  hard  times.  Industry 
has  been  adjusted  to  the  altered  conditions,  and  the  natural  tendency 
of  price  of  salt  to  the  minimum  consistent  with  fair  profit  may  be  ex- 
pected to  continue,  unless  interrupted  by  unfriendly  legislation,  as  the 
industrial  surroundings  are  favorable  to  such  a result. 

Let  it  be  also  noticed  that  the  average  foreign  invoice  value  jier 
bushel  of  salt  had  declined  only  a trifle  at  the  end  of  fifty  years,  the 
value  having  been  113.504  cents  in  1830,  and  10.684  cents  in  1880,  a de- 
crease of  no  more  than  1.83  cents  per  bushel,  or  2.707  cents  less  than 
the  fall  in  the  price  of  domestic  salt  in  the  same  time.  Indeed,  the 
average  foreign  invoice  value  was  10.151  cents  per  bushel  in  1860,  or 
fifty-two  hundredths  of  a cent  less  than  in  1880,  so  that  wre  are  paying 
foreign  producers  a higher  average  price  than  wre  did  twenty  two  years 
ago.  Any  further  cheapness  of  salt,  as  regards  permanency,  must, 
consequently,  be  looked  for  in  the  circumstances  v7hich  will  accompany 
a greater  development  of  the  home  manufacture,  which,  with  every 
passing  year,  is  becoming  more  scientific,  more  economic,  and,  in  the 
aggregate,  more  productive. 

The  proportion  which  the  home  supply  has  borne  to  the  foreign  and 
to  the  total  supply  retained  for  consumption,  is  presented  in  the  fol- 
lowing series  of  comparative  exhibits  : 


1200 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  H.  MASON. 


Retained  salt  measured  per  capita. 


Year. 

Source  of  supply. 

Pounds. 

1 

Census 

population. 

Pounds 
per  capita. 

1830 

246,  256,  696 
295,242,080 

12, 806, 020 
12,866,020 

19. 1401 
22.  9474 

1830 

1840  

541,  498,  776 

12,  866,  020 

42.  0875 

340,  873,  624 
456,  467,  424 

17,  069, 453 
17,  069,  453 

19.  9698 
26.  7418 

1840 

1850 

Total  salt  retained 

797,  341,048 

17,  069,  453 

46.7116 

Domestic  salt  retained 

52  ,901,240 
626,  815,  784 

23, 191,876 
23, 191,  876 

22. 8054 
27.  0274 

1850  . 

Foreign  salt  retained  

I860 

Total  salt  retained 

1, 155,  717,  024 

23,191,876 

! 49. 8328 

Domestic  salt  retained 

685,  538, 168 
782,211,360 

31,  443,  321 
31,  443,  321 

21.  > 023 
24.  8769 

I860  

Foreign  salt  retained 

Total  salt  retained 

1,  467,  749,  528 

31,443,  321 

46.  6792 

1870  

Domestic  salt  retained 

969,  245,  928 
733,  906,  752 

38,  558,  371 
38,  558,  371 

25. 1371 
19.  0337 

1870 

Foreign  salt  retained 

1880 

Total  salt  retained 

1,  703, 152,  680 

38,  558,  371 

44. 1708 

Domestic  salt  retained ...... 

1,  667,  574,  664 
957,  340,  341 

50, 155,  783 
50, 155,  783 

33.  2479 
19.  0873 

1880 

Foreign  salt  retained 

Total  salt  retained ........ 

2,  624,  915,  005 

50, 155,  783 

52.  3352 

Here  it  appears  that  the  supply  of  domestic  salt  increased  14.1078 
pounds  per  capita,  or  73.708  per  cent.;  that  the  supply  of  foreign  salt 
diminished  3.8601  pounds  per  capita,  or  20.223  per  cent. ; and  that  the 
total  supply  of  salt  augmented  10.2477  pounds  per  capita,  or  24.349  per 
cent.,  in  the  fifty  years  between  1830  and  1880.  In  1830  the  supply  of  for- 
eign salt  was  3.8073  pounds  per  capita  in  excess  of  the  domestic;  in  1840 
this  excess  had  grown  to  6.772  pounds;  in  1850  it  had  declined  to  an 
excess  of  4.222  pounds  ; and,  in  1860  it  had  further  declined  to  an  excess 
of  3.0746  pounds ; but,  in  1870,  the  supply  of  domestic  salt  was  6.1034 
pounds  per  capita  in  excess  of  the  foreign ; and,  in  1880,  this  domestic 
excess  had  increased  to  14.1606  pounds.  At  the  close  of  the  half  cen- 
tury the  source  of  supply  had  been  almost  exactly  reversed,  the  domestic 
manufacturers  furnishing  19.1401  pounds  per  capita  in  1830,  and  the  for- 
eigners 19.0873  pounds  in  1880.  The  total  supply  of  salt  was  3.1536 
pounds  less  per  capita  in  1860  than  it  was  in  1850. 

In  1870  the  total  supply  of  salt  had  further  diminished  2.5084  pounds 
per  capita.  Let  it  be  observed  in  this  case  that  the  domestic  supply 
had  increased  3.3348  pounds  per  capita,  while  the  foreign  supply  had 
declined  5.8432  pounds  per  capita,  compared  with  the  quantities  in 
1860.  It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  the  shrinkage  in  aggregate  supply 
was  not  due  to  the  shrinkage  in  the  domestic  production,  for  that  ex- 
ceeded all  precedent.  The  true  reason  of  decrease  is  to  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  South,  which  had  always  depended  mainly  on  foreign 
salt  for  its  consumption,  had  been  impoverished  by  the  recent  civil  war, 
and  was  forced  to  pinched  economy  in  all  directions,  so  that  the  people 
in  that  section  did  not  take  salt  from  abroad  to  their  former  extent. 
Thus,  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1860,  the  importation  of  salt  at 
Southern  jiorts  amouuted  to  7,447,147  bushels;  but,  in  the  fiscal  year 
ended  June  30, 1870,  to  only  3,959,372  bushels.  The  difference  between 
the  importations  in  these  two  years  is  3,487,775  bushels,  and  this  quan- 
tity, distributed  equally  among  all  the  inhabitants  in  all  the  Southern 


DAVID  II.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1201 


States,  as  enumerated  in  the  census  of  1870,  amounts  to  14.537  pounds  per 
capita,  or  distributed  equally  among  all  the  people  in  the  United  States 
in  L870  amounts  to  5.0054  pounds  per  capita,  which  is  not  much  less 
than  the  decline  pointed  out  in  the  supply  of  foreign  salt  for  the  whole 
country.  As,  however,  the  South  recuperated  its  resources,  it  took 
more  foreign  salt,  the  quantity  imported  at  Southern  ports  in  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30,  1880,  amounting  to  5,034,877  bushels.  This  was 
In  addition  to  domestic  salt,  which  now  finds  a constantly  enlarging 
consumption  in  some  parts  of  the  South. 

Attention  is  invited  to  the  fact  that  the  per  capita  supply  of  foreign 
salt  in  1880  was  very  little  greater  than  in  1870,  showing  an  almost  sta- 
tionary ratio  of  the  foreign  supply  in  the  American  market,  the  domes- 
tic supply  meanwhile  advancing  by  strides.  This  proportionate  condi- 
tion of  the  supply,  so  favorable  to  the  domestic  manufacture,  is  the 
real  reason  which  prompts  the  incessant  attacks  against  the  tariff  on 
salt.  Those  persons,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  who  are  directly  in- 
terested in  importations  into  the  United  States,  have  been  diligent  in 
seeking  either  repeal  or  reduction  of  the  duties  on  salt,  as  a means  of 
obtaining  easier  and  larger  access  for  the  foreign  article,  to  the  decrease 
of  the  national  revenue  and  to  the  injury  of  the  native  industry;  this,, 
too,  when  the  only  reasonable  hope  of  cheaper  salt  appears  in  the  ex- 
pansion and  improvement  of  the  domestic  supply.  If  any  change  at 
all  is  to  be  made  in  the  tariff  on  salt,  it  should  be  in  the  direction  of 
the  protective  policy,  because  that  policy,  while  minimizing  the  destruc- 
tive manifestations  of  foreign  rivalry,  secures  the  maximum  amount  of 
wholesome  competition;  for,  if  the  tariff  be  too  much  reduced,  foreign 
competition,  flooding  according  to  its  own  pleasure,  will  iirostrate  and 
ruin  our  home  establishments,  whereupon  all  the  competition  left  will  be 
that  between  foreigners  for  the  possession  of  our  market;  but,  on  again 
raising  the  tariff  barrier  to  the  protective  point,  domestic  industry  will 
revive,  and  competition  be  increased  by  that  between  our  domestic 
producers,  and  by  that  between  them  and  their  foreign  rivals,  thus  in- 
suring a threefold  competition,  moving  in  legitimate  channels,  and  act- 
ing with  the  maximum  of  combined  force  to  cheapen  prices  to  consum- 
ers. Considering  that  the  salt  manufacturers  have,  at  this  time,  little 
more  than  the  incidental  protection  involved  in  the  general  prosperity 
due  to  the  protection  granted  to  a wide  range  of  other  industries,  by 
which  the  productive  and  purchasing  powers  of  the  toiling  millions 
have  been  greatly  increased,  any  reduction  of  the  duties  on  salt  would  be 
a damaging  blow  at  competition,  and,  through  that,  at  the  future  cheap- 
ness of  this  indispensable  article. 

GROWTH  OF  THE  MICHIGAN  SALT  MANUFACTURE. 

To  the  rapid  development  of  the  saline  resources  in  Michigan  is  due 
the  unprecedented  increase  which  has  taken  place  in  the  total  per  cap- 
ita supply  of  domestic  salt  since  1860.  This  noteworthy  fact  is  clearly 
established  by  the  statistical  exhibit  which  follows : 


H.  Miss 76 


1202 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  H.  MASON. 


Domestic  salt  production — Detailed  total  product  in  census  years. 


Year. 


Sources  of  supply. 


1860. 

1860. 

1860. 

1860. 

1860 


Salt  production  in  New  York 

Salt  production  in  Virginia  and  West  Virginia 

Salt  production  in  Ohio 

Salt  production  in  Michigan 

Salt  production  in  all  other  parts  of  United  States . . 


Total 


1870. 

1870 

1870. 

1870 

1870. 


Salt  production  in  New  York 

Salt  production  in  Virginia  and  West  Virginia 

Salt  production  in  Ohio 

Salt  production  in  Michigan 

Salt  production  in  all  other  parts  of  United  States . - 

Total  


1880. 

1880 

1880. 

1880 

1880. 


Salt,  production  in  New  York 

Salt  production  in  Virginia  and  West  Virginia  . . 

Salt  production  in  Ohio 

Salt  production  in  Michigan 

Salt  production  in  all  other  parts  of  United  States . 


Total 


Pounds. 

Census 

population. 

Pounds 
per  capita. 

421, 194,  760 

31,  443,  321 

13.  3954 

116,  284,  728 

31,  443,  321 

3.  6982 

97,  619,  200 

31,  443,  321 

3. 1046 

132, 160 

31,443,821 

.004T 

76,  932,  240 

31, 443,  321 

2.  4467 

712, 163,  088 

31,443,321 

22.  6491 

278,  752,  320 

38,  558,  371 

T.  2293 

259,  605,  528 

38,  558,  371 

6.  7328 

162,  324,  344 

38,  558,  371 

4.  2098 

222,  953,  696 

38,  558,  371 

5.  7823 

62,  305,  992 

38,  558,  371 

1.  6159 

985,  941,  880 

38,  558,  371 

25.  5701 

489,  899,  368 

50, 155,  783 

9.  7674 

173,  898,  648 

50, 155,  783 

3. 4672 

148,  416,  856 

50, 155,  783 

2.  9591 

695,  849,  560 

50, 155,  783 

13.  8738 

160,  752,  256 

50, 155,  783 

3.  2051 

1,  668,  816,  688 

50, 15i>,  783 

33.  2726 

Let  it  be  noticed  that  at  every  specified  source  of  supply  except  Mich- 
igan the  quantity  of  salt  produced  in  1860  either  suffered  a dec  line  in 
1870  and  then  an  increase  in  1880,  or  else  augmented  in  1870  and  de- 
clined in  1880 ; and  that  it  afforded  a lower — sometimes  a much  lower — 
per  capita  amount  in  1880  than  in  1860,  save  the  aggregate  produced  in 
the  scattered  parts  of  the  Union,  where  the  manufacture,  in  each  indi- 
vidual case,  is  on  a small  scale.  Only  in  Michigan  has  there  been, 
during  the  past  twenty-two  years,  anything  like  a steady  and  large  in- 
crease of  product.  In  inspection  year  ended  November  30,  1881,  the 
quantity  of  salt  produced  exceeded  the  quantity  produced  in  census 
year  1880  by  1,325,610  bushels,  and  the  quantity  in  the  present  inspection 
year  promises  to  be  greater  still.  The  detailed  statement  given  below 
shows  the  very  rapid  growth  of  the  manufacture. 


Total  annual  salt  production  in  Michigan  measured  per  capita. 


Years. 

Barrels. 

Equivalent 

bushels. 

Equivalent 

pounds. 

Population 
June  1,  each 
year. 

Pounds 
per  capita. 

1860  

4,  000 

20,  000 

1, 120,  000 

31,  443,  321 

. 03562 

1861 

125,  000 

625,  000 

35,  000,  000 

32,  064,  000 

1.  09157 

1862  

243,  000 

1,  215,  000 

68,  040,  000 

32,  704,  000 

2.  08048 

1863  

466,  356 

2,  331,  780 

130,  579,  680 

33,  365,  000 

3.  91367 

1864  

529,  073 

2,  645,  365 

148, 140,  440 

34,  046,  000 

4.  35118 

1865  

477,  200 

2,  386,  000 

133,  616,  000 

34,  748,  000 

3.  84529 

1866  

407,  077 

2,  035,  385 

113,  981,560 

35,  469,  000 

3.  21355 

1867  

474,  721 

2,  373,  605 

132,  921,  880 

36,211,000 

3.  67076 

1868  

555,  690 

2,  778,  450 

155,  593,  200 

36,  973,  000 

4.  20829 

1869  

561,  288 

2,  806,  440 

157, 160,  640 

37,  756,  000 

4.  16253 

1870  

621,  352 

3, 106,  760 

173,  978,  560 

38,  558,  371 

4.  51283 

1871 

728, 175 

3,  640,  875 

203,  889,  000 

39,  555,  000 

5. 15457 

1872  

724,  481 

3,  622,  405 

202,  854,  680 

40,  604,  000 

4.  99593 

1873  

823,  346 

4,116,730 

230,  536,  880 

41,704,000 

5.  52793 

1874  

1,  026,  979 

5, 134,  895 

287,  554, 120 

42,  856,  000 

6.  70978 

1875  

1,081,  865 

5,  409,  325 

302,  922,  200 

44,  060,  000 

6.  87528 

1876  

1,  462,  729 

7,  313,  645 

409,  564, 120 

45,316,000 

9.  03796 

1877  

1,  660,  997 

8,  304,  985 

465,  079, 160 

46,624,000  ! 

9.  97510 

1878  

1,  855,  884 

9,  279,  420 

519,  647,  520 

47,  983,  000 

10.  82983 

1879  

2,  058,  040 

10,  290,  200 

576,  251,  200 

49,  395,  000 

11.66618 

1880 

2,  676,  588 

13,  382,  940 

749,  444,  640 

50, 155,  783 

14. 94234 

1881 , 

2,  750,  299 

13,  751,  495 

770,  083,  720 

51,  402,  000 

14.  96412 

Total 

21,  314, 140 

106,  570,  700 

5,  967,  959,  200 

883,  052, 475 

6.  75833 

Note. — State  inspection  of  salt  in  Michigan  began  with  1869,  the  inspection  year  ending  November 
30.  The  statement  of  population  for  1860,  1870.  and  1880  is  by  census  enumeration,  and  for  the  othe. 
years  from  estimates  prepared  by  Prof.  E.  11.  Elliott,  of  Che  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  Statesr 


DAVID  II.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1203 


As  the  manufacture  has  expanded  improvements  in  processes  have  been 
introduced,  experience  has  been  accumulated,  greater  skill  has  been  ac- 
quired, and  wider  markets  have  been  secured,  the  quality  of  the  salt  has 
become  better,  and  the  price  at  which  the  product  could  be  afforded  has 
declined.  A continuance  of  this  development  offers  the  only  solid  basis  for 
realizing  thepurest  article  and  the  utmost  cheapness.  Dependence  upon 
foreign  sources  of  supply  holds  out  no  such  promise.  These  views  are 
made  manifest  by  the  following  exhibit,  in  which,  for  the  sake  of  the  com- 
parison, pounds  of  salt  imported  in  packages  for  our  home  consumption  are 
reduced  to  equivalent  barrels  of  280  pounds  each,  the  average  foreign 
invoice  value  per  barrel  is  calculated,  and  the  annual  average  price  of 
actual  sales  of  fine  salt  per  barrel,  from  the  Michigan  works,  during  the 
last  fourteen  years  is  given  in  contrast : 


Per  barrel,  prices  of  imported  and  of  Michigan  salt  compared. 


Tear  ending  June  30 — 

Pounds  re- 
duced to 
barrels. 

Invoice  values. 

Average  per 
barrel. 

Michigan  fine 
salt,  average 
per  barrel. 

1868  

1, 101,  593 

$915,546  51 

$0  83.  Ill 

$1  85 

1869 

1,  062,  081 

895,  272  13 

84.  294 

1 58 

1870 

1,  030,  283 

797,  194  08 

77.  376 

1 32 

1871 

1,  014,  264 

800,  454  49 

78.  920 

1 46 

1872 

922,  260 

788,  893  38 

85.  539 

1 46 

1873 

1,  212,  479 

1,254,817  67 

1 03.492 

1 37 

1874  

1,  279,  912 

1,  452, 160  74 

1 13.458 

1 19 

1875 

1,138,118 

1,  200,  541  36 

1 05.  485 

1 10 

1876 

1, 183,  093 

1, 153,  479  80 

97.  497 

1 05 

1877 

1,  282, 163 

1,059,941  12 

82.  668 

85 

1878 

1,  257,  536 

1, 062,  995  47 

84.  530 

85 

1879 

1,340,  309 

1, 150,  018  49 

85.  082 

1 03 

1880  

1,  432,  038 

1, 180,  082  42 

82.  406 

76.  33 

1881 

1,  473,  008 

1,  242,  542  55 

84.  354 

87.  80 

Total 

16,  729, 137 

14,  953,  940  21 

0 89.389 

Note. — The  prices  of  imported  salt  are  in  fiscal  years  ending  June  30,  and  of  Michigan  salt  in  in- 
spection years  ending  November  30. 


Here  it  appears  that,  while  the  foreign  price  of  imported  salt  in  pack- 
ages was  rapidly  advancing,  the  price  of  the  Michigan  article  was  as 
rapidly  receding.  Although  the  drop  in  the  foreign  price,  caused  by 
the  growth  and  vigor  of  our  home  competition  for  the  possession  of  the 
market,  has  been  very  marked  since  1874,  the  pressure  of  American 
rivalry  has  apparently  brought  about  the  lowest  figures  likely  to  be 
conceded  abroad;  for  these  figures  stand  at  very  much  the  same  as  in 
1868  and  1869.  Any  legislation  which  would  break  the  growing  force 
of  the  American  competition  against  the  foreigner  would  be  sure  to 
strengthen  the  latter  and  enable  him  to  exact  higher  prices.  The  tend- 
ency to  cheaper  salt,  now  in  operation,  can  be  maintained  only  by 
maintaining  those  circumstances  which  strengthen  the  power  of  Ameri- 
can competition. 

The  principal  reason  why  the  Michigan  salt  manufacturer  has  been 
able  to  expand  so  fast,  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  dovetailed  with  the 
Michigan  lumber  interest.  These  two  interests  are  interdependent,  and 
help  each  other.  By  using  the  waste  of  saw-logs,  including  the  saw  dust 
for  fuel;  by  working  up  the  best  of  the  slabs  into  barrel  staves  and 
headings,  and  by  utilizing  the  waste  steam  of  the  saw-mills,  the  salt 
manufacturers  in  Michigan  have  advantages  in  cheapening  the  cost  of 


1204 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  II.  MASON. 


production  not  possessed  by  any  other  part  of  this  country,  for  nowhere 
else  can  the  lumber  and  the  salt  manufactures  be  carried  on  side  by  side 
in  this  manner.  But  the  rapid  disappearance  of  our  lumber  forests  give 
warning  that  this  peculiar  advantage  may  not  be  ours  for  very  many 
more  years.  When  it  shall  be  gone,  we  shall  be  more  seriously  con- 
fronted by  foreign  competition  than  we  are  to-day,  even  should  the  salt 
duties  be  undisturbed,  and  then  we  may  have  to  surrender  one  outpost 
after  another  in  the  American  market,  and  retire  within  narrowing  bound- 
aries before  the  invading  onset  of  English  salt,  as  is  now  the  case  with 
the  salt  industry  in  New  York.  We  submit  that,  with  this  contingency 
in  plain  sight,  nothing  should  be  done  by  Congress  to  repress  or  weaken 
the  progress  at  present  being  made  by  the  Michigan  manufacture. 

SALT  NOT  CHEAPENED  BY  REDUCING  THE  DUTIES. 

A very  erroneous  belief  is  prevalant  that  a reduction  of  thQ  tariff  on 
salt  would  cheapen  the  article  to  consumers,  whereas  every  time  in  our 
history  when  the  tariff  on  salt  has  been  reduced  the  prices  have  ad- 
vanced, except  under  the  tariff  of  1857,  soon  after  the  passage  of  which 
occurred  the  memorable  panic  of  that  year,  followed  by  a heavy  decline 
in  the  prices  of  almost  every  kind  of  commodities.  An  instructive  lesson 
may  be  learned  from  the  last  instance.  In  1872  Congress  reduced  from 
24  down  to  12  cents  per  100  pounds  the  duty  on  salt  in  bags,  sacks, 
barrels,  or  other  packages,  and  from  18  down  to  8 cents  per  100  pounds 
on  salt  in  bulk.  The  following  comparative  statements,  compiled  from 
the  statistical  record,  show  that  the  foreign  prices  of  both  classes  of 
salt  advanced  a considerable  part  of  the  duties  removed.  As  salt  in 
packages  comprises  by  far  most  of  the  salt  manufactured  in  the  United 
States,  that  sort  is  chosen  for  the  purpose  of  illustration  : 


SALT  IMPORTED  FOR  HOME  CONSUMPTION  AT  DUTY  OF  24  CENTS  PER  100  POUNDS. 


Years  ending  June  30 — 

Pounds. 

Foreign  invoice 
values. 

Invoice  val- 
ues per  100 
pounds. 

• 

Duty  collected. 

1868 

1869  

1870  

1871  

1872  

July,  1872 

Totals 

308, 446,  080 
297,  382,  750 
288, 479,  287 
283,  993,  799 
258,  232,  807 
5,  028,  432 

$915,  546  51 
895,  272  13 
797, 194  08 
800,  454  49 
788,  893  38 
16,  022  40 

$0  29.  683 
30. 105 
27.  634 
28. 185 

30.  549 

31.  864 

$740,  270  59 
713, 718  60 
692,  350  31 
681,  585  16 
619,  758  77 
12,  068  23 

1,  441,  563, 155 

4,  213,  382  99 

29. 228 

3,  459,  751  66 

SALT  IMPORTED  FOR  HOME  CONSUMPTION  AT  DUTY  OF  12  CENTS  PER  100  POUNDS. 


1873* 

334,  465,  685 

$1,  238, 795  27 

$0  37.  038 

$401,  358  72 

1874 

358,  375, 496 

1,  452, 160  74 

40.  523 

430,  050  49 

1875 

318,  673,  091 

1,  200,  541  36 

37.  673 

382,  407  65 

1876 

331,  266, 140 

1, 153,  479  80 

34.  823 

397,  519  23 

Totals 

1,  342,  780,412 

5,  044,  977  17 

37.  571 

1,  611,  336  09 

1877 

359,  005,  742 

1,  059,  941  12 

29.  522 

430,  806  79 

1878 

352, 109,  963 

1,  062,  995  47 

30. 190 

422,  531  98 

1876 

375,  286,  472 

1, 150,  018  49 

30.  644 

450,  343  74 

1880 

400,  970,  531 

1, 180,  082  42 

29.  431 

481,  164  55 

1881 

412,  442,  291 

1,  242,  542  55 

30. 126 

494,  930  73 

Totals 

3,  242,  595, 411 

10, 740,  557  22 

33. 123 

3,  891, 113  88 

* Eleven  months,  from  July  31,  1872,  to  July  1,  1873. 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1205 


The  reduced  duty  went  into  operation  August  1,  1872.  Let  it  be 
noticed  that  the  foreign  producers,  who  always  take  whatever  profit 
circumstances  will  permit  them  to  get,  put  up  their  prices  immediately 
after  the  passage  of  the  bill,  in  June,  1872,  reducing  the  duties  on  salt, 
the  invoice  price,  even  in  July,  1872,  under  the  old  duty,  being  advanced 
over  1J  cents  per  100  pounds;  in  fiscal  year  1873,  very  nearly  6J  cents 
above  what  it  was  in  fiscal  year  1872;  in  fiscal  year  1874,  about  10 
cents;  in  fiscal  year  1875,  over  7 cents ; and  in  fiscal  year  1870,  over  4J 
cents.  In  47  months  after  the  reduction  of  the  duty  took  effect,  the 
average  increase  in  the  foreign  invoice  value  amounted  to  8.343  cents 
per  100  pounds,  or  to  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  duty  taken  off. 
Practically  considered,  therefore,  the  reduction  of  duty  deprived  the 
government  during  that  period  of  $1,611,336.09  of  revenue,  and  legis- 
lated $1,120,281.69  of  that  sum  into  the  pockets  of  the  foreign  manu- 
facturers of  salt,  to  whom  the  legislation  by  Congress  was  an  enabling 
act  to  that  extent  by  the  enlargement  of  competitive  powers  which  it 
conferred  upon  our  alien  rivals.  Comparing  the  whole  period  ending 
in  1881  with  the  one  ending  with  July,  1872,  it  appears  that  the  foreign- 
ers increased  their  invoice  prices  an  average  of  3.895  cents  per  100 
pounds,  or  by  nearly  one  fourth  of  the  duty  taken  off,  so  that,  in  the 
aggregate,  the  government  lost  $3,891,113.88  of  revenue  from  salt  in 
packages  alone,  and  the  salt  makers  pocketed  the  sum  of  $1,262,990.91; 
consequently,  the  legislation  in  1872,  advocated  and  framed  in  the  in- 
terests of  cheap  salt,  was  virtually  a movement  to  enable  the  foreign 
manufacturers  to  charge  more  for  their  salt,  at  the  expense  of  the  na- 
tional revenue,  of  the  American  consumer,  and  of  our  domestic  pro- 
ducers. Thus  was  the  object  of  reducing  the  duties  completely  frus- 
trated by  the,  practical  result,  and  would  be  again,  should  the  duties 
be  further  reduced,  or  should  they  be  repealed. 

The  rise  in  the  prices  attracted  attention  and  was  felt  everywhere  in 
this  country.  On  (his  subject  the  report  of  the  Hew  York  Chamber  of 
Commerce  for  the  commercial  year  ending  April  30,  1873,  said : 

The  reduction  of  duty  on  foreign  salt  has  not  had  that  effect  upon  the  price  of  salt 
which  was  anticipated  by  those  who  advocated  the  passage  of  the  act.  The  cost  of 
both  fine  and  ground  salt  is  higher  than  it  was  before  the  duty  was  reduced,  and  the 
importation  of  fine  salt  has  fallen  off  slightly  from  that  of  1871. 

EXPERIENCE  OF  THIS  COUNTRY  WITH  FREE  TRADE  IN  SALT. 

By  the  act  of  March  3,  1807,  the  duty  of  20  cents  per  bushel  was 
repealed,  to  take  effect  January  1, 1808,  from  which  date,  until  the  act 
of  July  29,  1813,  reimposing  the  duty  of  20  cents  per  bushel  went  into 
operation,  salt  was  admitted  free  through  our  custom-houses.  Contrary 
to  general  expectation,  the  prices  of  salt  advanced,  instead  of  receding, 
during  this  experiment  with  unrestricted  commerce  in  the  article.  Its 
manufacture  in  this  country  was  so  injuriously  affected  by  the  aggressive 
foreign  competition  that  many  works  either  abandoned  or  greatly  re- 
duced their  production.  Development  of  the  industry  was  not  only 
crippled,  it  actually  retrograded,  as  may  be  fully  learned  by  consulting 
the  annals  of  those  times.  Bishop’s  History  of  American  Manufactures, 
speaking  of  the  year  1809,  says: 

The  domestic  manufacture  of  salt  in  the  United  States  had  not  for  several  years 
kept  pace  with  the  increase  of  population.  At  the  Indiana  or  Wabash  saline,  where 
rlie  cost  of  manufacture  did  not  exceed  seventy-five  cents  per  bushel,  the  market  price 
of  salt  had  not  been  less  than  two  dollars  a bushel,  the  quantity  being  short  of  the 
^demand. 


1206 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  II.  MASON. 


And,  again : 

The  quantity  in  the  country  was  considered  very  inadequate  to  the  supply  of  the 
year. 

When  the  war  of  1812  arrived,  the  foreign  supply  was  cut  off — the 
main  sources  from  which  we  had  derived  salt  having  been  England,  our 
enemy,  and  her  colonies — and  we  were  left  almost  wholly  dependent 
upon  the  scanty  quantities  made  by  the  few  establishments  not  driven 
out  of  business  by  foreign  rivalry.  Here  is  what  “The  Committee  on 
Salt”  had  to  say  on  the  subject,  in  their  report  to  “ The  National  Con- 
vention for  the  Protection  of  American  Interests,”  convened  in  New 
York  April  5,  1841 : 

During  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain,  this  article  was  sold  in  quantity  in  more 
than  one  of  our  States  at  four  dollars  per  bushel,  when,  had  there  then  existed  in 
those  States  proper  establishments  for  making  it  from  sea-water,  it  might  have  been 
supplied  as  low  as  thirty-five  cents  per  bushel ; thus,  under  the  then  state  of  things, 
one  year’s  supply  was  equal  to  eleven  years  under  the  other;  or,  during  three  years 
of  such  a war,  the  cost  of  supply  might  equal  that  of  thirty-three  years. 

That  is  the  way  we  secured  cheap  salt  by  absolute  free  trade  in  the 
article.  The  cost  of  the  tax  at  four  dollars  per  bushel  must  have  greatly 
exceeded  what  would  have  been  the  cost  to  consumers  proceeding  from 
a strictly  protective  duty,  continued  long  enough  to  build  up  a salt 
industry  at  home  always  adequate  to  the  home  supply,  even  admitting 
as  true  the  false  and  vicious  notion  that  a duty  on  any  import  is  a tax 
upon  the  home-made  no  less  than  upon  the  foreign  commodity.  . 

The  true  tests  of  the  excellence  or  the  folly  of  any  system  are  its 
results,  when  carried  fully  into  operation.  These  confirm  sound  theories, 
however  fallacious  they  may  appear  on  a superficial  view,  and  set  the 
seal  of  condemnation  upon  bad  ones,  no  matter  how  plausible  an  aspect 
they  wear  on  paper.  Free  trade  in  salt  having  utterly  failed  in  practice 
to  give  cheaper  salt  to  American  consumers  after  a fair  trial  of  its  effi- 
cacy, extending  over  about  six  consecutive  years,  it  would  be  flying  in 
the  face  of  adverse  experience  to  try  the  ruinous  experiment  over 
again,  with  any  expectation  of  thereby  reducing  prices  in  the  Ameri- 
can market. 

THE  DAIRY  INTEREST’S  DEMAND  FOR  FREE  SALT. 

For  a number  of  years  the  Butter,  Cheese,  and  Egg  Association  has 
been  accustomed,  at  its  annual  meeting,  to  pass  resolutions  demanding 
that  the  kind  of  salt  used  by  its  members  be  placed  on  the  free  list.  It 
is  urged,  in  justification  of  this  demand,  that — 

The  dairy  interest  of  this  country  requires  large  importations  of  foreign  dairy  salt 
for  the  successful  manufacture  of  products,  large  quantities  of  which  are  taken  by  the 
country  this  salt  is  imported  from,  and  which  country  charges  no  tariff  on  their  im- 
ports of  American  butter  and  cheese,  but  admits  the  same  duty  free. 

This  plea,  however,  is  without  any  real  fo:  ce  when  it  is  considered  that, 
as  experience  shows,  neither  reduction  nor  repeal  of  duty  leads  to  cheaper 
prices,  but  to  greater  dearness;  that  the  home-made  dairy  salt,  as 
proved  many  times  by  chemical  analysis  and  by  practical  trials,  is  fully 
equal  in  quality  to  the  imported  article,  as  well  as  lower  in  price;  that 
the  exports  of  American  butter  have  vastly  increased  under  the  duty 
which  is  the  subject  of  complaint;  and  that  the  salt  used  in  preparing 
butter  for  market,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  is  bought  at  the  price  of 
salt  and  sold  at  the  price  of  butter,  so  that  the  butter-maker  nets  an 
enormous  profit  upon  the  salt.  Thus  is  the  proposed  abolition  of  the 


DAVID  II.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1207 


salt  duty  indefensible,  even  from  the  dairymen’s  point  of  view.  About 
0 pounds  ot  salt,  costing  not  to  exceed  9 cents,  are  required  to  season 
and  pack  100  pounds  of  butter,  according  to  many  authorities.  Now, 
this  salt  is  sold  as  if  so  much  butter,  at  prices  ranging  from  18  to  45 
cents  per  pound,  according  to  quality  of  product.  In  this  way  from 
$1.08  to  $2.70  is  netted  for  the  G pounds  of  salt  used.  Should  not  the 
dairymen  be  content  with  several  thousand  per  cent,  profit  on  the  salt 
they  sell  with  their  butter  ? Moreover,  the  duty  on  the  imported  salt 
has  not  interfered  with  our  exports  of  butter,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  fol- 
lowing statement  compiled  from  the  official  records : 

Domestic  exports  of  butter. 


1857 

1858 

1859 

1860 
1861 
1862 

1863 

1864 

1865 

1866 

1867 

1868 

1869 

1870 

1871 

1872 

1873 

1874 

1875 

1876 

1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 
1881 
1882 


Totals. 


Years  ending  June  30 — 


Pounds. 


Invoice  Average 
values.  per  pound. 


3, 141,  592 

3,  082, 117 

4,  572,  065 
7.  640,  914 

15,  531,  381 
26,  691,257 
35,  172,  415 

20,  895,  435 

21,  559,  892 

3,  806,  835 

4,  912,  355 
2,  071,  873 

1,  324,  332 

2,  019,  288 

3,  965,  043 
7,  746,  261 

4,  518,  844 
4,  367,  983 
6, 360,  827 
4,644,894 

21,  527,  242 
21,  837, 117 
38,248,  016 
39,  236,  658 
31,  560,  500 
14,  794,  305 


351,  229,  431 


$593,  084 
541,  863 
750,  911 
1, 144,  321 

2,  355,  985 
4, 164,  344 

6,  733,  743 
6, 140,  031 

7,  292,  715 
1,  267,  851 
1, 184,  367 

582,  745 
484,  094 
592,  229 
853,  096 
1,  498,  812 
952,  919 
1,  092,  381 

1,  506,  996 
1, 109,  496 
4, 424,  616 

3,  931,  822 

5,  421,205 

6,  690,  687 
6,  256,  024 

2,  864,  570 


70,  430,  907 


$0  18.  875 

17.  581 

16.  424 

14.  976 
15. 169 

15.  602 
19. 145 
29.  385 
33.  825 
33.  305 
24. 119 
28. 126 
36.  554 
29.  329 
21.  515 

19.  359 
21.  088 
25.  009 
23.  692 
23.  886 

20.  559 

18.  005 
14. 174 

17.  052 

19.  822 
19.  363 


20.  053 


To  one  who  carefully  and  understanding^  studies  these  statistics,  it 
must  be  apparent  that  the  general  rule  which  has  governed  the  expor- 
tations of  butter  is  that  they  were  largest  when  the  prices  were  lowest 
to  the  foreign  purchaser.  It  is  true  that  both  quantities  and  prices 
rapidly  advanced  after  June  30,  1862;  but  these  exceptionally  high 
prices  were  greenback,  not  gold,  values,  and  they  do  not  represent  the 
actual  cost  to  the  buyers  abroad.  Foreign  exchange  was  sold  in  the 
American  market  at  the  price  of  gold,  and  this  premium  sometimes  re- 
duced the  value  of  the  exported  butter,  measured  in  metallic  money,  to 
half  of  the  greenback  figures,  so  that,  while  the  apparent  price  was 
very  high,  it  really  was  very  low  to  the  foreign  purchaser.  So  long  as 
the  gold  premium  continued,  this  cheapening  effect  was  realized  by  the 
English,  who  were  then  and  are  now  the  chief  European  consumers  of 
American  butter,  they  taking  annually  the  great  bulk  of  our  exports 
of  that  article.  It  should  be  noticed  in  this  connection  that  in  fiscal 
year  I860,  when  the  average  export  price  suddenly  rose  to  more  than 
3GJ  cents  per  pound,  the  quantity  exported  fell  to  the  lowest  figures  in 
all  the  twenty-six  years  given  iu  the  table,  although,  the  premium  on 
gold  in  that  fiscal  year  never  rose  above  50  per  cent.,  and  most  of  the 
time  fluctuated  between  34  and  45,  thus  significantly  confirming  the 


1208 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  H.  MASON. 


general  rule  that  exportations  have  been  largest  when  prices  have  been 
lowest  to  the  foreigner,  no  matter  what  the  tariff  on  salt. 

The  instantaneous  decline  in  the  exports,  after  fiscal  year  1865,  was 
due  to  the  close  of  the  civil  war,  by  which  hundreds  of  thousands  of  sol- 
diers were  returned  permanently  to  their  homes,  where  they  immensely 
increased,  through  their  suddenly  added  consumption,  the  domestic 
demand  for  butter,  thereby  vastly  diminishing  the  surplus  which  had 
been  accustomed  to  seek  a foreign  market.  It  was  only  after  the  dairy 
interest  had  been  widely  developed  by  the  multiplication  of  creameries, 
a new  excess  created,  and  prices  considerably  reduced,  that  exports 
were  resumed  on  an  extensive  scale. 

It  will  be  impossible  for  the  most  ingenious  scrutiny  to  discover  any 
adverse  influence  exerted  upon  the  butter  industry  by  the  duties  on 
salt.  Under  the  tariff  of  1857,  when  the  average  duty  on  every  kind  of 
salt  was  equivalent  to  only  1.58383  cents  per  bushel,  the  total  quantity 
of  butter  exported  in  the  five  years  of  that  period  did  not  equal  the  quan- 
tity exported  in  the  single  fiscal  year  1863,  when  the  duty  on  salt  used  for 
dairy  purposes  was  dutied  24  cents  per  100  pounds,  except  in  the  month 
of  July,  1862 — the  first  of  that  fiscal  year — when  the  duty  was  18  cents 
per  100  pounds.  In  the  fifteen  years  under  the  tariffs  of  1846  and  1847, 
when  the  custom-house  charges  on  imported  salt  were  the  lowest  in  our 
entire  history,  66,118,096  pounds  of  domestic  butter  were  exported  from 
the  United  States;  in  the  10  years  and  1 month,  when  the  duty  on  dairy 
salt  was  18  cents  per  100  pounds  for  1 month,  and  24  cents  per  100 
pounds  for  the  rest  of  the  time,  104,031,946  pounds  of  butter  were 
exported;  and  in  9 years  and  11  months,  clown  to  the  close  of  June  30, 
1882,  under  the  present  duty  of  12  cents  per  100  pounds  of  salt,  186,538,169 
pounds  of  butter  were  exported.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  dairy 
interest  has  no  just  ground  of  complaint  against  the  salt  duty.  Consider- 
ing that  such  rapidily  augmenting  quantities  of  butter  can  be  sent 
abroad  to  be  sold  away  from  the  shelter  of  our  tariff,  successfully  compet- 
ing with  all  foreign  rivals,  and  that  the  domestic  production  of  butter 
is  protected  by  an  import  duty  of  4 cents  per  pound,  the  clamor  of  the 
dairymen  against  the  salt  duty  as  injurious  to  their  industry  is  seen  to 
be  without  an  atom  of  substantial  foundation. 

THE  SALT  DUTIES  NO  BURDEN  TO  THE  FARMER. 

A false  cry  raised  some  years  ago,  and  constantly  reiterated  ever 
smee,  is  that,  before  our  civil  war,  the  Western  farmer  could  buy  with 
one  bushel  of  wheat  in  the  Chicago  market  one  barrel  of  salt,  but  that, 
under  the  present  duties,  lie  must  pay  out  two  bushels  of  wheat  to  get 
the  barrel  of  salt,  being  taxed  one  bushel  of  wheat  on  account  of  the 
tariff,  to  be  paid  to  the  salt  manufacturers  as  a bounty  to  support  their 
business.  This'  unfounded,  yet  mischievous,  allegation  is  easily  dis- 
proved by  a reference  to  the  prices  current.  Below  are  the  highest 
monthly  prices  of  spring  wheat  and  of  American  tine  salt  in  two  of  the 
years  when  the  tariff  on  salt  was  the  lowest  ever  imposed  by  Congress. 
These  prices  are  copied  from  the  annual  reviews  of  the  tiade  and  com- 
merce of  Chicago,  as  published  in  pamphlet  form  at  the  time  by  the 
Chicago  Daily  Press  and  Tribune,  the  quantity  of  wheat  required  to  pay 
for  a barrel  of  salt  being  calculated  from  these  data. 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1209 


Purchasing  power  of  wheat  for  salt,  when  the  salt  duty  was  1.58383  cents  per  husliel. 


1857. 


.January  . . 
February . 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August . . . 
September 
October... 
November 
December 


Spring  wheat,  highest 
per  bushel. 

Fine  salt,  highest  per 
barrel. 

Bushels  of  wheat  for 
barrel  of  salt. 

1858. 

Spring  wheat,  highest 
per  bushel. 

Fine  salt,  highest  per 
barrel. 

Bushels  of  wheat  for 
barrel  of  salt. 

$0  87 

$1  95 

2. 2414 

January  

$0  57 

$1  90 

3.  3333 

90 

2 00 

2. 2222 

February  

57 

1 90 

1 3.3333 

91 

2 06 

2. 2637 

March 

61 

l 90 

3.  1148 

88 

2 06 

2.  3409 

April 

62 

1 90 

3.0645 

1 10 

1 90 

1.  7273 

May 

65 

1 70 

2.6154 

1 25 

2 00 

1.  6000 

June 

65 

1 60 

1 2.4614 

1 27 

(*) 

July 

68 

1 55 

2. 2794 

1 14 

1 75 

1.  5351 

August 

72 

1 47 

2.  0417 

96 

1 85 

1. 9271 

September 

88 

1 48 

1.  6818 

77 

1 85 

2.  4026 

October 

88 

1 55 

1.7614 

69 

1 90 

2.  7536 

November 

75 

1 50 

2.0000 

54 

2 00 

3. 7037 

December 

70 

1 60 

2.2857 

* No  quotation  given  for  salt  in  July  1857. 


In  most  significant  and  convincing  contrast  is  the  following  statement, 
compiled  and  calculated  from  prices  published  in  the  last  two  annual  re- 
ports of  the  Chicago  Board  of  Trade — a body  which  had  not  been  organ- 
- ized  at  the  time  of  the  above  figures.  The  prices  given  are,  in  every 
case,  the  highest  for  cash. 


Purchasing  power  of  wheat  for  salt,  when  the  salt  duty  was  12  cents  per  100  pounds.* 


January  . . 
February . 

March 

April 

May 

J line 

July 

August . . . 
September 
October  . . . 
November 
December. 


o © 

11 
SI 
c£  . 

a t 

A bC 

ft 

to 

- 5 

to 

Bushels  of  wheat  for 
barrel  of  salt. 

1881. 

%% 

fcJD'f 

.9  ® 

®>  to 
<D 
<M  S3 

Fine  salt,  highest  per 
barrel. 

1 Bushels  of  wheat  for 
j barrel  of  salt. 

$1  32J 

$1  45 

1.  0974  ! 

January  

$1  00 

$1  05 

1. 0500 

1 251 

1 45 

1. 1554 

February  

99| 

1 05 

1.0526 

1 25£ 

1 45 

1. 1519  | 

March 

1 041 

1 05 

1. 0048 

1 15§ 

1 25 

1.0811  1 

April 

1 051 

1 05 

.9953 

1 19 

1 00 

.8403 

May 

1 12ft 

1 05 

.9323 

1 14 

1 00 

. 8772 

June 

1 14 

1 15 

1.  0088 

96J 

1 00 

1.0390 

July 

1 21 

1 20 

.9917 

92 

1 00 

1.0870  I 

August 

1 38 

1 25 

.9058 

95i 

1 00 

1.0499  j 

September 

1 38 

1 25 

. 9058 

1 01§ 

1 00 

.9816 

October 

1 431 

1 25 

.8726 

1 12 

1 00 

.8929 

November 

1 32 

1 25 

.9470 

1 101 

1 05 

.9535 

December 

1 29 

1 35 

1. 0465 

* Equal  to  a duty  of  6.72  cents  per  standard  bushel  of  56  pounds. 


Let  it  be  noticed  that  in  1857  and  1858  the  smallest  quantity  of 
wheat  which  would  purchase  a barrel  of  salt  was  1.5351  bushels,  while 
in  1880  and  1881  the  largest  quantity  required  was  1.1554  bushels.  In 
the  24  months  under  the  low  duty  there  were  17  when  2 or  more  than 
2 bushels,  and  of  those  17  months  as  many  as  5 when  more  than  3 bush- 
els, of  wheat  were  necessary  to  pay  for  a barrel  of  salt ; but  in  the  24 
months  under  the  very  much  higher  duty  there  were  12  when  less  than 
a bushel  of  wheat  would  buy  a barrel  of  salt.  The  same  general  con- 


1210 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  H.  MASON. 


trast  would  be  exhibited  if  the  comparison  should  be  extended  back 
over  a considerable  series  of  parallel  years.  What  is  true  is  the  exact 
contrary  of  what  is  alleged.  Agriculture  has  no  ground  of  complaint 
against  the  salt  duties ; for,  not  only  does  the  farmer’s  wheat  have  a 
much  greater  exchangeable  value  as  regards  salt  than  before  the  war, 
but,  in  consequence  of  the  vast  increase  and  cheapening  of  transporta- 
tion facilities  within  the  last  decade,  he  receives  a much  larger  proportion 
of  the  Chicago  prices  for  his  produce  than  he  did  formerly. 

OTHER  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

The  universal  diffusion  of  salt  has  made  it  easy  for  demagogues,  in- 
tent upon  ingratiating  themselves  with  the  populace,  and  even  for  well- 
intentioned  men,  misled  by  superficial  knowledge  or  false  information, 
to  inveigh  bitterly  against  the  tariff  on  that  article.  In  the  heated  lan- 
guage of  the  day,  the  duties  have  been  stigmatized  as  an  attack  upon 
the  goodness  and  wisdom  of  the  Creator,  who  has  filled  the  bowels  of 
the  earth  and  the  waves  of  the  sea  with  salt  for  the  use  and  blessing  of 
man,  to  whom  it  should  be  free  as  water  ; not  fettered  and  clogged  by 
national  legislation.  But  this  presentation  of  the  case  is  all  on  the  sur- 
face, leaving  out  of  view  economical  considerations  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance. In  our  largest  cities,  and  in  some  of  our  towns,  the  water 
supply  is  subject  to  a tax,  specifically  known  as  the  water  tax  ; yet  no- 
body ever  thinks  of  denouncing  such  tax  as  flying  in  the  face  of  Prov- 
idence. On  the  contrary,  its  levy  is  considered  eminently  proper  and 
right,  because  representing  the  labor  cost  of  making  water  conveniently 
accessible  in  copious  quantity.  It  is  not  the  water  in  the  springs,  in  the 
streams,  in  the  lakes  that  is  taxed,  but  the  water  which  has  an  added 
value  through  being  made  abundant  in  every  man’s  house.  In  one  re- 
spect the  former  water  is  the  cheaper,  since  it  may  be  had  by  the  mere 
act  of  appropriation  5 still,  in  all  respects  at  once,  the  latter  water  is 
cheaper,  since  its  procurement  involves  smaller  expenditure  of  labor  or 
of  labor’s  worth. 

The  duties  on  salt  are  levied  in  the  same  spirit  and  with  the  same 
meaning.  Although  salt  is  an  article  of  such  universality  of  supply,  in 
its  native  state,  and  although  it  is  a necessary  of  life  which  no  economy 
can  avoid,  no  poverty  shun,  no  privation  escape,  no  cunning  elude,  no 
dexterity  avert,  it  cannot  be  obtained  without  a certain  expenditure  of 
labor,  without  adaptable  implements,  or  sometimes  expensive  machinery, 
and,  generally,  without  undergoing  the  processes  of  manufacture.  As, 
notwithstanding  the  abundance  everywhere  of  the  crude  material,  ex- 
isting either  in  brine  or  in  rock  and  mineral  form,  individuals  cannot, 
each  for  himself,  produce  his  needed  supply  of  salt,  such  production  be- 
comes a separate  and  distinct  employment,  requiring  capital,  mechan- 
ical accessories,  skill,  and  experience.  The  question  is,  Shall  the  sup- 
ply for  our  own  people  be  brought  from  abroad  or  made  at  home  ? 
Shall  we  pay  foreigners  to  do  this  work  or  shall  we  do  it  ourselves? 

Does  not  the  profusion  of  the  crude  material  in  every  part  of  this 
country  indicate  the  proper  answer  ? If  the  tariff  levied  upon  imported 
salt  can  be  stigmatized  as  an  affront  to  the  Creator,  on  the  plea  that-  it 
clogs  and  fetters  His  beneficence,  how  much  more  it  must  be  calliug  in 
question  His  goodness  and  wisdom  to  neglect  the  salt  resources  under 
our  own  feet  in  order  to  get  the  salt  which  comes  from  under  the  feet  of 
other  men  in  other  and  distant  countries  ! Salt  being  necessary  to  hu- 
man health,  strength,  and  development,  without  exception  of  climate  or 
race,  and  this  substance  having  a diffusion  over  the  surface  of  our  globe 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1211 


as  universal  as  the  demand,  by  what  legerdemain  of  logic  is  it  to  be 
shown  that  this  close  proximity  of  demand  and  means  of  supply  is  not 
an  indication,  almost  iinperatorial  in  its  emphasis,  that  demand  should 
seek  its  supply  on  the  spot"?  It  will  hardly  be  maintained  that  the 
boundless  presence  of  salt  in  its  crude  state  has  been  a matter  of  pure 
chance  rather  than  of  deliberate  design.  If  by  design,  then  what  can 
be  the  meaning  of  that  design,  unless  it  be  that  man,  obeying  the  Divine 
mandate  to  u increase  and  multiply  and  replenish  the  earth  and  subdue 
it ,”  should  find  the  means  of  satisfying  his  need  of  salt  wherever  he 
should  go  ? The  tariff  runs  parallel  with  this  broad  purpose  in  a double 
sense ; for  it  not  only  incites  our  people  to  utilize  the  salt  resources  which 
impregnate  their  own  soil,  but  also  erects  a barrier  against  those  who 
would  entice  our  people  to  forego  their  own  resources  in  favor  of  the  re- 
sources of  other  countries,  while  the  .scheme  of  the  anti-protectionists 
runs  counter  to  said  broad  purpose,  since  it  induces  our  people  to  go 
abroad  for  salt  rather  than  produce  it  at  home,  and  to  break  down  the 
custom-house  barrier  which  stands  in  the  way  of  that  policy. 

THE  DUTY  NEVER  ADDED  TO  THE  PRICE  OF  THE  HOME-MADE  ARTICLE. 

No  objection  against  the  tariff  has  been  more  persistently  urged,  or 
with  less  a l tempt  at  proof  by  reference  to  detailed  facts,  than  the  one 
that  the  duty  on  the  import  is  added  to  the  price  of  the  home-made 
article,  and  that  this  enhancement,  going  into  the  pocket  of  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  as  so  much  net  profit,  is  a bounty  exacted  from  our 
consumers  to  support  privilege  created  by  act  of  Congress. 

This  theory  of  the  effect  of  the  tariff  upon  domestic  prices  inevitably 
leads,  however,  to  some  very  preposterous  conclusions,  from  which  even 
its  advocates  shrink.  If,  for  instance,  the  duty  of  12  cents  per  100 
pounds  on  salt  in  packages  is  added  to  the  price  of  every  100  pounds  of 
the  like  domestic  product,  then  why,  on  the  same  theory,  is  not  the  duty 
of  20  cents  per  bushel  on  wheat  added  to  the  price  of  every  bushel  of 
the  home  crop  ? Where  is  the  difference  of  principle  in  thus  applying 
the  theory  to  grain,  when  it  is  applicable,  as  is  claimed,  to  salt,  to  pig 
iron,  to  sugar,  and  to  rice  ? Wheat,  therefore,  would  be,  on  a parity  of 
reasoning,  20  cents  per  bushel  cheaper  in  our  market,  were  it  not  for 
the  tariff;  and  corn  10  cents  cheaper ; and  barley  15  cents  cheaper;  and 
oats  10  cents  cheaper,  and  so  on,  to  the  end  of  the  list  of  the  agricultu- 
ral articles  which  are  dutied.  Does  anybody  in  his  senses  believe  such 
would  be  the  result  % If,  however,  such  it  should  be,  and  the  theory 
requires  it,  then  the  most  cormorant  tax-eaters  we  have  in  this  country 
are  the  farmers,  and  their  rapacity  is  fed  fat  with  a tariff  spoliation 
amounting  to  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  per  annum.  In  the  light 
of  theory,  this  is  frightful  to  contemplate — it  is  infamous ; for,  as  no 
person  can  live  without  eating,  the  agricultural  monopolists  have  a 
tariff  clutch  upon  the  very  throats  and  stomachs  of  all  who  do  not  grow 
their  own  food. 

Another  absurdity  involved  in  the  theory  is  that  the  fall  in  the  do- 
mestic price,  precipitated  by  the  removal  of  the  entire  duty,  would 
often  be  so  great  as  to  leave  less  than  cost  of  production  to  represent 
what  is  averred  to  be  the  normal  price  of  the  commodity  to  the  con- 
sumer. This  point  may  be  illustrated  by  salt  itself.  During  last  May, 
June,  and  July  fine  salt  was  selling  at  the  Michigan  works  at  70  cents 
per  barrel.  On  like  salt  imported,  the  duty  would  have  amounted  to 
33.6  cents  for  the  five  bushels,  or  280  pounds,  contained  in  the  package. 
Deducting  this  sum,  36.4  cents  would  remain  to  constitute  price  after 


1212 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DAVID  H.  MASON. 


repeal  of  the  duty.  Of  this  remainder,  however,  25  cents  was  actual 
outlay  for  the  barrel,  leaving  only  11.4  cents  for  the  salt,  or  2.28  cents 
per  bushel.  Here  we  are  brought  to  the  utterly  preposterous  conclu- 
sion that  free  trade  in  salt  would  reduce  that  article,  sold  in  bulk,  to  a 
price  several  times  less  than  the  foreign  invoice  cost  of  any  salt  ever 
imported  into  the  United  States.  It  is  very  plain  that  the  duty  on  salt 
is  not  added  to  the  price  of  domestic  salt.  A similar  analysis,  applied 
to  hundreds  of  other  home  products,  would  develop  an  equally  ridicu- 
lous discrepancy  between  the  theory  and  the  facts. 

Still  another  absurdity  is  that  the  market  prices  of  many  articles  of 
home  production  are  only  a trifle  greater,  or  are  less,  than  the  import 
duties  levied  on  the  like  articles.  This  is  true  of  chloroform,  ordinary 
lirint-cloth,  copperas,  Epsom  salts,  refined  borax,  cod-liver  oil,  and  vari- 
ous other  commodities.  When  the  wholesale  price  of  an  article  of  do- 
mestic manufacture  is  $1  per  pound,  and  the  import  duty  is  $1  per 
pound,  as  in  the  case  of  chloroform,  how  is  it  possible  to  add  the  duty 
to  the  home  price  ? Since  the  theory,  as  laid  down  by  its  advocates, 
does  not  allow  for  any  exception  whatever,  and  since  there  are  numerous 
contradictions,  what  reliance  can  be  placed  on  it  as  a guide  in  framing 
custom-house  legislation  ? 

The  tariff  barrier  merely  shields  and  permits  the  natural  price,  which 
varies  in  different  countries  according  to  the  variation  of  its  component 
elements,  just  as  the  natural  price  of  wheat  in  the  United  States  is  made 
up  of  cheaper  components,  in  the  aggregate,  than  the  natural  price  of 
wheat  in  England;  and  just  as  the  natural  price  of  pig  iron  in  England 
is  made  up  of  cheaper  components,  in  the  aggregate,  than  the  natural 
price  of  pig  iron  in  the  United  States.  Our  wheat,  consequently,  can 
undersell  the  English  wheat;  hence  the  ruinous  effect  of  our  free  com- 
petition upon  English  agriculture.  On  the  other  hand,  English  pig  iron 
can  undersell  our  pig  iron;  hence  the  ruinous  effect  other  competition, 
when  not  restrained,  upon  our  manufacture.  The  only  way  to  preserve 
the  natural  price  from  destructive  encroachment  is  to  erect  the  tariff 
barrier,  behiud  which  competition,  skill,  experience,  invention,  and  ac- 
cumulated capital  will  co-operate  to  bring  down  the  articles  to  the  low- 
est point  at  which  a profit  can  be  made.  If  the  free  trade  in  salt,  which 
went  into  operation  in  1808,  had  been  continued  to  the  present  day,  not 
a bushel  of  salt  would  now  be  made  in  this  country,  because  there  would 
not  have  been  any  power  among  our  people  to  maintain  the  natural  price 
of  product  which  belongs  to  the  infancy  of  every  industry. 

THE  REASON  WHY  DOMESTIC  SALT  IS  NOT  EXPORTED. 

It  is  asserted  in  the  newspapers  opposed  to  the  tariff,  that  a repeal 
of  the  duties  on  salt  would  lead  to  its  exportation  in  large  quantities, 
because  the  effect  of  the  protective  system  is  to  confine  the  manufacturer 
to  the  home  market.  Instead  of  such  a result,  the  day  of  exportation, 
which  may  come  in  due  time,  would  be  indefinitely  postponed.  It  is 
foolish  to  expect  that  any  considerable  amount  of  salt  can  be  sent  abroad, 
when  all  the  works  now  in  operation  within  our  borders  are  unable  to 
supply  the  home  demand,  and  when  many  millions  of  bushels  are  annu- 
ally imported  to  fill  out  the  deficiency.  Only  surpluses  are  exported, 
and  we  have  no  surplus.  There  is  no  general  tendency  to  export  any- 
thing, no  matter  what  it  is,  until  the  home  demand  has  been  satisfied, 
and  an  excess  remains  to  seek  a foreign  market.  Hard  times  may  dimin- 
ish the  home  demand;  still,  nothing  will  be  exported  except  what  would 
surfeit  that  demand,  be  it  languid  or  active.  Brazil  exports  coffee,  and 


DAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1213 


China  exports  tea,  because  each  has  more  than  enough  of  its  special  com- 
modity lor  the  satisfaction  of  its  own  wants.  For  this  reason,  Great 
Britain  exports  iron  and  steel  products,  cottons,  woolens,  tin-plate,  linens, 
and  other  manufactures.  For  this  reason  France  exports  silks,  wines,  and 
beet-sugar;  the  United  States,  breadstuff's,  provisions,  tobacco,  petroleum, 
and  raw  cotton;  Australia,  wool;  Cuba,  cane  sugar;  and  so  on,  to  the 
end  of  the  list.  In  like  manner,  this  country  never  will  become  an  ex- 
porter of  salt  until  a surplus  is  produced  to  Hush  over  into  the  channels 
of  foreign  commerce.  Anything  which  would  cripple  the  home  industry 
and  increase  the  importations,  as,  for,  example,  the  unfriendly  legisla- 
tion of  repealing  or  reducing,  the  duties,  necessarily  would  delay  or  pre- 
vent the  time  when  this  country  could  possess  a surplus  of  domestic 
salt  to  seek  the  foreign  market. 

WHY  OUR  MANUFACTURERS  WANT  PROTECTION. 

Many  persons  see  nothing  but  an  irreconcilable  antagonism  between 
the  propositions,  that  protection  prospers  the  manufacturer  and  cheapens 
his  products;  and  the  question  is  often  asked,  If  protective  duties  oper- 
ate to  cheapen  the  prices  of  manufactures,  why  do  our  manufacturers 
want  such  duties? 

Let  us  illustrate  the  reason.  Suppose  a man  is  making  100  tin  pans 
per  week,  obtaining  a profit  of  25  cents  each  pan,  or  $1,300  a year  for 
his  skilled  labor  and  his  pecuniary  investment ; he  would  be  far  better 
off  at  a imofit  0f  2 cents  each  pan  if  he  could  enlarge  his  sales  to  5,000 
pans  per  week,  because  then  his  annual  profit  would  be  increased  to 
$5,200 — a gain  of  $3,900.  In  such  case,  both  producer  and  consumer 
would  be  largely  benefited,  without  harm  to  either.  Naturally  enough, 
the  manufacturer  would  ardently  desire  the  establishment  of  any  influ- 
ence which  would  bring  about  so  welcome  a result. 

It  is  precisely  in  this  way  that  a protective  tariff  operates.  The  home 
market  is  secured  to  the  home  producer  to  a constantly  augmenting  ex- 
tent, and  his  business  grows  with  the  widening  scope  of  patronage,, 
while  the  multiplying  of  occupations  and  the  increase  of  employment 
add  to  the  purchasing  power  of  the  people.  Hence  we  always  witness, 
under  such  circumstances,  a rapid  expansion  of  manufactuers  in  their 
diverse  branches,  with  larger  aggregates  of  profit  to  the  producers,  al- 
though the  rate  of  profit  may  be  diminished,  and  with  cheapened  prices 
to  consumers. 

The  practical  benefits  of  protective  duties  are  found,  not  particularly 
in  restricting  regular  importations  made  by  our  own  merchants,  with  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  wants  of  the  country,  but  in  securing  our  ports  of 
entry  from  being  flooded  with  surpluses  forced  upon  us  by  foreigners,, 
to  relieve  their  own  superabundance  and  sustain  their  home  prices,  or 
to  overwhelm  our  industries  at  any  temporary  sacrifice,  that  they  may 
command  our  markets.  Great  Britain,  our  principal  competitor,  from 
whom  we  have  derived,  during  the  last  three  decades,  about  two-fifths 
of  the  total  value  of  our  imports,  can  produce  a long  list  of  manufactures 
cheaper  than  we,  on  account  of  her  far  cheaper  labor,  much  lower  in- 
terest on  money,  immense  accumulation  of  capital,  numerous  agencies 
in  other  countries,  and  supremacy  in  the  carrying  trade;  and  can,  un- 
less restrained  by  a tariff  barrier,  undersell  our  manufacturers  on  our 
own  soil,  whenever  she  chooses.  It  invariably  happens  that  her  lords  of 
the  loom  and  her  earls  of  the  rolling-mill,  and  her  dukes  of  the  mine, 
choose  to  do  so  whenever  the  rising  prosperity  of  our  manufacturing 
enterprises  begins  to  supply  the  needs  of  American  consumers.  Theny 


1214 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


f DAVID  H.  MASON. 


if  the  duties  are  low  enough  to  permit  the  venture  without  too  great 
and  too  lasting  a sacrifice,  a vast  aggregate  of  foreign  commodities  is 
ruthlessly  thrown  upon  our  well-stocked  home-markets,  at  lower  and 
still  lower  prices,  thus  ruinously  forcing  down  to  that  level  the  selling 
values  of  our  whole  domestic  product,  even  although  it  may  be  tenfold 
the  quantity  of  the  imported  articles.  This  cheapening  process  is  kept 
up  until  our  home  producers  are  worn  out  with  the  unavailing  struggle, 
and  are  driven  out  of  business  or  into  bankruptcy.  Meanwhile,  the  for- 
eigners have  themselves  lost  heavily,  but  can  well  endure  the  strain  of 
the  losses,  on  account  of  their  much  larger  capital,  coupled  with  profits 
on  their  trade  carried  on  with  other  countries,  producers  of  manufact- 
ures in  the  United  States  very  rarely  possessing  such  a compensating 
advantage.  The  victory  thus  won  over  American  competition  leaving 
our  manufacturers  crippled  or  prostrated,  their  foreign  rivals  boldly 
step  in  for  our  trade,  which  they  monopolize  with  unsparing  rapacity. 
The  temporary  cheapness  which  beguiled  and  deluded  our  consumers 
disappears  altogether,  instead  of  which  they  find  themselves  the  help- 
less dupes  and  victims  of  a heartless  foreign  extortion.  With  posses- 
sion and  control  of  our  market  assured,  British  producers  reimburse 
themselves  for  their  losses  out  of  the  pockets  of  our  people,  who  are 
thus  made  to  pay,  through  greatly  enhanced  prices,  the  cost  of  break- 
ing down  the  competition  of  our  domestic  manufacturers.  The  duties 
which  must,  now  be  paid  at  our  custom-houses,  before  foreign  goods  can 
gain  admission  to  this  country,  make  a crusade,  in  any  general  way, 
upon  our  industries,  in  the  form  of  a ruinously  cheapening  process,  too 
costly  to  be  undertaken,  and  too  unlikely  of  a profitable  termination. 

Here  are  ample  reasons  why  our  manufacturers  want  protection,  even 
though  it  operates  to  cheapen  prices.  They  are  relieved  thereby  from 
foreign  fluctuations  and  excesses,  from  foreign  machinations  and  inter- 
ference. No  matter  how  capable  or  how  energetic  any  people  may  natu- 
rally be,  nor  how  favored  in  position,  or  in  climate,  or  in  soil,  their  in- 
dustrial capacities  never  can  be  fully  developed  under  a vacillating  and 
uncertain  public  policy.  Men  do  not  embark  either  capital  or  skill  in 
enterprises  liable  at  any  time  to  be  defeated  by  inconsiderate  or  un- 
friendly legislation.  A stable  order  of  things  and  a well-founded  con- 
fidence in  the  future  are  all  essential  conditions  of  manufacturing  suc- 
cess. Such  stability  and  such  confidence  are  supplied  by  sufficiently 
protective  legislation.  Under  it,  prices  have  always,  in  general,  exhib- 
ited a downward  tendency  as  regards  finished  products,  while  farmers 
have  received  better  prices  for  their  produce.  So  long  as  protective 
duties  remain  upon  the  national  statute-book,  there  is  a guarantee  that 
loreign  commercial  aggressiou  cannot  be  made  effectual  for  the  ruin  of 
American  establishments.  Assuredly  these  are  valid  reasons  why  our 
manufacturers  want  protection,  and  why  it  should  be  both  granted  and 
maintained.  More  than  that,  there  are  equally  strong  reasons  why  Ameri- 
can consumers  should  desire  to  continue  the  protective  policy,  and  even 
to  make  it  more  comprehensive  and  more  efficient. 

DUTIES  WITHOUT  PROTECTION  TO  HOME  INDUSTRY  CONSTITUTE  PRO- 
TECTION TO  FOREIGNERS. 

The  anti -protectionists  take  sides,  in  the  most  positive  and  damaging 
manner,  with  foreign  capital  and  labor  against  domestic  capital  and 
labor ; for  their  system  is  based  upon  the  idea  of  giving  the  fullest  prac- 
ticable force  and  effect  to  the  advantages  which  foreign  manufacturers 
possess  over  our  own.  Thus  the  opponents  of  protection  to  home  indus- 


TAVID  H.  MASON.] 


SALT. 


1215 


try  are  subject  to  the  charge  of  being  favorable  to  the  protection  of  for- 
eign interests.  Foreign  labor  and  home  labor  are  set  before  them  as 
objects  of  choice,  and  they  deliberately  prefer  the  former ; and  this  choice 
is  to  be  made  effectual  by  encouraging  and  fostering  the  foreign  labor 
by  Congressional  legislation.  The  point  of  ultimate  difference  between 
protectionists  and  anti-protectionists  is,  therefore,  the  difference  between 
patriotic  protectionists  and  unpatriotic  protectionists,  the  former  seeking 
the  benefit  and  welfare  of  their  own  country;  the  latter,  the  benefit  and 
welfare  of  other  countries  in  preference  to  their  own.  Stripjjed  of  its 
pretentious  disguises,  and  driven  from  its  adroit  subterfuges,  what  can 
a scheme  be  which  takes  away  from  domestic  producers,  to  whom  it 
naturally  belongs,  the  possession  of  the  domestic  market,  to  bestow  it 
upon  foreign  producers,  except  a scheme  which  removes  protection  from 
a class  at  home  to  confer  it  upon  a class  abroad?  To  repeal  the  laws 
which  punish  crime  is  to  protect  criminals ; and  to  legislate  out  of  exist- 
ence that  protection  which  guards  and  sustains  American  industry,  is 
to  transfer  the  protection  to  European  industry.  The  issue  between  the 
protectionists  and  the  anti-protectionists,  when  reduced  to  its  seminal 
principle,  dwindles  to  simply  this,  whether  we  shall  protect  our  own 
labor  or  that  of  other  nations.  Congress,  when  framing  a tariff  law,  is 
obliged  by  the  unavoidable  circumstances  of  the  case  to  choose  between 
protection  to  home  industry  and  protection  to  foreign  industry.  In  the 
demand  for  either  reduction  of  the  salt  duties  or  free  trade  in  sal  t,  we 
have  peering  at  us  foreign  eyes,  extended  to  us  foreign  hands,  offered 
to  us  foreign  remonstrances,  pressed  upon  us  foreign  aggrandizement. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Question.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  in  arranging  the  tariff 
you  desire  to  have  it  so  altered  or  modified  from  its  present  arrange- 
ment as  to  have  a duty  laid  on  salt  irrespective  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  salt  is  imported,  whether  in  packages  or  in  bulk  ? — Answer. 
No,  sir ; the  only  desire  of  the  Michigan  Salt  Association,  represented 
here,  is  that  there  shall  be  no  change  whatever  in  the  present  tariff. 

Q.  I understand  that ; but  there  is  a difference  in  the  present  duty  on 
salt  in  packages  and  salt  in  bulk. — A.  We  desire  it  left  in  the  same  way 
as  it  is  on  packages  and  in  bulk. 


1216 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  H.  LEE 


WILLIAM  H.  LEE. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18,  1882. 

Mr.  William  EL  Lee,  of  Saint  Louis,  manufacturer  of  pig  iron,  ad- 
dressed tlie  Commission  as  follows: 

The  convention  of  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  and  iron-ore  pro 
ducers  recently  held  at  Cresson,  Pa.,  appointed  committees  represent- 
ing these  industries  to  make  a report  to  your  body  as  to  the  duties  which 
seem  to  them  proper  to  be  levied  upon  this  class  of  productions.  As  a 
member  of  that  convention,  having  assisted  in  the  election  of  these 
committees,  I do  not  feel  it  proper  that  I should  make  any  suggestion 
with  regard  to  the  matter  of  the  rates  of  duties.  But  I do  think  it 
proper  for  me,  as  a manufacturer  of  pig  iron,  and  as  a citizen  of  Missouri 7 
to  ask  that  you  will  give  our  industry  full  and  complete  protection.  It 
is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that,  in  asking  protection  for  pig  iron,  I should 
want  every  other  article  manufactured  or  capable  of  being  manufact- 
ured in  the  United  States  protected,  but  I specify  pig  iron  particularly 
as  being  that  interest  with  which  I am  most  acquainted. 

The  cost  of  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron  and  the  selling  price  as  a 
material  has  steadily  decreased  while  the  cost  of  labor  has  increased. 
The  average  cost  of  No.  1 anthracite  iron  in  Philadelphia  for  the  last 
year  was  $25.12.  The  average  cost  of  pig  iron  in  the  United  States 
from  1850  to  I860,  when  we  had  free  trade,  was  $26.47.  The  reason 
why  I believe  in  the  general  policy  of  protection,  especially  with  regard 
to  pig  iron,  with  which  I am  most  acquainted,  is,  first,  that  it  will  in- 
crease the  wages  of  the  laborer.  If  that  be  denied,  I have  nothing  fur- 
ther to  say  on  the  subject.  The  English-pig  iron  laborer  is,  on  the 
average,  paid  100  per  cent,  less  than  the  same  laborer  is  paid  in  this 
country.  We  have  716  furnaces  in  this  country ; 261  of  them  are  un- 
able to  compete  with  the  foreign  market  and  make  iron  at  a profit.  If 
the  profits  were  as  enormous  as  they  have  been  represented,  or  if  there 
was  any  monopoly  in  the  business,  the  probability  is  that  these  261 
furnaces,  the  owners  having  expended  money  in  the  erection  of  them, 
would  be  put  in  operation.  Last  year  was  admitted  to  be  the  best  year 
the  American  iron  and  steel  trade  has  ever  known  in  this  country.  Mr. 
Swank  states  that  in  his  report,  and  gives  figures  which  conclusively 
prove  it.  The  pig-iron  men  in  this  country  have  been  called  monopo- 
lists. Now,  I maintain  that  it  is  impossible  to  make  a monopolist  of  a 
pig-iron  man  when  you  consider  the  fact  that  in  this  country  there  are 
twenty-six  States  and  one  Territory  in  which  the  manufacture  of  pig 
iron  is  going  on.  That  in  itself  proves  that  there  cannot  be  a monopoly 
in  the  business,  because  it  is  confined  to  no  section  of  the  country.  The 
mere  fact  that  there  are  261  furnaces  lying  idle  also  shows  that  such  a 
statement  cannot  be  true. 

So  far  as  Missouri  is  concerned,  I think  it  is  especially  necessary  that 
we  should  have  protection  here.  Our  State  is  filling  up  rapidly.  The  men 
who  come  here  in  many  instances  have  been  unfitted  for  farming ; have 
been  used  entirely  to  manufacturing.  We  have  ore  here  in  large  quan- 
tities. We  have  without  doubt  the  best  wood  for  the  manufacture  of 
charcoal  in  the  United  States ; our  furnaces  are  thus  enabled  to  make 
the  best  charcoal  iron  in  the  United  States.  It  takes  less  charcoal  to 


WILLIAM  H.  LEE.] 


PIG  IRON. 


1217 


a ton  of  iron  here  than  is  usual  throughout  the  North,  because  we 
have  less  poor  wood.  There  is  in  one  district  of  this  State  GO, 000  square 
miles  of  timber  absolutely  useless,  much  of  which  has  sold  within  the 
last  eighteen  months  for  about  10  cents  an  acre.  A free  introduction 
of  labor  into  this  State  with  the  increased  railroad  facilities  now  being 
made  in  connection  with  the  Iron  Mountain  and  Pilot  Knob  road,  would 
enable  us  to  start  a great  manufacturing  industry  out  there.  The  man- 
ufacture of  iron  has  increased  steadily  under  the  present  protective 
policy,  and  labor  has  been  generally  usefully  employed.  I have  heard 
it  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  tariff  that  it  discriminates  against  the 
farmer.  I disagree  entirely  with  that  statement.  If  we  do  away  with 
the  tariff,  we  will  throw  some  500,000  or  600,000  men  now  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  of  pig  iron  out  of  employment,  and  that  would  be  a 
great  disadvantage  to  the  farmer.  If  this  free-trade  policy  should  be 
adopted,  these  men  must  seek  some  other  occupation,  and  they  would 
naturally  go  to  farming.  That  would  put  300,000  or  400,000  men  to 
raising  corn,  and  it  would  take  that  number  of  men  out  of  the  market 
as  purchasers  of  corn,  and  as  a natural  result  the  price  of  corn  would 
fall  very  much. 

The  next  question  to  consider  is  whether  protection  increases  the 
price  of  pig  iron  to  the  consumer.  I have  never  believed  it  did.  But  I 
wanted  to  be  quite  sure  of  my  ground,  and  so  I have  been  over  a few 
figures  on  this  subject.  I find  that  the  average  cost  of  pig  iron  in  the 
United  States  from  1850  to  1860  was  $26.47.  The  average  cost  from 
1870  to  1880,  when  we  were  building  more  railroads  and  when  the  de- 
mand for  iron  was  greater  than  it  ever  was  before,  was,  in  currency, 
$29.50.  Currency  was  worth  only  about  91  cents  at  that  time,  which 
would  make  the  actual  cost  to  the  consumer  $26.96,  or  only  40  cents  per 
ton  more  than  it  was  during  the  free-trade  period. 

Now,  if  there  is  any  man  or  set  of  men  who  maintain  that  our  cost  for 
labor  in  this  country  is  not  49  cents  per  ton  more  than  it  is  in  England, 
and  that  the  49  cents  per  ton  difference  in  price  does  not  represent  the 
taxes  that  we  pay  both  upon  the  railroads  and  the  taxes  on  our  property, 
I have  nothing  further  to  say.  I maintain  that  it  is  a rule  which  does 
work  both  ways.  I think  everybody  admits  that  in  time  of  war  we 
would  be  better  off  as  regards  protection  to  our  industry  than  in  time 
of  peace.  If  that  means  that  the  United  States  is  to  be  in  a state  of 
peace,  that  is  one  thing;  but  if  it  means  that  we  have  to  guarantee  that 
our  own  country  shall  be  in  a state  of  peace  and  also  take  the  steps 
necessary  to  keep  England  in  a state  of  peace  as  a source  of  supply,  it 
would  be  a difficult  position  to  occupy ; it  would  be  undertaking  too 
big  a contract.  I do  not  think  we  could  guarantee  to  the  pig-iron  makers 
of  this  country  any  such  condition  of  affairs. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Question.  What  is  the  cost  in  this  country  of  the  production  of  a ton  of 
pig  iron  % — Answer.  That  is  a difficult  question  to  answer,  but  I sup- 
pose no  man  acquainted  with  the  facts  will  claim  that  with  the  rate  of 
wages  paid  at  present  it  can  be  made  for  much  less  than  $23  a ton. 

Q.  What  proportion  of  that  cost  is  in  the  labor  ? — A.  It  is  all  labor 
except  the  royalty  which  is  paid  on  the  value  of  the  ore  taken  out  of  the 
ground. 

Q.  What  does  that  amount  to? — A.  That  depends  upon  its  proximity 
to  railroads — from  12J  to  75  cents  a ton.  I know  of  no  one  paying  any 
higher  royalty  than  75  cents. 

H.  Mis.  6 77 


1218 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[WILLIAM  H.  LEE. 


Q.  Then  it  costs  $23  a ton,  and  $22  a ton  is  the  cost  of  the  labor? — 
A.  I do  not  know  that  that  is  the  average,  but  I imagine  it  is. 

Q.  Is  that  your  opinion  about  it? — A.  Yes,  sir;  my  opinion  is,  the 
average  cost  is  about  $22. 

Q.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  price  of  labor  in  this  country  and  in 
Europe? — A.  About  100  per  cent. 

Q.  Then  to  bring  the  American  laborer  on  a level  with  the  European 
laborer  we  should  have  to  pay  a tax  of  $11  a ton  ? — A.  Yes,  sir;  if  we 
want  to  maintain  the  present  proportion  of  wages. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  You  stated,  as  I understood  you,  there  was  a doubt  in  your  mind 
as  to  whether  the  duty  on  pig  iron  was  any  advantage  to  the  manufact- 
urer of  pig  iron  in  this  country  ? — A.  Ko,  sir ; I did  not  say  that.  I 
think  the  duty  benefits  the  manufacturer  to  this  extent:  that  while  in 
the  long  run  it  may  reduce  to  the  consumer  the  average  cost  of  pig 
iron,  it  enables  him  to  protect  himself  against  any  flooding  of  the  mar- 
ket by  the  English  producer.  They  have  large  stocks  there,  and  labor 
which  works  under  their  dictation,  and  they  are  satisfied  if  they  can 
get  a very  small  interest  on  their  money.  They  get  money  at  a cheap 
rate  of  interest. 

Q,.  Then  your  view  is  that  the  duty  imposed  on  pig  iron  does  not 
affect  materially  the  prices,  but  prevents  the  markets  being  glutted  ? — A. 
Yes,  sir ; the  average  price  would  be  lower,  because  it  means  increased 
production,  and  that  increased  production  is  to  be  used  somewhere. 
England  makes  8,000,000  tons  of  pig  iron  a year,  and  we  make  4,000,000 
tons.  I maintain  that  we  will  not  make  any  of  that  4,000,000  tons  if 
we  do  not  have  protection,  and  the  world  will  have  but  8,000,000  tons 
where  to-day  it  has  12,000,000  tons. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  this  State  as  being  remarkably  well  wooded 
in  certain  sections,  and  as  having  unusual  facilities  for  producing  a fine 
quality  of  charcoal. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  description  of  wood  do  you  refer  to  ? — A.  White  oak,  black 
oak,  black  jack,  and  fine  qualities  of  hickory,  while  the  same  land  is  so 
poor  that  it  is  not  capable  of  being  cultivated,  and  it  can  be  bought 
from  10  to  15  cents  an  acre.  The  cutting  of  this  wood  will  furnish  em- 
ployment at  the  rate  of  $1.50  per  cord,  and  in  this  way  a large  amount 
of  money  could  be  disbursed. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  How  many  bushels  of  coal  can  you  make  from  a cord  of  that 
wood  ? — A.  One  hundred  and  sixty-two  cubic  feet,  or  about  140  bushels 
of  coal. 


SALT. 


1219 


W.  R.  BURT.] 


W.  R.  BURT. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  18,  1882. 

Mr.  W.  R.  Burt,  of  East  Saginaw,  Mich.,  president  of  the  Salt  As- 
sociation of  Michigan,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

We  come  here  representing  the  salt  industry  of  Michigan.  Feeling 
the  importance  of  presenting  this  matter  to  you  in  proper  shape,  we 
have  requested  Mr.  David  H.  Mason,  of  Chicago,  to  prepare  the  statistics 
relating  to  our  industry,  and  I refer  you  to  his  statement  for  such  sta- 
tistics as  you  may  require.  But  as  one  of  a committee  of  manufacturers 
I will  say  a few  words. 

The  industry  which  we  represent  here  to-day  is  different  in  some 
respects  from  that  of  any  other  industry  in  the  United  States.  Salt  is 
produced  principal^  in  three  localities ; first,  and  to  the  largest  extent, 
in  Michigan,  second  in  New  York,  and  third  in  West  Virginia.  While 
we  are  here  to  represent  the  State  of  Michigan  and  our  interests  in 
this  matter,  and  shall  speak  more  particularly  upon  the  situation  of 
the  business  in  that  State,  we  must  glance  also  at  the  situation  of 
the  industry  in  all  these  different  localities.  In  the  first  place,  West 
Virginia  and  Ohio  are  affected  by  the  tariff,  as  the  salt  comes  from  the 
South.  New  York  State  is  affected  by  that  which  is  imported  into 
New  York  City.  Michigan  is  affected  very  little,  I might  say,  except  by 
the  salt  which  is  imported  from  Canada.  We  have  three  distinct  man- 
ufacturing centers,  and  salt  is  the  only  manufactured  commodity  of  im- 
portance in  the  United  States  that  is  manufactured  in  three  localities 
only.  Therefore  it  may  be  said  to  be  an  industry  that  has  not  received 
the  attention  it  would  if  it  was  more  widely  spread  over  the  country. 

Michigan  produces  to-day  nearly  or  quite  one-half  of  all  the  domestic 
salt  that  is  produced.  It  stands  there  with  a bed  of  salt  reaching  from 
Canada,  under  Lake  Huron,  into  the  States,  with  a duty  prohibiting  the 
export  to  Canada.  Well,  our  people  say,  “take  off  the  duty.”  That  is 
to  say,  the  West  seems  to  ask  that  the  duty  should  be  taken  off.  While 
we  are  drawing  our  supply  from  the  same  source,  the  same  underlying 
rock,  Canada,  with  a duty  the  same  as  ours,  says,  u you  must  not  step 
over  the  line,”  while  we  let  them  in  free;  consequently  we  protest,  so  far 
as  Michigan  is  concerned,  against  a reduction  of  the  duty. 

Now,  one  word  in  reference  to  foreign  salt  and  the  place  where  it  is 
used.  It  is  probably  a well-known  fact  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  for- 
eign salt  is  mostly  consumed  south  of  the  Ohio  River.  If  a line  were 
drawn  east  and  west  resting  upon  the  Ohio  River,  we  might  say  that 
all  the  salt  substantially  used  south  of  that  line  was  foreign,  while  to 
the  north  of  it  it  is  domestic  salt.  The  point  we  wish  to  make  here  is, 
that  the  portion  of  the  country  dependent  on  foreign  salt  is  actually 
paying  more  for  that  salt  than  the  North  is,  where  we  have  encouraged 
the  manufacture  of  salt,  even  if  the  North  paid  the  duty.  Let  me  say 
here  that  I have  personally  examined  the  raw  material  in  the  South,  and 
I can  state  from  my  own  observation  that  it  is  far  superior  to  the  raw 


1220 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[W.  R.  BURT., 


material  of  the  North.  Take  the  salt-beds  in  Louisiana  and  in  Texas 
(where  they  are  paying  large  prices  for  salt  compared  with  the  prices 
paid  at  the  North),  and  they  are  far  superior  to  ours.  I have  been  inter- 
ested in  the  Michigan  salt  works  from  the  time  of  their  establishment 
until  the  present  time.  We  were  induced  to  go  into  the  manufacture  and 
to  put  up  these  immense  works  under  the  encouragement  of  a protective 
tariff.  What  has  been  the  consequence  ? I will  give  you  a few  figures 
showing  the  cost  of  the  domestic  and  of  the  foreign  salt.  In  the  first 
place,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  price  labor.  We  pay  $1.75  a day 
for  labor,  while  in  foreign  countries  the  average  does  not  exceed  $1  a 
day.  I suppose,  however,  that  matter  has  already  been  brought  to  your 
attention  many  times,  and  I will  not  elaborate  it.  But  that  will  offset 
the  cost  of  transportion,  which  is  not  over  six  English  shillings  per  ton, 
while  the  larger  percentage  of  salt  comes  over  in  ballast.  Take  the 
Saint  Louis  market.  We  start  our  salt  for  that  market  at  24  cents  a 
hundred  pounds,  and  15  cents  freight,  making  39  cents,  taking  it  a dis- 
tance of  550  miles  by  rail.  The  foreign  salt  starts  in  New  Orleans  and 
is  entered  at  the  custom-house  there  at  40  cents  a hundred  pounds, 
while  ours  starts  in  Michigan  to  supply  this  market  here  at  24  cents  at 
the  works.  If  the  parties  in  the  North  paid  the  duty,  they  would  get 
it  cheaper  than  they  are  getting  it  in  New  Orleans  and  the  Southwest. 

The  next  place  we  will  take  is  Austin,  Tex.  We  start  our  salt  at 
21  cents  a hundred  pounds,  while  theirs  for  the  same  market  starts  at 
40  cents.  We  have  a distance  of  1,360  miles  to  go  to  Austin.  We  are 
trying  to  supply  Austin  to-day,  and  these  are  the  prices  we  are  willing 
to  lay  it  down  at;  that  is,  70  cents  a hundred  that  they  must  pay  for 
the  salt  there,  while  the  foreign  article  has  been  and  is  to-day  a dollar 
a hundred.  It  may  be  said  that  it  is  on  account  of  the  quality,  but  if 
the  domestic  salt  intends  to  stay  in  Austin  the  price  of  the  foreign  salt 
must  come  down  to  it  eventually.  The  same  condition  of  things  existed 
at  Saint  Louis  five  years  ago.  Last  spring  I came  here  and  undertook 
to  make  arrangements  to  place  salt  here.  I found  a domestic  salt  ot 
2,500  barrels — a small  amount  from  Ohio — and  the  balance  was  foreign 
salt.  To-day,  at  the  prices  that  we  have  been  putting  it  in  here,  we  are 
selling  between  250,000  and  300,000  barrels  of  five  bushels  to  the  barrel, 
and  the  foreign  salt  is  driven  back. 

The  fact  is,  it  is  not  the  duty  which  has  made  a cheap  or  a dear  salt, 
it  is  the  competition  among  ourselves.  With  the  inducements  offered 
by  our  own  State  to  erect  these  works  we  have  invested  our  money  and 
have  begun  to  work  and  manufacture  this  large  amount  of  salt,  and 
now  we  are  ready  to  sell  it  at  a very  small  cost. 

The  question  may  be  asked  whether  we  supply  our  home  market,  and 
whether  we  do  not  oppress  our  people  there.  I will  give  you  the  figures 
showing  just  what  the  facts  are.  Chicago  is  a distance  of  350  miles 
from  our  works,  and  there  our  salt  is  sold  at  33  cents  a hundred  pounds, 
as  against  40  cents  a hundred  pounds  in  New  Orleans.  The  fact  is  we 
stand  to-day  with  a surplus  of  over  6,000,000  bushels  of  salt  that  we 
would  be  very  glad  to  sell  at  those  figures.  You  can  take  the  duty  from 
it;  we  will  pay  the  duty  and  give  it  to  the  consumer  in  the  Northwest 
as  cheaply  as  they  get  their  salt  down  there.  The  fact  of  it  is  that  on 
the  line  of  the  Ohio  Biver  they  have  gone  to  work  and  manufactured 
this  salt  until  they  are  competing  with  one  another,  while  the  large  salt- 
beds,  like  the  one  in  Louisiana,  after  being  worked  a short  time  is  driven 
out  of  the  market  by  the  foreign  salt  coming  in  at  such  a price  that  the 
production  is  abandoned.  No  man  of  any  shrewdness  would  think  of 


W.  R.  BURT.] 


SALT. 


1221 


going  there  and  investing  a dollar  under  the  present  state  of  agitation 
on  the  tariff  question,  although,  if  the  tariff  was  a permanent  one,  I have 
no  doubt  the  Louisiana  mines  would  be  worked  continuously  and  with 
a profit.  We  do  not  know  when  this  small  amount  of  duty  is  to  J)e 
taken  off.  What  we  protest  against  is  a removal  of  the  duty  from  salt. 
Our  Canadian  neighbors  have  to  pay  only  $1.25  for  the  labor  which 
costs  us  $1.75,  and  we  have  additional  taxes  to  pay.  If  the  duty  was 
removed  it  would  be  asking  them  to  come  in  and  compete  with  us  in 
our  market,  while  their  doors  are  closed  upon  us.  They  have  a tariff 
the  same  as  we  have.  This  is  a matter  of  vital  importance  to  Michigan. 
We  stand  ready  and  have  the  facilities  for  supplying  salt  to  the  whole 
United  States,  and  are  willing  to  do  it. 


1222 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  F.  GARRISON. 


O.  F.  GABKISOK 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19, 1882. 

Mr.  Oliver  F.  Garrison,  of  Saint  Louis,  representing  the  Glendale 
Zinc  Company,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows  : 

The  present  rate  of  duty  upon  spelter  is  1J  cents.  We  recommend 
that  it  be  increased  to  2J  cents.  The  duty  upon  sheet  zinc  is  2J  cents. 
We  propose  that  it  be  increased  to  2f  cents. 

We  are  unable  to  furnish  the  Commission  any  statement  as  to  whether 
there  would  be  an  increase  or  decrease  of  revenue  by  the  proposed  in- 
crease of  duty,  for  the  reason  that  the  amount  imported  is  an  unknown 
quantity,  altogether  dependent  upon  the  markets. 

The  importation  of  sheet  zinc  for  the  fiscal  year  1881  was  1,179  tons. 
The  imports  of  spelter  for  the  same  time  906  tons.  The  importation  of 
sheet  zinc  for  the  fiscal  year  1882  was  2,132  tons,  and  the  imports  of 
spelter  for  the  same  time  was  9,213  tons. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver: 

Question.  What  are  the  prices  of  sheet  lead  and  sheet  zinc  in  the 
market  to-day? — Answer.  I don’t  know  the  price  of  sheet  lead;  but 
sheet  zinc  is  worth  about  6|  cents. 

Q.  Zinc  and  lead  are  worth  about  the  same  price  in  the  market,  are 
they  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  is  a difference  of  one-half  to  three-quarters  per  cent, 
in  the  duty  on  each? — A.  Yes,  sir.  The  cost  of  the  manufacture  of 
zinc  is  considerable  more,  however. 

Q.  But  the  market  price  is  about  the  same  in  both  cases  ? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 


DWIGHT  TEED  WAY.] 


SUGAR,  MOLLASSES,  AND  RICE. 


1223 


DWIGHT  TEED  WAY. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19,  1882. 

Mr.  Dwight  Tredway,  one  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  Mer- 
chants’ Exchange  of  Saint  Louis  to  present  the  views  of  the  exchange  on 
the  subject  of  the  duty  on  sugar,  molasses,  and  rice,  addressed  the  Com- 
mission as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : It  has  been  asserted  that 
the  deputations  which  have  appeared  before  this  honorable  body  here- 
tofore have  for  the  most  part  represented  the  interest  of  factions  and  of 
special  branches  of  trade,  manufactures,  and  production,  while  in  its 
deliberations  and  in  the  arguments  presented  before  it  the  public  weal 
has  been  but  imperfectly  and  faintly  voiced.  It  has  been  claimed  that 
while  every  department  of  manufactures,  commerce,  and  agriculture 
which  needs  or  claims  to  need  protection  or  governmental  assistance 
has  been  ably  and  repeatedly  represented  before  you,  the  interests  and 
the  prosperity  of  the  whole  people  have  found  but  few  and  feeble  de- 
fenders; that  while  the  hundreds  and  thousands  who  thrive  by  the 
taxes  and  imports  which  are  laid  in  the  name  of  protection  have  a legion 
of  champions,  the  millions  who  pay  these  taxes  are  left  without  an 
advocate. 

How  true  this  may  be  we  cannot  judge,  but  we  desire  for  ourselves 
at  least  to  disclaim  any  such  partisan  representationship.  We  appear 
before  you  not  in  the  interest  of  any  class  or  of  any  special  branch  of 
business.  We  claim  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  whole  Southwest,  and 
to  advocate  principles  which  would  be  indorsed  by  the  whole  people  from 
the  Missouri  to  the  Gulf  and  from  the  Rio  Grande  to  the  Atlantic. 

Nor  would  we  go  on  record  as  apologists  for  the  present  enormous 
national  taxation.  We  believe,  as  does  every  man  in  the  country  who 
is  not  connected  with  the  government,  or  who  is  not  benefited  by  the 
exorbitant  taxation  now  in  force,  that  the  collection  of  $400,000,000  of 
taxes  where  but  $250,000,000  is  required,  is  to  put  a premium  on  cor- 
ruption in  high  places  and  to  promote  extravagance,  fraud,  and  national 
demoralization.  We  protest  in  the  name  of  the  people  who  pay  the 
taxes  and  in  the  name  of  Republicans  and  Democrats,  Northern  men  and 
Southern  men,  white  and  black,  and  all  classes  and  conditions,  against 
a system  which  wrings  one  hundred  millions  per  annum  from  the  people 
and  gives  it  in  the  name  of  pensions,  or  a large  percentage  of  it,  to 
claim  agents,  perjurers,  and  swindlers.  We  protest  against  the  accu- 
mulation of  a surplus  in  the  Treasury  which  makes  the  whole  nation  a 
mob  clamorous  for  governmental  aid,  which  excites  the  cupidity  of  that 
immense  class  who  wish  to  live  on  the  earnings  of  others,  and  which 
results  in  appropriations  to  make  creeks  navigable  for  canoes  and  to  dis- 
cover streams  which  had  hitherto  eluded  the  vigilance  of  geographers. 

We  plead  for  a reduction  of  taxation,  and  while  we  do  this  we  ask 
that  taxes  may  be  reduced  in  such  a manner  that  all  may  be  benefited 
while  no  special  class  and  no  particular  interest  may  be  injured.  In 
asking  this  we  propose  no  chimerical  scheme  nor  one  difficult  of  execu- 
tion. The  revenues  of  the  government  can  be  reduced  $150,000,000 
without  jeopardizing  a single  special  interest  and  without  taking  action 
that  is  antagonistic  to  any  industry.  The  planters  of  the  South  have 


1224 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[DWIGHT  TREDWAT. 


by  years  of  patient  toil  and  by  the  expenditure  of  large  capital  built  up 
the  production  of  sugar,  molasses,  and  rice  to  large  proportions.  A 
reduction  in  the  sugar  tariff,  even  of  but  25  per  cent,  of  the  present  rate, 
as  has  been  proposed,  would  work  incalculable  injury  to  the  sugar-plant- 
ing interests  of  the  South  and  would  be  almost  ruinous  to  at  least  one 
entire  State.  The  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  rice  would  be  equally  in- 
jurious to  the  welfare  of  the  people  of  Louisiana  and  the  Carolinas.  To 
discuss  these  points  would  be  but  to  repeat  the  arguments  which  have 
already  been  made  before  you  in  Cincinnati  and  at  other  places,  with 
which  you  are  familiar.  Reiteration  would  not  add  to  their  force,  and 
we  can  only  say  that  we  heartily  disapprove  of  any  legislation  which 
would  make  worthless  the  millions  of  dollars  now  invested  in  sugar, 
molasses,  and  rice  production,  and  deprive  the  people  of  an  immense 
area  of  country  of  an  industry  on  which  they  have  expended  years  of 
labor  and  millions  of  money. 

Were  it  necessary  to  have  such  a reduction  of  duties  we  should  not 
complain,  but  we  protest  against  a change  which  benefits  the  sugar  and 
rice  consumers  of  the  North  at  the  expense  of  the  sugar  and  rice  pro- 
ducers of  the  South,  while  there  are  so  many  methods  of  reducing  taxes 
available  which  would  benefit  all  and  work  hardship  to  none.  We 
would  add  that  we  are  thoroughly  convinced  that  frauds  on  the  revenue 
in  the  collection  of  the  duties  on  sugar  can  be  prevented  only  by  the 
use  of  the  polariscope,  and,  for  reasons  with  which  you  must  already  be 
thoroughly  familiar,  we  recommend  that  its  use  be  required  in  determin- 
ing the  value  of  imports. 

Believing  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  further  these  branches  of 
the  subject,  we  desire  now  to  call  the  attention  of  your  Commission  to 
the  reciprocity  treaty  now  existing  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  referring  especially  to  that  portion  under  which  sugar 
is  admitted  into  tliis  country  free  of  duty,  and  to  submit  the  following 
statement : 

The  quantity  of  sugar  imported  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  at  San 
Francisco  was,  in  the  year — 


Pounds. 

1875. 17,912,000 

1876  (treaty  having  gone  in  force  September,  1876) 20, 588,  000 

1877  21,224,000 

1878  36, 919, 000 

1879  46,682,000 

1880  64,301,000 

1881  88, 438,  000 

1882,  reliable  estimates  give 120, 000, 000 


or  an  increase  of  nearly  700  per  cent,  in  eight  years. 

This  enormous  increase,  from  21,000,000  in  1877  to  120,000,000  pounds 
in  1882,  is  directly  caused  by  the  immense  and  unfair  advantages  given 
by  the  treaty.  The  quantity  imported  having  become  much  larger  than 
can  be  consumed  on  the  Western  coast,  the  sugar-refining  interest  of 
San  Francisco,  which  has  become  immensely  wealthy  by  the  benefits 
conferred  by  this  treaty,  are  now  seeking  an  outlet  for  the  surplus  in 
the  Western  States,  and  owing  to  their  obtaining  sugars  for  refining 
duty  free,  while  all  other  refiners  in  the  United  States  have  to  pay  an 
average  duty  of  2£  cents  per  pound,  they  are  able  to  undersell  all  com- 
petitors, making  a profit  where  others  would  meet  with  very  heavy  loss. 

That  this  treaty  does  not  lessen  the  cost  of  sugar  to  the  consumer  on 
the  Pacific  coast  is  well  known,  as,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  railroads 
across  the  continent  have  entered  into  an  agreement  to  charge  a pro- 


DWIGHT  TBEDWAY.] 


SUGAR,  MOLASSES,  AND  RICE. 


1225 


lribitive  rate  of  freight  (2  cents  per  pound)  on  west-bound  refined  sugars, 
the  average  price  in  San  Francisco  is  maintained  about  1 cent  per  pound 
above  the  price  in  New  York.  Besides  the  apparent  average  duty  of 
2J  per  pound,  the  profit  is  very  much  increased  by  the  fact  that  owing 
to  absence  of  any  duty  they  can  import  a much  higher  grade  of  sugar 
than  other  importers,  the  duty  on  high-grade  sugars  from  other  countries 
being  by  our  present  tariff  prohibitive. 

Of  the  sugar  imported  to  the  United  States  on  which  duty  is  paid, 
about  90  per  cent,  is  not  over  No.  10  Dutch  standard,  while  of  the  sugar 
that  is  imported  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  at  least  75  per  cent,  is  above 
No  16  Dutch  standard,  and  not  over  5 per  cent,  below  No.  10  Dutch 
standard. 

The  annual  loss  in  duty  to  the  government  of  the  country  on  sugars 
admitted  free  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  is  certainly  considerably  over 
$3,000,000,  which  is  more  than  the  entire  value  of  all  goods  exported 
from  the  United  States  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  tlie  total  value  of  such 
exports  having  been  for  the  past  three  years  as  follows  : 


For  the  year  1879 $2, 510, 000 

For  the  year  1880 2, 546,  000 

For  the  year  1881 2, 994,  000 


There  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  absolutely  no  apology  possible  for  the 
free-sugar  clause  of  this  treaty. 

. The  benefits,  amounting  to  $3,000,000  per  annum,  are  conferred  upon 
one  man  and  his  associates,  while  its  injustice  falls  upon  the  whole  na- 
tion. Even  the  people  of  California  do  not  benefit  by  its  provisions. 
They  sell  their  sugar  to  the  California  merchants  at  one  sixteenth  or 
one-eighth  below  the  lay-down  cost  from  the  East.  To  the  merchants  of 
Arizona  they  sell  at  one-half  cent  below  the  price  to  home  dealers,  and 
to  the  Colorado  or  Missouri  River  merchants  they  allow  a full  cent  a 
pound  off  the  price-list.  While  Eastern  refiners  and  dealers  handle 
sugar  on  one-eighth  of  a cent  margin,  they  can  give  a cent  a pound,  or, 
if  needs  be,  2 cents  per  pound  off  the  usual  price,  and  by  the  munifi- 
cence of  our  government  can  send  their  free  sugar  across  the  continent 
and  lay  it  down  at  the  doors  of  our  Eastern  refiners,  who  are  paying 
$45,000,000  in  duties  into  the  public  Treasury. 

We  speak  within  bounds  and  with  all  conservatism  when  we  declare 
our  belief  that  the  Hawaiian  reciprocity  treaty  is  an  outrage  and  a legal- 
ized fraud,  and  we  ask  your  honorable  body  to  recommend  to  Congress 
that  the  treaty  be  abrogated. 

Dwight  Tredway, 

Chairman. 

J.  H.  Brookmire, 

W.  L.  Scott, 

Jno.  A.  Scudder, 

John  Hogan, 

Committee. 


1226 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[H.  ESHBAUGH. 


H.  ESHBAUGH. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19,  1882. 

Mr.  H.  Eshbaugh,  of  Hanover,  Mo.,  addressed  the  Commission  as 
follows : 

Being  a farmer,  and  always  having  been  identified  with  the  farmers’ 
organization  of  this  State  and  the  National  Organization  of  Farmers,  and 
having  mingled  with  them  for  the  last  six  years,  not  only  in  this  but  in 
many  of  the  other  States,  I desire  to  state  that  this  question  of  duties 
has  occupied  the  attention  of  the  farmers  more,  perhaps,  for  the  past 
year  and  a half,  than  ever  before,  and  I think  it  will  receive  greater 
consideration  from  them  in  coming  years  than  it  has  up  to  this  time.  It 
has  been  stated  here  that  nine-tenths  of  the  farmers  are  free-trade  men. 
The  gentleman  making  that  statement  I think  is  simply  mistakeu.  I 
find  farmers,  not  only  in  this  but  in  other  States,  divided  upon  this 
question.  I find  some  free-trade  farmers  and  some  protective-tariff 
farmers,  and,  again,  some  revenue-tariff;  farmers.  There  is  great  divis- 
ion of  opinion  on  this  subject.  1 hear  less  clamor  concerning  the  tariff 
in  general,  however,  than  I do  about  the  imposition  of  it,  many  farmers 
believing  that  it  might  be  so  regulated  as  to  equalize  matters  better ; 
that  many  commodities  entering  into  their  consumption  are  taxed  higher 
than  some  entering  into  the  consumption  of  other  classes.  1 know  that 
thousands  and  thousands  of  farmers  are  looking  to  this  Commission,  and 
believing  that  it  will  give  all  these  questions  full  and  careful  considera- 
tion, with  an  idea  of  arriving  at  a wise  conclusion,  and  that  if  it  is  true 
that  the  tariff  at  present  is  unequal  it  will  be  equalized,  if  it  is  wrong 
it  will  be  righted.  The  farmers  realize  that  they  have  rights,  and  that 
those  rights  are  being  looked  after  by  this  Commission.  You  never 
find  farmers,  however,  goiug  on  strikes. 

I should  be  the  last  man  to  desire  to  indicate  to  this  Commission 
what  their  conclusions  should  be,  but  speaking  as  a "representative  of 
the  farmer,  and  as  a member  of  these  various  agricultural  associations,  I 
simply  ask  this  Commission  to  so  arrange  the  matter  that  the  tariff  will  be 
properly  equalized,  and  that  all  classes  will  receive  equal  benefits  from 
it.  We  all  regard  the  creation  of  this  Commission  as  one  of  great  mag- 
nitude and  importance,  and  we  believe  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
at  the  very  truth  of  all  these  matters  that  the  present  investigation  is 
being  made. 


CHARLES  fl.  WYMAN.  1 


INTERIOR  IMPORTS. 


1227 


CHARLES  H.  WYMAN. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19,  1882. 

Mr.  Charles  H.  Wyman,  of  Saint  Louis,  customs  attorney  and  im- 
porters’ agent,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  : 1 beg  leave  to  offer,  in  behalf  of  interior  importers,  a 
few  facts  in  connection  with  the  present  import  laws,  calling  for  special 
legislation  in  their  behalf,  in  order  to  place  them  on  an  equality  with 
importers  of  the  seaboard.  The  first  act  to  permit  the  appraisement  of 
foreign  merchandise  at  inland  cities  was  approved  July  14,  1870  (TJ.  S. 
Revised  Stat.,  2990.)  This  act  excepted  from  such  benefits  wines,  dis. 
tilled  spirits,  and  perishable  or  explosive  articles  or  articles  in  bulk. 
The  requirements  of  this  act  were  so  satisfactorily  complied  with  on  the 
part  of  the  importer  that  on  the  10th  of  June,  1880,  the  exceptions  to 
wines,  distilled  spirits,  and  perishable  articles  were  removed  from  the 
proscribed  list  by  the  passage  of  an  act  drawn  for  that  purpose.  It  is  to 
certain  proposed  changes  in  this  act  that  your  attention  is  requested. 

First,  as  to  articles  in  bulk.  Articles  in  bulk,  with  certain  excep- 
tions, are  prohibited  from  original  entry  at  all  interior  ports.  The  ex- 
ceptions referred  to  will  be  found  in  section  5 of  the  act.  Under  certain 
conditions  certain  favored  articles  of  commerce  may  be  transported 
without  appraisement,  while  the  whole  mass  of  imports  commonly  car- 
ried in  bulk  is  discriminated  against.  The  stipulation  that  pig  iron, 
&c.,  may  be  transported  on  such  platform  or  flat  cars  is  no  relief  what- 
ever for  Saint  Louis  importers,  for  such  articles  are  received  here  by 
river  steamers  and  barges.  No  good  reason  exists  why  these  articles 
and  all  other  articles  should  not  be  transferred  immediately  from  the 
ocean  vessel  to  either  sealed  cars  or  to  the  sealed  compartments  ot 
river,  lake,  or  canal  boats.  There  are  constant  complaints  of  griev- 
ances on  account  of  the  necessity  for  the  assessment  of  duty  on  these 
classes  of  merchandise  at  a distant  port,  where  no  one  specially  inter- 
ested can  oversee  their  appraisement.  Scarcely  a shipment  of  pig  iron 
received  here  after  appraisement  at  the  outer  port  tallies  in  weight  with 
the  government  weights.  The  same  supervision  should  answer  for 
transfer  from  the  importing  vessel  to  the  bonded  inland  carrier  as  from 
the  same  vessel  to  the  consumer.  Our  carriers  are  under  heavy  bonds 
for  the  faithful  delivery  of  such  merchandise,  and  the  present  customs 
regulations  regarding  the  transfer  of  other  classes  of  merchandise  are 
abundantly  rigid  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  government  in  this  par- 
ticular. I have  prepared  the  draft  of  a bill  which  will  cover  our  wishes, 
as  follows : 

u Sec.  2.  That  section  five  of  said  act  be  amended  to  read  as  follows : 
That  merchandise  transported  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be 
conveyed  in  cars,  vessels,  or  vehicles,  securely  fastened  with  locks  or 
seals,  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  officers  of  the  customs ; and 
merchandise  may  also  be  transported  under  the  provisions  of  this  act, 
by  express  companies  or  passenger  trains,  in  safes  and  trunks,  which 
shall  be  of  such  size,  character,  and  description,  and  secured  in  such 
manner  as  shall  be,  from  time  to  time,  prescribed  by  the  Secretary,  and 
in  cases  where  merchandise  shall  be  imported  in  boxes  or  packages  too 
large  to  be  included  within  the  safes  or  trunks  so  prescribed,  such  mer- 


1228 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHARLES  IT.  WYMAN. 


chandise  may  be  transported  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  by  such 
express  companies,  in  a separate  compartment  of  the  car,  secured  in 
such  manner  as  shall,  from  time  to  time,  be  prescribed  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury;  and  merchandise  such  as  pig  iron,  spiegel  iron,  scrap 
iron,  iron  ore,  railroad  iron,  and  similar  articles  commonly  transported 
upon  platform  or  flat  cars,  or  in  bulk,  may  be  transported,  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  upon  such  platform  or  flat  cars,  and  the  weight 
of  such  merchandise  so  transported  shall  be  ascertained  in  all  cases  be- 
fore shipment,  and  ordinary  railroad  scales  may  be  used  for  such  pur- 
pose. Provided , however , That  such  merchandise  may  be  transported 
from  the  port  of  flrst  arrival  to  the  port  of  destination,  in  closed  cars, 
cargo  boxes  or  compartments,  on  canal,  lake,  or  river  steamers,  or 
boats,  or  barges,  securely  fastened  with  locks  or  seals,  under  the  exclu- 
sive control  of  the  officers  of  customs,  without  any  ascertainment  of  the 
weight  thereof,  prior  to  such  shipment.  And  inspectors  shall  be  sta- 
tioned at  proper  points  along  the  designated  routes,  or  upon  any 
car,  vessel,  vehicle,  or  train,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  companies  respectively.  Such 
merchandise  shall  not  be  unladen  or  transhipped  between  the  ports  of 
first  arrival  and  final  destination  unless  authorized  by  the  regulations 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  cases  which  may  arise  from  a dif- 
ference in  the  gauge  of  railroads,  or  from  accidents,  or  from  legal  inter- 
vention, or  when  by  reason  of  the  length  of  the  routes  of  the  cars,  after 
due  inspection  by  customs  officers,  shall  be  considered  unsafe  or  unsuit- 
able to  proceed  further,  or  from  low  water,  ice  or  other  unavoidable  ob- 
struction to  navigation ; and  in  no  case  shall  there  be  permitted  any 
breaking  of  the  original  packages  of  such  merchandise.” 

Second.  Articles  valued  less  than  $L00  may  in  accordence  with  sec- 
tion 2859  (Heyl,  1849),  be  admitted  to  entry  at  an  outer  port  without 
certification  of  invoice.  In  the  immediate  transportation  act,  section  4 
specifies  that  invoices  intended  for  transit  in  bond  shall  be  certified  in 
quadruplicate,  &c.  This  necessitates  the  expenditure  on  a small  impor- 
tation of  $2.50  consul’s  fee  for  the  privilege  of  entry  at  the  inner  port. 
In  most  instances  this  works  a hardship  on  a class  of  people  unable  to 
stand  it,  for  our  western  country  is  thickly  peopled  with  emigrants  of 
all  European  nationalities,  and  as  they  understand  that  Saint  Louis,  or 
Chicago,  or  Cincinnati  are  ports  of  entry,  they  send  home  for  trifles  of 
one  kind  or  another  to  be  sent  direct,  which  being  forwarded  by  their 
friends,  equally  ignorant  of  the  requirements  of  the  law,  are  detained  at 
the  outer  port  for  appraisement  there.  The  government  revenues  are 
just  as  secure  by  allowing  such  invoices  to  come  to  this  port  as  by  ap- 
praisement at  the  outer  port.  Manufacturers  all  over  Europe  under- 
stand that  a certification  of  an  invoice  of  less  than  500  francs  or  £20  is 
unnecessary,  while  it  is  just  as  much  required  as  for  invoices  of  larger 
amounts.  To  relieve  us  in  this  particular  the  following  is  a draft  of  a 
bill  which  will  accomplish  the  purpose: 

AN  ACT  to  amend  an  act  entitled  “An  act  to  amend  the  statutes  in  relation  to  im- 
mediate transportation  of  dutiable  goods,  and  for  other  purposes/’  approved  June 
10th,  1880. 

uBe  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled , That  section  four  of  an  act 
entitled  ‘An  act  to  amend  the  statutes  in  relation  to  immediate  trans- 
portation of  duitable  goods,  and  for  other  purposes,’  approved  June  lOtli, 
1880,  be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  following  clauses:  ‘ Provided 
further , That  this  section  and  sections  twenty -eight  hundred  and  fifty- 


CHARLES  H.  WYMAN.] 


INTERIOR  IMPORTS. 


1229 


three,  twenty-eight  hundred  and  fifty-four,  twenty-eight  hundred  and 
fifty-five,  twenty-eight  hundred  and  fifty-six,  twenty  eight  hundred  and 
fifty-seven,  and  twenty-eight  hundred  and  fifty-eight  of  the  Bevised 
Statutes  of  the  United  States  shall  not  apply  to  countries  where  there 
is  no  consul,  vice  consul,  or  commercial  agent  of  the  United  States. 
And  whenever  the  value  of  the  imported  merchandise  does  not  exceed 
one  hundred  dollars,  the  collector  at  the  port  of  first  arrival  may  allow 
it  to  be  shipped  immediately,  upon  the  entry  prescribed  in  section  two 
of  this  act  being  made,  whether  the  invoice  therein  mentioned  be  certi- 
fied or  not,  and  the  collector  at  the  point  of  destination  may  admit  it 
to  entry  without  the  production  of  the  quadruplicate  invoice  or  any 
certified  invoice,  and  without  submitting  the  question  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  if  he  shall  be  satisfied  that  the  importation  was  made 
in  good  faith,  and  without  any  purpose  of  defrauding  or  evading  the 
revenue  law.’77 

Third.  In  relation  to  the  retention  of  invoices  at  the  outer  port,  sec- 
tion 2 of  this  direct  import  act  provides  for  certain  records  to  be  retained 
at  the  port  of  first  arrival;  this  record  to  consist  of  a copy  of  the 
invoice.  This  I claim  to  be  absolutely  unnecessary.  The  object  of  an 
invoice  there,  is  for  the  purpose  of  charging  the  transportation  company 
with  the  value  of  the  goods,  duty  included,  a certain  running  account 
being  kept  with  each  bonded  carrier.  To  arrive  at  this  value  an  invoice 
is  necessary,  but  so  soon  as  this  value  is  put  to  the  debit  of  the  carrier 
the  uses  of  the  invoice  cease,  and  it  should  be  transmitted  to  the  col- 
lector of  the  inner  port.  The  objection  to  an  invoice  being  on  file  at  the 
outer  port  is  the  possibility  of  interested  parties  getting  access  to  it. 
Positive  evidence  has  been  obtained  that  the  invoice  of  at  least  one 
Saint  Louis  importer  has  been  scanned  in  the  custom-house  of  one  of  the 
outer  ports  by  another  importer  in  the  same  line  of  business,  whose  sole 
object  was  to  discover  whether  his  competitor  received  discounts  as 
good  or  better  than  he  enjoyed.  The  imformation  he  obtained  was  from 
the  copy  filed  in  connection  with  the  transportation  entry.  I therefore 
request  that  legislation  with  this  point  in  view  may  be  had  at  an  early 
day ; and  also — 

Fourth.  That  so  much  of  section  9 as  prohibits  merchandise  that  has 
been  landed  ten  days  at  the  outer  port  from  the  privileges  of  this  act 
shall  be  repealed. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver. 

Question.  What  is  your  object  in  recommending  that  the  present  mode 
of  taking  bulky  goods  on  cars  be  abandoned? — Answer.  I do  not  sug- 
gest that  it  should  be  abandoned.  I suggest  that  they  should  be  allowed 
to  come  in  closed  cars. 

Q.  They  are  allowed  to  come  in  closed  cars  now. — A.  But  the  require- 
ment is  that  they  shall  be  weighed  before  they  leave  the  outer  port;  and 
on  river  steamers,  of  course,  that  cannot  be  done.  That  prohibits  the 
transfer  of  articles  in  bulk  on  river  steamers  or  canal. 

Q.  Your  desire  is,  then,  that  shipments  from  abroad  shall  be  allowed 
to  come  up  the  river  on  boat  lines  that  have  been  bonded  without  weigh- 
ing, handling,  and  expense  at  New  Orleans,  say,  as  well  as  at  Saint 
Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir;  where  the  bulk  is  not  broken.  The  transportation 
companies7  bonds  being  very  heavy,  as  these  goods  are  shipped  from 
the  outer  port,  the  values  are  charged  against  this  bond,  and  that  is 
done  before  any  ascertainment  of  the  duty.  It  could  be  done  as  well 
with  articles  in  bulk  as  with  articles  not  examinable  at  all. 


1230 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHARLES  H.  WYMAN. 


Q.  Are  you  engaged  in  the  custom-house  business? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I 
am  a custom-house  broker. 

Q.  Is  it  customary  here  in  the  custom-house  to  change  foreign  invoices 
of  goods  by  raising  the  price  in  the  appraiser’s  department? — A.  It  is 
not  customary,  because  our  importers  are  not  accustomed  to  the  use  of 
fraudulent  invoices. 

Q.  I do  not  mean  that  at  all ; I simply  meant  are  the  prices  ever  ad- 
vanced?— A.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  supposed  to  watch  that  matter. 

Q,  But  do  you  know  from  your  own  knowledge  that  invoices  are  ever 
raised? — A.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  general. 

Q.  The  custom-house  officials,  as  a rule,  accept  the  foreign  invoice  as 
correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  is  not  much  reappraisement,  then;  they  generally  take 
the  foreign  invoices  as  presented  to  them  by  the  importers? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  Wherever  the  appraiser  is  satisfied  that  the  invoice  does  not  rep- 
resent the  market  value  at  the  time  of  exportation  he  raises  it. 

Q.  But,  as  a rule,  the  invoices  are  found  to  be  correct? — A.  I think 
that,  is  the  fact. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  there  is  a comparison  between  this  port  and 
seaboard  ports  in  regard  to  values? — A.  i suppose  there  is  in  the  sta- 
tistical department.  1 do  not  know  of  any  comparison  between  the 
officers  of  the  custom-house. 

Q.  Are  the  importers  increasing  here  under  the  inland  transporta- 
tion act  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ; we  are  very  well  satisfied  with  that.  These  in- 
formalities and  irregularities  are  something  we  are  trying  to  weed  out. 
I hardly  think  they  affect  the  imports,  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  puts  us 
in  a position  that  might  be  very  disadvantageous  to  us. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood  : 

Q.  In  the  matter  of  pig  iron,  what  is  the  difficulty ; why  is  it  that 
weigfiingitat  Saint  Louis  is  betterthan  weighing  it  at  the  outer  port? — 
A.  I could  not  tell  you  why  it  should  be  so,  but  it  is  the  fact.  The 
pig  iron  men  will  tell  you  that  when  they  tally  oft’  from  the  barges  the 
weights  do  not  correspond  with  the  weights  at  New  Orleans.  Why  that 
should  be  so  I cannot  say. 

Q.  If  the  business  was  properly  managed  at  both  places  the  weights 
ought  to  tally? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  I suppose  there  is  more  or  less  shrink- 
age in  pig  iron. 

Q.  The  larger  weight  is  at  the  seaport  and  the  smaller  weight  here  ? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  your  object  is  to  let  the  duty  be  put  on  the  smaller  weight? — 
A.  Yes,  sir;  on  what  goes  into  consumption. 

Q.  Notwithstanding  it  may  have  been  weighed  correctly  at  the  sea- 
port ? — A.  We  are  not  supposed  to  know  about  that. 

Q.  Would  not  an  alteration  in  the  weight  at  Saint  Louis  from  the 
weight  at  New  Orleans  be  an  attack  upon  the  integrity  of  the  custom- 
house officials  at  New  Orleans  ? — A.  I supjmse  it  might  be  considered 
so  by  them.  The  importers  do  not  look  at  it  in  that  way,  however. 
The  object  of  the  government  is  to  collect  a duty  only  on  what  goes 
into  consumption.  All  the  decisions  of  the  department  are  rendered 
with  that  in  view. 

Q.  Your  position  is  that  the  government  should  take  the  risk  of  all 
that  falls  off  or  gets  lost  between  New  Orleans  and  Saint  Louis? — A. 
It  has  been  decided  that  where  goods  are  shipped  to  an  interior  port 
the  interior  port  is  the  port  of  destination,  and  the  duty  is  on  what  ar- 


CHARLES  H.  WTMAN.]  INTERIOR  IMPORTS,  1231 

rives  there.  That  is  the  case  with  all  other  goods  except  these  articles 
in  bulk.  These  articles  in  bulk  are  excepted  from  that  provision. 

Q.  There  must  have  been  some  good  reason  in  the  minds  of  the  leg- 
islature for  making  such  a provision. — A.  I do  not  think  that  all  the 
facts  could  have  been  presented  when  the  act  was  passed. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q,.  Is  it  customary  in  case  of  these  shortages  for  the  consignees  to 
make  claims  against  the  transportation  companies  f — A.  I suppose  it 
is.  That  is  something  I do  not  have  anything  to  do  with,  however. 

Q.  Would  not  the  result  be,  on  your  theory,  that  they  would  be  com- 
pensated for  this  loss,  and  not  have  to  pay  a duty  on  it  ? — A.  No,  sir.  No 
charge  would  be  made  if  the  article  did  not  go  into  consumption. 


1232 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[CHARLES  A.  PILL6BURY. 


CHARLES  A.  PILLSBURY. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19,  1882. 

The  following  communication  from  Messrs.  Charles  A.  Pillsbury 
& Co.,  merchant  millers,  of  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  was  read  and  ordered 
to  be  printed : 

We  respectfully  request  the  Commission  to  recommend  that  the  laws 
relating  to  the  drawback  on  flour  made  from  imported  wheat  be  so 
amended  that  when  such  flour  is  exported  the  government  retain  but  1 
per  cent  of  such  duty.  This  is  now  allowed  on  sugar.  The  arguments 
in  favor  of  this  are  obvious. 

The  province  of  Manitoba  is  probably  destined  to  be  a very  large 
wheat-producing  country,  and  the  character  of  its  wheat  is  the  same  as 
that  raised  in  Minnesota  and  Dakota.  The  only  market  for  this  sur- 
plus wheat  must  be  Europe.  The  millers  of  Minnesota  wish,  if  possible, 
to  prevent  this  wheat,  raised  in  Manitoba  from  going  to  Europe  to  be 
made  into  flour  which  will  so  closely  compete  with  ours.  The  only 
market  for  this  flour  must  be  in  Europe.  If  the  profits  of  manufactur- 
ing this  wheat  into  flour  can  be  retained  in  the  United  States  it  will 
stimulate  the  building  of  mills  and  will  help  supply  those  already  built. 
Unless  every  obstacle  can  be  removed  it  will  be  impossible  to  do  this — 

1st.  Because  the  raw  material,  wheat,  can  always  be  transported 
cheaper  than  the  manufactured  article,  flour.  We  are  compelled  to  use 
only  steamers  on  the  lakes  and  ocean  for  the  carriage  of  flour,  while 
wheat  is  not  confined  to  this  mode  of  transportation.  It  is  not  prac- 
ticable to  use  the  Erie  Canal  for  the  carrying  of  flour,  while  it  is‘  largely 
used  for  wheat. 

2d.  Labor  is  higher  in  this  country  than  in  Europe. 

3d.  On  account  of  our  protective  tariff,  our  mills  are  much  more  costly 
to  build  and  keep  in  repair  than  those  in  Europe. 

4th.  The  Manitoba  wheat  will  immediately  find  a cheaper  route  to 
Europe,  via  Thunder  Bay,  than  by  any  route  in  the  United  States. 

For  these  and  numerous  other  reasons  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that 
the  government,  whose  duty  it  is  to  protect  and  foster  our  industries, 
place  no  obstacle  in  the  way.  We  also  ask  that  the  weighing  fees  be 
reduced  from  3 cents  per  100  pounds  to  nothing,  or  to  a merely  nominal 
sum.  Flour  is  exported  in  large  quantities  in  bags  of  a uniform  size 
and  weight.  As  a matter  of  fact  it  need  not  cost  over  one-fourth  of  a 
cent  per  100  pounds  to  weigh  the  flour.  The  cost  of  inspection  in  ISTew 
York,  which  includes  an  examination  of  the  flour,  the  weighing,  and  the 
tare  of  barrels  is  only  1 cent  per  barrel.  While  the  present  weighing 
fee  is  not  a large  one  for  some  articles,  it  is  very  expensive  on  a heavy 
standard  article  like  flour. 

Also,  if  you  could  remove  or  reduce  the  duty  on  jute  cloth  or  bags  it 
would  greatly  help  the  flour  industry.  These  bags  are  only  used  for 
flour  destined  to  be  exported,  and  a duty  on  them  is  practically  a tax 
on  the  flour  industry. 

Several  of  your  Commission  have  recently  visited  our  Pillsbury  A 
mill,  and  they  can  judge  for  themselves  whether  we  ought  to  have  the 
relief  asked  for. 


NORMAN  J.  COLMAN.  ] 


THE  FARMING  INTEREST, 


1233 


NORMAN  J.  COLMAN. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19,  1882. 

Hon.  Norman  J.  Colman,  of  Saint  Louis,  representing  the  farming 
interests,  addressed  the  Commission  as  follows : 

It  is  with  no  inconsiderable  embarrassment  that  I appear  before  you, 
because  I appear  in  a somewhat  different  role  from  that  which  is  as- 
sumed by  the  ordinary  witness.  I appear  in  behalf  of  the  farming  classes, 
who  embrace  over  one-half  of  our  entire  population.  I am  not  specially 
authorized  by  any  organization  of  farmers  to  address  you,  but  I have 
the  honor  to  be  a member  and  chief  executive  officer  of  several  impor- 
tant agricultural  associations.  Having  been  born  upon  a farm,  raised 
upon  a farm,  and  engaged  in  farming  all  my  life,  and  for  more  than  30 
years  engaged  in  publishing  an  agricultural  paper  devoted  to  the  special 
interests  of  farmers,  I feel  it  my  duty  to  present  to  you  the  views  which 
I shall  submit,  having  carefully  studied,  I believe,  the  interests  of  that 
class  to  which  I belong. 

It  appears  to  me  that  if  a person  from  a foreign  country  were  to  come 
here  and  remain  during  one  sitting  of  the  Commission,  and  hear  the 
appeals  made  to  you  for  protection  by  interested  parties,  he  could  not 
.help  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  we  were  living  in  the  poorest  country 
on  the  face  of  the  habitable  globe.  I do  not  know  of  a single  industry 
in  this  country  which  does  not  come  before  you  and  appeal  to  be  pro- 
tected from  rivals  three  to  six  thousand  miles  away.  If  there  is  an  in- 
dustry in  the  country  which  has  not  appealed  to  you  for  protection,  I 
would  like  to  know  which  one  it  is.  Even  my  venerable  and  worthy 
friend,  Mr.  Isaac  A.  Hodges,  whom  I know  is  honest  and  sincere  in  his 
views,  comes  before  you  and  likewise  asks  for  protection,  in  my  judg- 
ment, upon  just  as  good  grounds  as  almost  any  other  interest  in  this 
country  has  asked  for  it.  And,  gentlemen,  I believe  that  if  you  sift 
these  matters  down,  you  will  find  that  the  other  interests  have  no  better 
grounds  for  asking  for  protection  than  he  has.  Before  he  got  through 
with  his  statement  in  answer  to  a question  put  to  him  by  a member  of 
this  Commission,  he  let  the  cat  completely  out  of  the  bag.  He  said  that 
he  was  selling  this  sirup,  which  he  has  exhibited  to  you,  at  40  cents  a 
gallon  by  the  car  load,  in  a crude  state,  and  I know  from  my  own  ex- 
perience, having  the  honor  to  be  president  of  the  Mississippi  Valley 
Cane  (Growers’  Association,  that  he  speaks  truly  when  he  says  that  this 
same  sirup  can  be  manufactured  at  a cost  of  18  to  20  cents  a gallon. 
In  God’s  name,  how  can  any  one  ask  for  protection  when  he  is  making 
over  100  per  cent,  profit  on  the  article  he  is  producing.  When  you  sift 
down  every  other  industry  in  the  same  way,  you  will  find  that  these 
gentlemen  have  no  better  grounds,  in  many  instances,  to  ask  for  pro- 
tection than  he  has. 

Commissioner  Kenner.  Let  me  interrupt  you  to  suggest  that  we 
want  facts,  and  not  arguments.  Mr.  Hodges  stated  that  he  paid  10 
cents  a gallon  freight,  and  that  the  cost  of  the  sirup  was  20  cents  a 
gallon,  making  30  cents  a gallon  altogether.  If  the  farmer  makes  only 
10  cents  a gallon  profit,  I do  not  consider  that  very  extravagant.  Please 
confine  yourself  to  facts. 

The  Witness.  I am  trying  to  confine  myself  to  facts;  that  is  what  I 
have  been  doing  in  this  argument.  I am  sorry  to  say  that  I have  not 
H.  Mis.  6 78 


1234 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[NORMAN  J.  COLMAN. 


come  liere  to-day  prepared  to  discuss  the  matter  as  it  ought  to  be  dis- 
cussed. You  will  have  to  indulge  me  if  my  remarks  are  not  as  direct 
and  to  the  point  as  they  should  be.  I have  noticed  that  you  allowed  a 
great  deal  of  latitude  to  others,  and  I supposed  I might  avail  myself 
of  the  same  privilege  to  some  extent. 

Commissioner  Garland.  I think  the  Commission  is  disposed  to  allow 
you  reasonable  latitude. 

The  Witness.  What  is  the  tariff?  It  is  a duty.  What  is  a protect- 
ive tariff?  It  is  a duty  put  so  high  upon  imported  goods  that  we  have 
to  either  pay  the  additional  amount  or  shut  out  the  imported  article. 
The  object,  then,  of  a protective  tariff  is  to  prevent  cheap  goods  from 
coming  into  competition  with  home  manufactures.  Now,  then,  who  has 
to  pay  for  this  additional  price?  That  is  the  question.  Is  it  not  the 
consumer,  the  class  which  I represent,  the  laboring  man,  and  every 
person  who  buy  those  goods?  They  are  the  persons  who  are  taxed. 
For  whose  benefit  are  they  taxed?  For  the  benefit  of  a class,  a privi- 
leged class,  which  is  allowed  to  pluck  the  consumer  and  which  reaps  large 
profits  therefrom.  It  is  the  consumer  who  suffers ; it  is  the  consumer  who 
is  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  this  privileged  class.  I know  that  the  farmers 
do  not  generally  understand  this  question.  Many  of  them  think  if  this 
high  tax  or  duty  is  put  on  goods,  the  government  receives  it.  Then  it 
becomes  a revenue  tariff,  and  as  a matter  of  course,  we  all  know  that  the 
government  must  be  in  some  manner  supplied  with  funds  to  administer 
itself.  That  may  be  all  right,  but  when  you  exceed  that,  you  make  one 
class  rich  at  the  expense  of  other  classes. 

To  illustrate  my  position,  I will  refer  to  something  that  occurred  in 
this  city,  which  will  show  the  effect  of  the  tariff  all  the  way  through. 
I had  a friendwho  discovered  a quarry  of  burr-stone  equal  to  the  French 
burr,  and  became  very  enthusiatic  over  it  and  wanted  to  open  the  quarry 
and  supply  the  trade.  When  he  came  to  investigate  the  matter  he 
found  that  there  was  no  stone  quite  equal  to  the  French  stone,  and,  as 
nobody  had  been  interested  in  having  a high  tariff  put  upon  the  French 
burr-stone,  he  found  that  he  could  not  bring  this  burr-stone  which  he 
had  discovered  from  South  Missouri  and  place  it  in  the  Saint  Louis  mar- 
ket in  competition  with  the  French  article.  He  tried  to  raise  a company 
to  work  the  quarry,  and  immediately  began  to  advocate  a duty  of  100 
or  200  per  cent,  upon  the  French  burr-stone  in  order  that  he  might  have 
a monopoly  of  the  burr-stone  in  this  country.  If  such  a duty  had  been 
placed  on  the  foreign  article  he  would  have  been  benefited  certainly, 
and  those  who  were  associated  with  him  would  have  been  benefited; 
but  every  other  man  in  the  L nited  States  who  used  the  article  would  have 
had  to  contribute  to  make  him  wealthy.  That  is  the  way  it  would 
operate.  I say,  gentlemen,  it  is  just  so  in  everything.  These  gentlemen 
who  consume  your  goods  are  the  parties  who  suffer. 

I ask  the  members  of  this  Commission,  and  I do  it  most  seriously,  to 
consider  both  sides  of  this  question;  to  consider  the  interests  of  the 
farmer  while  considering  the  interests  of  the  manufacturer.  I do  not 
ask  for  any  violent  or  sweeping  change  at  once  in  our  tariff  laws;  but 
it  seems  to  me  that  you,  gentlemen,  selected  for  your  competence  to  in- 
vestigate these  affairs,  can  make  some  graduated  tariff  reducing  the 
duties  year  by  year  until  the  heavy  burdens  which  are  now  imposed  upon 
the  consumer  are  removed.  I believe  that  when  you  come  to  study 
these  questions  and  study  the  interests  of  the  consumer,  and  the  inter- 
ests of  the  manufacturer,  you  will  do  something  of  that  kind. 

How  is  the  farmer  affected  by  the  tariff  in  other  respects  ? Look,  for 
instance,  at  the  high  price  of  iron,  when  here  we  have  large  quantities 


NORMAN  J.  COLMAN.J 


THE  FARMING  INTEREST. 


1235 


of  ore  right  under  our  feet,  and  coal  by  the  side  of  it.  These  iron-men 
say,  u Protect  us  from  iron  imported  from  abroad,”  three,  four,  five,  or 
six  thousand  miles  away.  The  cost  of  digging  it  out,  transporting  it  to 
the  ocean,  loading  it  on  vessels,  bringingit  to  our  sea-ports  is  not,  they 
say,  a sufficient  protection.  What  is  the  result?  It  makes  the  price 
of  iron  very  high;  it  makes  the  raw  material  high.  The  manufacturer 
when  he  buys  the  material  has  to  pay  high  prices,  and  when  he  makes 
wagons,  carriages,  plows,  thrashers,  reapers,  mowers,  harrows,  knives, 
forks,  and  everything  which  is  used  on  a farm,  he  has  to  charge  this  addi- 
tional price.  While  Heaven  smiles  upon  us,  and  we  have  bounteous  crops, 
our  farmers  may  be  able  to  get  along  and  carry  this  additional  burden. 
But  as  soon  as  we  have  one  or  two  bad  seasons,  everything  gets  into 
disorder  and  panics  ensue,  and  there  is  chaos,  almost,  and  the  farmers 
are  not  able  to  stand  the  burden  which  under  generous  crops  they  may 
be  able  to  sustain.  In  my  judgment,  unless  some  graduating  scale  of 
duties  is  adopted,  this  tariff  question  will  become  the  great  issue  in 
this  country,  and  there  will  not  then  be  a gradual  lessening  of  duties, 
but  there  will  be  a violent  and  sudden  change,  because  nine-tenths  of 
the  people  are  not  willing  to  pay  taxes  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  one- 
tenth.  The  taxes  which  the  people  of  this  country  pay  to  these  privi- 
leged classes — to  these  manufacturing  classes — are  ten  times  as  great 
as  those  they  pay  to  the  State  and  national  governments  besides,  and 
when  that  fact  comes  home  to  them  clearly,  they  will  rebel  against  it 
as  they  did  against  the  stamp  act. 

Now,  it  is  not  so  much  what  our  laborers  get  in  the  way  of  wages  as 
it  is  what  they  can  save ; what  it  costs  them  to  live.  This  high  price 
of  iron,  as  I have  said,  makes  buildings  higher,  rent  higher,  and  cloth- 
ing higher.  When  you  go  abroad  you  find  you  can  buy  clothing  at 
from  30  ,to  50  per  cent,  cheaper  than  you  can  buy  it  in  this  country. 
When  you  go  abroad  do  you  not  bring  your  trunks  home  full  of  cloth- 
ing, and  don’t  the  ladies  do  the  same  thing?  Can’t  you  almost  afford 
to  go  to  Canada  just  for  the  sake  of  bringing  in  a stock  of  clothing 
on  your  return?  The  laboring  classes  have  to  pay  these  duties,  after 
all;  the  farmers  have  to  pay  a high  transportation  on  account  of  the 
high  prices  for  building  railroads,  locomotives,  freight  cars,  and  travel- 
ing cars.  All  these  burdens,  I say,  ultimately  fall  upon  them,  while 
they  get  a less  price  for  their  grain.  This,  gentlemen,  in  my  judgment, 
is  the  whole  matter  in  a nutshell.  But  I believe  there  is  patriotism 
enough  in  this  honorable  Commission  to  consider  carefully  the  interests 
of  those  who  are  taxed — those  who  carry  these  burdens,  who  are  plucked 
by  every  industry  in  this  country — to  consider  their  interests  as  well 
as  the  interests  of  the  manufacturers.  I believe  we  have  here  the  richest 
country  on  God’s  globe,  and  that  we  ought  to  be  able  to  compete  with 
rivals  anywhere.  Why,  even  in  Great  Britain  do  they  not  buy  our  beef, 
our  pork,  our  mutton,  our  flour,  and  everything  almost  that  we  raise? 
Is  it  not  taken  there  to  feed  to  these  very  men  ? And,  gentlemen,  it  does 
not  cost  them  there  so  much  to  live  as  it  does  us  right  here,  because  of 
these  taxes  which  are  imposed  for  the  benefit  of  these  manufactur- 
ing classes.  Is  it  not  better  for  a laborer  to  get  $1.25  a day  if  he  can  save 
only  25  cents  a day,  than  for  him  to  get  $1.50  or  $1.75  a day  if  he  can* 
save  nothing.  The  question  is,  how  much  will  the  money  of  the  labor- 
ing man  buy  ? It  is  not  how  much  he  receives,  simply. 

I know  there  are  other  parties  who  are  waiting  to  address  you  on  the 
interests  which  they  are  connected  with,  and  I will  not  occupy  more 
time.  There  are  gentlemen  here  interested  in  the  growing  of  wool.  I 
will  say  that  I have  just  returned  from  Kansas,  where  I met  a number 


1236 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[NORM AX  J.  COLMAX. 


of  wool-growers,  and  I know  there  is  a great  clamor  among  them  for  a 
protection  on  wool.  But  I can  give  yon  the  names  of  individuals  who 
tell  me  that  they  are  clearing  60  per  cent,  profit  on  their  investment  in 
raising  sheep  and  wool,  and  still  they  are  not  satisfied  with  that,  because 
they  have  to  winter  their  sheep  there,  and  they  are  going  further  south, 
where  pastures  are  always  green  ; where  they  will  not  have  to  labor  to 
provide  shelter  for  their  stock  in  winter.  If  a man  can  make  60  per  cent, 
in  that  business  and  25  or  30  per  cent,  in  the  sugar  industry,  or  if  he 
can  in  any  other  enterprise  make  15  to  20  per  cent.,  I think  he  ought  to 
be  satisfied.  There  must  be  something  radically  wrong  if  he  is  not.  He 
either  lives  too  extravagantly  or  manages  his  business  improperly,  or 
he  could  comijete,  with  all  the  advantages  he  has  here,  with  the  people 
of  the  whole  world. 

These  same  high  duties  have  driven  all  our  ships  from  the  ocean.  The 
cost  of  building  ships  and  steamboats  and  barges  ha  slargely  increased, 
until  that  industry  has  almost  entirely  ceased,  and  the  farmer  has  to  pay 
for  it,  because  he  is  charged  an  additional  price  for  transporting  his  grain 
to  market,  and  he  gets  a less  price ; the  farmer  only  gets  the  price  in 
the  market  less  the  price  of  transporting  the  product.  I will  detain  you 
no  longer. 

By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Question.  As  you  have  alluded  to  the  wool  industry,  I would  like  to 
ask  you  a question  or  two  regarding  it.  You  are  aware  of  the  present 
tariff  on  wool? — Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much,  in  your  opinion,  does  it  add  to  the  price  of  wool  in  this 
country  ? — A.  I do  not  know  how  much  it  adds  to  the  price  of  it ; but  I 
do  not  think  it  would  be  there  unless  the  wool-growers  thought  it  added 
considerably  to  its  price. 

Q.  I am  asking  for  your  opinion,  not  for  the  opinion  of  the  wool-grow- 
ers. Is  it  your  opinion  that  the  present  duty  on  wool  adds  to  the  price 
of  wool  in  this  country  ? — A.  Yes,  sir  ; I think  it  does. 

Q.  How  much,  probably? — A.  I do  not  know;  I cannot  speak  as  to 
the  details  of  the  business. 

Q.  In  your  opinion,  if  the  duty  on  wool  was  removed  the  price  of  wool 
would  go  down  ? — A.  It  might,  or  it  might  not.  It  all  depends  upon 
supply  and  demand.  Perhaps  the  proper  answer  would  be,  what  is  the 
difference  between  the  value  of  foreign  blankets  and  the  value  of  the 
same  quality  of  American  blankets? 

Commissioner  Garland.  It  is  very  slight. 

The  Witness.  I understand  it  is  considerable. 

By  Commissioner  Porter  : 

Q.  How  much  do  you  have  to  pay  for  a good  pair  of  blankets  in  Eng- 
land ? — A.  I ought  to  have  stated  at  the  outset  that  so  far  as  details  and 
actual  prices  are  concerned,  I do  not  profess  to  be  familiar  witli  them. 
But  I state  what  is  generally  known,  that  clothing,  household  ware,  &c., 
can  be  bought  much  cheaper  in  England  than  it  can  be  bought  here. 

Q.  Does  that  same  remark  apply  to  furniture? — A.  Xo,  sir;  furniture 
'is  not  household  ware,  as  I understand  it. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  price  of  a pair  of  blankets  in  this  country  or  in 
England  ? — A.  No,  sir;  but  I can  ascertain,  if  it  will  be  of  any  beuefit  to 
you. 

Q.  I)o  you  know  whether  it  is  a fact,  or  not,  that  you  cannot  get  a good 
pair  of  blankets  in  England  for  less  than  42  shillings  ? — A.  I have 
answered  that  question  by  stating  that  I do  not  know  the  price;  if  you 
do,  I should  be  glad  to  learn. 


NORMAN  J.  COI.MAN.] 


THE  FARMING  INTEREST. 


1237 


By  Commissioner  Garland  : 

Q.  I understand  your  argument  is  that  the  tariff  is  added  to  the  price 
of  the  article? — A.  As  a rule,  but  not  in  all  cases,  or  else  these  gentle- 
men would  not  ask  for  protection ; they  would  not  say,  “ Protect  us  from 
these  manufacturers  abroad;  we  want  to  get  higher  prices.” 

Q.  But  you  think  it  has  added  to  the  price  of  imported  wools? — A. 
Yes,  sir;  as  a rule.  That  is  the  idea,  or  else  the  wool-growers  would  be 
in  favor  of  having  the  duty  removed. 

By  the  President  : 

Q.  The  statement  has  been  made  before  this  Commission  that  the 
wool  tariff  has  been  ruinous  to  the  wool  industry  of  the  country.  You 
state  that  the  farmers  of  Kansas  are  making  a great  profit.  Those  two 
statements  do  not  seem  to  agree. — A.  Even  at  those  low  prices  they  can 
make  a good  profit.  I can  give  you  the  names  of  witnesses,  with  their 
post-office  addresses,  if  you  desire  to  make  further  inquiry. 

Q.  Then  you  infer  that  the  tariff  has  been  beneficial  to  the  farmers 
fo  the  country? — A.  I presume  it  has;  but  I could  not  say  positively. 
I might  state  that  we  had  in  this  city,  last  year,  potatoes  that  were 
brought  from  Nova  Scotia,  Scotland,  and  Ireland ; onions  brought  from 
Spain,  and  cabbages  and  sauerkraut  brought  from  Germany ; and  yet 
the  farmers  do  not  come  in  and  ask  to  be  protected  against  these 
growers  over  the  ocean,  which  they  might  do  with  the  same  propriety. 
I admit,  of  course,  that  even  the  farmer,  who  is  getting  $1  a bushel 
'for  his  wheat,  if  he  can,  by  some  legislation,  get  $1.25  for  it,  would  fa- 
vor legislation  which  puts  money  into  his  pocket.  I do  not  say  that 
the  farmer  is  better  than  any  other  class ; I say  they  will  all  do  it.  The 
point  I make  is,  that  these  men  are  just  eating  one  another  up.  The 
iron  manufacturer  is  eating  up  the  woolen  manufacturer.  And  the 
same  is  true  with  all  the  other  industries  of  the  country.  They  are  just 
eating  one  another  up,  because  they  are  all  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  one 
or  another,  and  they  all  have  to  come  in  for  a share.  That  is  what 
makes  everything  so  high.  We  have  got  to  get  things  down  to  the 
lowest  basis,  and  when  we  do  that  we  can  compete  with  the  world. 
You  need  not  tell  me  that  with  our  iron,  lead,  and  zinc  right  under  our 
feet  we  cannot  compete  with  other  countries  ; there  must  be  something 
wrong  in  our  legislation.  I am  glad  to  know  that  this  Commission  has 
been  organized,  because  I believe  it  has  brains  enough  to  go  to  the  bot- 
tom of  the  whole  matter.  It  knows  that  every  tax  is  a burden  on  the 
people,  and  I believe  it  will  try  to  remove  these  burdens  gradually,  and, 
in  time,  wholly.  When  that  time  arrives  it  will  not  take  three  bushels  of 
corn  to  transport  one  bushel  to  the  seaboard,  because  we  shall  have  cheap 
railroads,  and  we  can  transport  our  products  to  the  old  country  ; and, 
if  they  can  make  anything  cheaper  there  than  we  can,  let  our  people  have 
a chance  to  buy  it. 

By  Commissioner  Boteler  : 

Q.  Is  it  the  ultimate  purpose  of  those  who  agree  with  you  in  these 
sentiments  (which  I have  listened  to  with  great  interest)  to  do  away 
with  all  custom-house  duties  and  have  only  free  trade. — A.  No,  sir; 
not  at  once.  What  1 understand  free  trade  to  mean  is,  that  we  shall 
have  a tariff  sufficient  to  raise  a revenue  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the 
government,  and  everything  shall  be  free  so  far  as  protecting  interested 
classes  is  concerned.  The  Commission  has  before  it  witnesses  who 
give  testimony  on  these  points;  but  these  same  witnesses  would  not  in 
our  courts  be  allowed  to  testify,  because  of  their  self-interest  in  the 


1238 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[NORMAN  J.  COLMAN. 


matters  upon  which  they  speak.  They  are  interested  in  bringing  just 
as  much  money  into  their  pockets  as  is  possible,  and  they  are  the  richer 
classes  of  the  country  as  a rule.  Our  farmers  do  not  make  an  average 
of  6 per  cent,  profit  on  their  entire  investment  during  the  year,  while 
working  like  slaves,  while  these  gentlemen  make  from  10  to  50  and  100 
per  cent,  profit  with  comparative  ease.  There  is  something  wrong 
when  one  class  of  the  community  can  scarcely  make  a living — the  class 
which  bears  all  the  burdens  of  society,  for  all  the  taxes  fall  at  last 
upon  the  laboring  man — while  other  classes  are  enabled  to  accumulate 
large  stores  of  wealth. 

Commissioner  Boteler.  Is  it  possible  for  us  to  have  any  citizen  of 
the  United  States  before  us  who  is  not  interested  in  some  way  in  the 
tariff?  We  have  invited  all  to  come — the  laboring  classes  and  the  farm- 
ers, the  manufacturers  and  the  merchants,  the  importers  and  all — and  no 
one  has  come  before  us  who  is  not  interested  in  some  way  on  one  side 
of  the  question  or  the  other. 

The  Witness.  But  I was  speaking  of  their  interest  in  a pecuniary 
point  of  view.  Every  man  who  has  appeared  before  you,  unless  he  was 
some  paid  attorney  or  agent  employed  by  these  men,  is  directly  in- 
terested in  bringing  grist  to  his  mill,  so  that  he  may  get  as  much  toll  as 
possible. 

Commissioner  Porter.  I do  not  regard  these  statements  as  being 
in  the  nature  of  testimony  which  we  are  authorized  to  take;  they  are 
merely  the  opinions  of  the  witness. 

The  Witness.  I stated  at  the  outset  that  I did  not  come  here' prepared 
to  make  a statement,  and  I perhaps  have  indulged  in  too  much  random 
talk.  But  I feel  that  I am  one  of  the  people,  and  I am  speaking  in 
behalf  of  over  12,000,000  farmers,  because  they  are  the  men  who  have 
these  burdens  to  pay  at  last.  They  are  the  men  who  make  these  manu- 
facturing classes  rich,  and  it  is  they  who  suffer ; they  are  plucked  like 
geese,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  sooner  this  plucking  process  is  done 
away  with  the  sooner  will  their  labor  be  made  remunerative  to  them, 
and  the  sooner  we  shall  be  able  to  compete  with  the  world.  We  can- 
not do  that  as  long  as  we  have  to  pay  the  present  prices  for  rent,  cloth- 
ing, and  everything  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  Ambler.  And,  let  me  add,  the  present  prices  for  labor. 

The  Witness.  Of  course;  that  is  what  makes  the  price  of  labor  high. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Q.  In  short,  it  is  part  of  your  project,  as  I understand  it,  to  reduce 
everything,  labor  included,  to  the  European  standard,  so  that  we  can 
compete  with  the  world. — A.  It  is  not  the  wages  that  our  laborers 
receive,  it  is  their  purchasing  power  that  is  the  standard. 

Q.  I ask  you  a fair  question:  Is  that  what  you  mean? — A.  I do  not 
want  the  laborer  to  be  docked  one  dollar.  If  I was  a laborer  I would 
much  rather  get  a lower  rate  of  wages  and  be  able  to  lay  by  a small 
surplus,  than  I would  to  get  a higher  rate  of  wages  and  be  unable  to 
save  any  portion  of  it. 

Q.  You  have  referred  several  times  to  the  cheapness  of  foreign  pro- 
ducts; but  you  have  not  referred  to  the  low  price  of  wages  paid  abroad; 
you  have  avoided  that.  It  strikes  me  that  that  is  one  considerable  item 
in  these  matters.  If  you  mean  that  the  price  of  labor  should  be  reduced 
also,  please  say  so  ? — A.  I mean  to  say  that  supply  and  demand  regulate 
the  price  of  labor,  as  they  do  the  price  of  any  commodity. 

By  Commissioner  Underwood: 

Q.  Is  it  your  opinion  that,  having  all  this  material  here  with  us,  and 


NOIiMAN  J.  COLMAN.J 


THE  FARMING  INTEREST. 


1239 


all  that  is  necessary  to  manufacture  the  articles  that  are  manufactured 
in  this  country  at  present,  the  geographical  protection  that  the  people 
here  enjoy  as  against  the  manufacturer  in  Europe  is  a sufficient  protec- 
tion to  us? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I claim  that.  I claim  that  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation of  the  raw  materials  and  of  the  manufactured  articles  from 
Europe  to  this  country  is  a sufficient  protection  to  such  a generous  and 
productive  country  as  ours,  where  there  is  so  much  skill  and  enterprise 
in  every  avenue  of  trade.  But  as  long  as  these  high  prices  are  kept  up 
we  cannot  compete  with  them.  We  have  got  to  reduce  the  tariff  to 
bring  things  down  to  bed-rock,  and  whenever  that  occurs  we  shall  not 
be  subject  to  these  financial  disasters  which  have  so  freqently  occurred. 


1240 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[FRANK  B.  JOHNSON. 


FRANK  B.  JOHNSON. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19, 1882. 

Mr.  Frank  B.  Johnson,  iron  manufacturer,  of  Saint  Louis,  Mo., 
addressed  the  Commission  as  follows  : 

Gentlemen  : In  support  of  Mr.  Adolphus  Meier  & Co.’s  statement 
in  regard  to  the  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  iron  and  steel,  &c.,  I wish  to 
say — 

1st.  That  there  is  now  a process  that  has  been  practically  tested  by 
which  iron  and  steel,  hammered  in  the  bloom,  can  be  produced  40  per 
cent,  cheaper  than  by  any  method  now  in  common  use. 

2d.  That  the  reason,  in  my  judgment,  that  this  process  is  not  gener- 
ally in  use  is,  there  is  such  a combination  and  monopoly  in  the  production 
of  iron  and  steel  that  in  order  to  prevent  a reduction  of  the  tariff*  they 
fight  every  evident  improvement  in  the  manufacture,  which  must  mate- 
rially reduce  the  cost  of  production. 

3d.  This  process  is  mechanical  in  principle,  consisting  of  revolving 
hammers,  which  enables  the  iron  and  steel  to  be  simultaneously  ham- 
mered and  rolled  in  one  heat,  producing  the  desired  results. 

We  can  produce  iron  and  steel  hammered  in  blooms,  and  in  general 
competition  with  any  foreign  trade  or  production,  without  any  protec- 
tion. 

By  Commissioner  Ambler  : 

Question.  Where  was  this  process  invented  ? — Answer.  I own  one-half 
of  the  interest  in  the  process,  and  the  other  half  is  owned,  or  held  in 
trust,  by  a gentleman  in  Saint  Louis.  It  has  been  practically  tested  in 
the  Southeast,  in  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina,  and  also  in 
Chicago,  and  some  works  are  being  put  into  operation  here  now. 

Q.  What  is  the  name  of  the  process? — A.  It  was  formerly  known  as 
the  Moore  & Johnson’s  Improved  Process  for  Bolling  and  Hammering 
Iron  and  Steel. 

Q.  Where  was  the  invention  made? — A.  I am  the  half-owner  of  the 
invention.  My  former  residence  was  in  New  York,  and  Mr.  Moore  lived 
in  Chicago.  The  gentleman  I have  referred  to  is  trustee  for  Mr.  Moore’s 
interest. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Question.  If  you  can  make  this  iron  so  cheaply,  why  don’t  you  go  ahead 
and  do  it?  Protection  can  do  you  no  harm. — A.  This  is  the  way  the 
matter  stands : It  seems  to  be  the  interest  of  the  present  manufacturers 
to  keep  the  protection  as  high  as  possible,  and  we  have  been  unable  to 
procure  even  a small  amount  of  capital  to  work  with  us  in  developing 
our  process.  Capitalists  are  not  posted,  and  of  course  they  seek  the 
advice  of  the  iron  and  steel  men  who  are  already  in  the  business,  such 
as  the  proprietors  of  the  Vulcan  Works,  at  Carondelet,  as  well  as  others 
in  the  city  and  country,  and  while  they  admit  that  this  process  is  a good 
thing,  yet  they  discourage  the  parties  from  uniting  with  us  and  invest- 
ing their  money  so  that  we  could  put  up  manufactories,  because  we 
could  undersell  any  manufacturer  40  per  cent.,  and  can  compete  with 
the  foreign  product  in  steel  blooms,  or  iron  blooms  either,  or  in  the  pro- 
duction of  iron,  without  any  protection.  I only  hope  that  the  iron  man- 
ufacturers will  not  be  protected ; then  there  will  be  a show  for  us. 


J.  H.  C.  GROSS.]  SHELTER.  1241 

V 

&J* 


J.  H.  C.  GROSS. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19, 1882. 

Mr.  J.  H.  0.  Gross,  of  Weir  City,  Kans.,  manufacturer  of  spelter,  ad- 
dressed tlie  Commission  as  follows : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  : It  is  not  my  purpose  to  inflict  a 
speech  upon  you,  for  the  double  reason  that  you  are  not  here  to  listen 
to  set  speeches,  and,  if  you  were,  I am  not  capable  of  making  one.  But 
I desire  to  say,  briefly,  that  the  manufacture  of  zinc  in  the  West  is  in 
its  infancy.  It  dates  back  at  the  most  not  more  than  fifteen  years,  and 
its  present  proportions  have  been  largely  reached  within  the  last  five 
years. 

I wish  to  address  myself  particularly  to  the  matter  of  the  cost  of 
freighting  spelter  from  Kansas  to  the  seaboard.  The  cost  at  present  is 
about  60  cents  per  hundred  pounds,  nearly  five-eighths  of  a cent  per 
pound.  The  duty  is  1J  cents  a pound,  and  the  foreign  manufacturer 
can  send  his  spelter  from  Liverpool  to  New  York  almost  freight  free,  it 
being  such  a heavy  metal,  so  compact  in  form,  that  grain  carrying  ves- 
sels going  from  Liverpool  to  New  York  are  glad  to  get  it  as  ballast  for 
nothing,  and  I have  frequently  known  vessel-owners  to  pay  a bonus  for 
a cargo  of  spelter  into  New  York;  so  that  the  duty  of  1J  cents  a pound 
is  only  a trifle  more  than  double  what  it  costs  the  Kansas  manufacturer 
to  freight  his  metal  to  the  seaboard.  I indorse  fully  all  that  has  been 
said  to  tbe  Commission  by  Mr.  Picher  [see  statement  of  C.  H.  PicherJ, 
who  lias  given  you  all  the  facts  bearing  upon  our  case.  But  I desire  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  disparity  of  freight  paid  by 
the  foreign  manufacturer  and  the  home  manufacturer  to  get  their  prod- 
ucts to  ^New  York.  The  difference  amounts  to  almost  nothing.  About 
two  weeks  ago,  in  conference  with  one  of  the  largest  New  England 
manufacturers,  I asked  him  the  question  point  blank  why  it  was  that 
he  did  not  buy  Kansas  spelter.  He  told  me  that  it  was  with  them 
merely  a question  of  dollars  and  cents;  that  when  we  could  sell  him 
spelter  as  cheaxily  as  he  could  buy  it  in  Belgium,  and  lay  it  down  at  his 
works,  he  would  buy  every  pound  of  that  material  from  us,  but  under 
the  present  condition  of  the  trade  he  could  not  afford  to  do  so. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon: 

Question.  What  manufacturer  is  it  that  you  refer  to? — Answer.  I 
refer  to  the  Washburn  & Moen  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Worcester, 
Mass. 

Q.  Suppose  that  manufactory  was  located  right  where  you  make  your 
spelter;  what  would  be  the  effect  then? — A.  The  effect  of  my  argument 
would  be  lost  so  far  as  that  individual  factory  was  concerned. 

By  Commissioner  Kenner  : 

Q.  Your  desire  is  that  the  Western  manufacturer  shall  be  placed  on 
the  same  footing  with  the  Eastern  manufacturer  in  regard  to  cheapness 
in  the  delivery  of  spelter? — A.  We  want  to  be  placed  on  an  even  foot- 
ing with  the  foreign  manufacturer. 

By  Commissioner  Oliver  : 

Q.  Your  argument,  as  I understand  it,  is  that  on  account  of  the  dis- 
tance to  the  seaboard,  and  the  fact  that  the  spelter  consumed  in  the 


1242 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[J.  H.  C.  GROSS. 


United  States  is  mostly  all  consumed  near  the  seaboard,  you  are  shut 
out  from  a market  by  the  high  freight  from  Kansas  east,  which  is  50  or 
60  cents  a hundred  pounds,  while  from  England  the  freight  is  perhaps 
only  about  5 cents? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  for  that  reason  you  desire  protection  which  will  enable  you 
to  compete  with  this  foreign  importation? — A.  Yes,  sir.  The  point  I 
wish  to  make  is  that  the  bulk  of  the  spelter  is  used  in  Pittsburgh  or 
east  of  Pittsburgh. 

By  Commissioner  McMahon  : 

Q.  Then  I would  like  to  ask  you  this  question  : Suppose  another  zinc 
mine  should  be  discovered  out  in  the  Yellowstone  region  and  they 
should  make  spelter  there,  ought  not  that  manufacturer  to  have  a still 
higher  rate  of  duty,  so  that  he  could  compete  with  you  ? — A.  I will  an- 
swer that  by  saying  that  zinc  has  already  been  discovered  in  large 
quantities  in  Colorado  and  Kevada,  but  it  is  lying  in  the  ground  useless, 
simply  because  it  cannot  be  profitably  sent  to  a seaboard  market  on 
account  of  the  freight.  Another  reason  is  that  they  haven’t  the  fuel 
there  to  reduce  it.  It  takes  four  tons  of  fuel  to  reduce  one  ton  of  ore. 
We  have  fuel  in  abundance. 

Q.  On  your  theory,  then,  they  should  receive  still  more  protection  on 
both  these  accounts  ; protection  so  as  to  encourage  them  to  get  fuel,  and 
also  to  cover  the  difference  in  freight?— A.  It  will  be  twenty-five  years 
before  that  question  will  come  up,  because  the  country  will  not  be  de- 
veloped immediately,  and  perhaps  they  will  have  another  Tariff  Commis- 
sion to  grapple  with  that  question  by  that  time. 


JAMES  E.  MUNFOBD.] 


PAPER. 


1243 


JAMES  E.  MUNFOBD. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19,  1882. 

Mr.  James  E.  Munford,  attorney  at  law,  Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  addressed 
the  Commission  as  follows: 

I appear  before  the  Commission  to  represent  an  interest  which  two 
years  ago  I did  not  expect  to  represent.  Among  the  fleeting,  changing 
scenes  of  life  I find  myself  a publisher.  After  an  experience  of  some 
years  in  the  publishing  business  I find  that  the  great  cost  in  carrying 
on  our  business  is  the  paper.  I also  find  that,  with  the  protection  that 
is  given  to  the  manufacturer,  on  the  best  estimate  that  can  be  made, 
paper  could  be  produced  about  20  per  cent,  cheaper  than  it  is  now  pro- 
duced, provided  the  tariff  was  taken  off*  foreign  paper  and  material. 
Under  this  state  of  facts  the  question  presents  itself,  Is  it  wise  that 
this  tariff  for  protection  should  be  continued  upon  paper  I There  are 
published  in  the  United  States  about  10,000  newspapers  and  period- 
icals, and  the  cost  of  the  paper  that  is  consumed  is  simply  immense. 
As  I was  coming  to  this  room  I met  a gentleman  who  is  publishing  about 
1,000  papers — that  is,  these  country  papers,  “patent  outsides,”  as  they 
are  called — and  he  told  me  that  his  paper  bill  was  about  $150,000  a year. 
When  you  consider  that  there  are  10,000  papers  and  periodicals  pub- 
lished in  the  United  States,  and  commence  making  an  estimate  of  the 
cost  of  the  paper  used,  it  is  almost  incalculable.  I publish  about  100 
papers,  and  in  publishing  those  papers  I find  that  I pay  about  $12,000 
a year  for  paper. 

Now,  the  mere  publishing  of  newspapers  amounts  to  nothing,  so  to 
speak,  compared  with  the  variety  of  other  uses  to  which  paper  is  applied. 
Here  is  evidence  right  before  us  to  illustrate  my  remark.  Take  this 
table  at  which  you  are  sitting,  and  you  will  see  the  variety  of  uses  to 
which  paper  is  applied.  It  is  used  for  nearly  everything.  Take  its  use 
in  trade  and  commerce  and  you  will  find  that  it  is  immense.  Then  when 
we  see  that  there  are  only  about  400  or  500  paper  manufacturers  in  the 
United  States,  and  these  manufacturers,  whenever  there  is  a good  sup- 
ply of  paper,  pool  together  and  quit  manufacturing  until  they  can  get 
prices  up  again,  we  see  the  reason  why  the  price  is  kept  so  high.  These 
manufacturers  are  getting  rich  very  fast.  I think  it  should  be  one  of 
the  objects  of  this  Commission  to  adjust  the  tariff  in  such  a way  that 
these  combinations  can  be  prevented.  For  instance,  say  that  I am  pub- 
lishing 100  papers  with  a circulation  of  GO, 000  copies.  They  are  sent 
to  the  country.  The  country  publisher  distributes  those  papers  amongst 
the  farmers,  who  read  them.  Therefore,  it  becomes  us  to  give  to  that 
reading  public  all  the  facilities  for  acquiring  knowledge  as  cheaply  as 
we  can.  It  is  to  the  interest  of  everybody  that  the  farming  and  pro- 
ducing classes  should  have  an  opportunity  of  getting  knowledge  through 
the  medium  of  the  press  and  through  periodicals  as  easily  and  as  cheaply 
as  possible.  When  we  consider  that  fact,  and  consider  also  that  there 
are  only  about  500  paper  manufacturers  in  the  United  States,  and  they 
are  making  very  great  fortunes  rapidly,  in  my  judgment  it  is  a wise 
policy  to  take  the  tariff*  duties  to  a great  extent,  or  I might  say  entirely, 
off  of  all  paper  and  the  materials  of  which  it  is  made.  If  the  govern- 


1244 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


fjAMESE.  MUNFOBD. 


ment  was  pressed  for  revenue  and  there  was  not  a large  surplus  in 
the  Treasury  there  might  be  some  excuse  for  putting  this  embargo  upon 
knowledge.  But  when  the  Treasury  is  overflowing  with  surplus  revenue, 
to  put  an  embargo  upon  knowledge  and  virtually  handicap  the  press, 
a heavy  tariff  on  an  article  of  such  universal  use  as  paper  is  repugnant 
to  every  idea  of  right  and  justice,  and  in  opposition  to  the  idea  that 
the  press  shall  be  free  and  untrammeled.  1 think  it  is  wise  in  that 
light  to  take  the  tariff  off  of  paper  and  let  the  people  get  knowledge  as 
cheajfly  as  possible. 

The  people  are  being  educated  through  the  press  more  than  they  are 
in  any  other  way,  and  lam  satisfied  that  when  the  matter  is  looked  at 
in  all  its  aspects,  you  will  see  that  it  will  be  good  policy,  and  that  the 
people  generally  are  inclined  to  recommend  that  the  tariff  on  paper 
should  be  as  low  as  possible. 

I need  not  enlarge  upon  this  subject;  but  when  you  look  at  the  term 
‘‘protection,”  and  study  its  meaning,  the  question  presents  itself,  “Is 
this  a government  created  for  the  protection  of  any  particular  indus- 
try? Is  it  the  duty  of  the  government  to  protect  any  individuals  or 
any  particular  industry  ? ” I take  it  that  the  people  of  this  country  are 
themselves  the  best  judges  of  what  pursuits  they  shall  engage  in,  and 
when  the  government  interferes,  by  the  imposition  of  high  duties,  it 
does  so  on  the  theory  that  the  people  are  not  capable  of  judging  for 
themselves  what  it  is  proper  for  them  to  engage  in,  but  the  government 
judges  for  them.  I hear  gentlemen  here  addressing  you,  and  saying 
“We  are  all  the  children  of  the  government.”  In  my  opinion,  that  is 
an  idea  that  carries  us  back  to  the  Dark  Ages.  I take  it  that  the  peo- 
ple are  the  government  of  this  country,  and  that  whenever  the  idea 
gets  to  be  universal  that  the  government  is  to  foster  this  or  that  par- 
ticular industry,  or  discriminate  in  favor  of  one  class  over  another,  the 
result  will  be  the  creation  of  vast  monopolies,  and  the  giving  of  bounties 
and  privileges  to  the  few,  until  the  privileged  classes  become  stronger 
than  the  government  itself.  I therefore  think,  in  this  particular  in- 
stance, that  the  tariff  should  be  taken  off,  so  that  newspapers  can  be 
printed  and  disseminated  as  cheaply  as  possible,  and  no  restriction  be 
placed  upon  this  branch  of  business. 

So  far  as  I am  personally  concerned,  the  business  in  which  I am  en- 
gaged is  prosperous;  but  I would  like  to  have  the  consumers  benefited 
as  far  as  possible,  and  therefore  I have  thought  it  becoming  in  me  as  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  to  make  this  appeal  to  you.  I speak  more 
with  reference  to  the  general  welfare  of  the  community  than  I do  for  my 
own  individual  welfare.  I thank  you  for  your  attention. 


o n.  PICHER.] 


LEAD  AND  ZINC. 


1245 


O.  H.  PICHER. 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  19,  1882. 

Mr.  O.  H.  Picher,  president  of  the  Southwest  Lead  and  Zinc  Com- 
pany, and  representing  the  Southwest  Lead  and  Zinc  Association,  ad- 
dressed the  Commission  as  follows  : 

Gentlemen:  The  Southwest  Lead  and  Zinc  Association,  composed 
of  miners  and  smelters  of  lead  and  zinc  ores  in  Southwestern  Missouri 
and  Southeastern  Kansas,  believing  that  a reduction  of  the  tariff  on 
those  ores,  pig-lead,  spelter,  and  their  products,  would  greatly  injure  this 
section,  respectfully  beg  leave  to  state  the  following  facts : 

The  product  of  lead  ore  from  this  region  for  the  year  1881  was 
43,000,000  pounds,  equivalent  to  about  15,000  tons  of  pig-lead,  and  be- 
ing about  14  per  cent,  of  the  total  product  of  the  United  States ; the 
product  of  zinc  ore  was  about  two-thirds  the  total  product  of  the  United 
States,  or  about  50,000  tons. 

There  are  engaged  in  mining  about  2,000  persons;  in  lead  smelting, 
300 ; in  zinc  smelting,  450 ; and  in  various  mining  departments,  such  as 
operating  pumps,  drills,  &c.,  about  1,000. 

Immediately  dependent  on  this  mining  industry  are  the  towns  of— 

Population. 


Joplin,  Mo - 8,000 

Webb  City  and  Carterville,  Mo 4, 000 

Granby,  Mo 1, 500 

Galena  and  Empire,  Kans 4, 000 


17. 500 

besides  other  smaller  towns  and  settlements. 

The  lead  furnaces  are  situated  at  Joplin  and  Granby,  Mo.,  and  at 
Galena,  Kans. ; the  zinc  furnaces  at  Joplin  and  Rich  Hill,  Mo.,  and  at 
Weir  City  and  Pittsburg,  Kans. 

The  character  of  the  mines  is  such  that  the  exact  cost  of  mining  can 
hardly  be  ascertained.  The  ore  is  found  at  depths  varying  from  30  to 
150  feet,  in  fissures,  chambers,  and  other  u openings”  in  the  country- 
rock  (a  subcarboniferous  limestone),  and  the  extent  of  these,  or  of  the 
ore  deposits  in  them,  is  a matter  of  entire  uncertainty. 

The  great  expense  of  mining,  therefore,  is  incurred  in  u prospecting  ” 
or  the  effort  to  find  the  ore : and  this  being  done  by  many  persons  on 
their  individual  account,  renders  it  extremely  difficult  to  ascertain  the 
total  amount  expended. 

Next  in  degree  of  expense  is  drainage.  The  ore  is  almost  universally 
found  in  water.  Many  pumps,  frequently  expensive  ones,  are  required, 
but  few  shafts  will  of  themselves  justify  the  expense  of  pumping,  and 
the  uncertainty  of  draining  surrounding  shafts  from  a given  shaft  is  as 
great  as  that  of  finding  the  ore.  While,  however,  the  finding  of  ore  in 
a particular  place,  or  the  product  of  a particular  shaft,  is  a matter  of 
entire  uncertainty,  yet  a fair  price  for  pig  lead  and  spelter  will  induce 
sufficient  prospecting  to  keep  up  the  average. 

We  are  therefore  to  determine  what  such  price  is,  and,  while  it  would 
be  interesting  to  submit  a comparison  of  the  actual  cost  of  producing  a 
ton  of  domestic  with  that  of  a ton  of  foreign  ore,  still  such  comparisons 
are  always  founded  on  generalized  calculations  extremely  liable  to  mis- 


1246 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  H.  PICHEE. 


take,  and  we  submit  that  it  is  less  satisfactory  than  a result  determined 
by  actual  experience.  That  such  a comparison  would  show  it  to  be  im- 
possible for  a miner  of  lead  or  zinc  in  the  United  States  to  compete 
with  the  miners  of  the  ore-producing  districts  in  Europe  can  hardly  be 
doubted. 

But,  we  have  in  the  history  of  our  own  region  and  of  the  metal  market 
for  the  past  ten  years  a practical  demonstration  of  the  prices  necessary 
to  this  industry.  We  have  passed  through  an  experience  of  profitable 
prices,  of  a decline  thereof  below  cost,  of  a continuance  of  this  long 
enough  to  show  that  the  prices  were  below  cost,  and  of  a gradual  re- 
covery to  its  present  condition. 

The  price  of  common  domestic  lead  began  a notable  decline  in  April, 
1877,  and  steadily  fell  from  6J  cents  per  pound  at  that  date  to  3^  in 
June,  1878;  after  some  fluctuation  reached  3 cents  during  April  and 
May,  1879;  recovered  to  4 cents  in  September,  1879,  and  can  now  be 
quoted  at  5 cents.  The  consequence  was  that  at  any  price  under  4J 
cents  (Saint  Louis)  continued  tor  any  considerable  time,  a mine  was 
abandoned  as  soon  as  the  deposit  then  in  sight  was  exhausted,  no  new 
prospecting  was  done,  pumping  was  discontinued  and  the  mines  gradu- 
ally flooded,  the  miners  scattered  to  other  fields,  and  no  new  ones  took 
their  places. 

In  many  counties  where,  in  1876  and  the  early  part  of  1877,  mining 
had  been  undertaken  with  fair  success  and  promising  results,  but  in 
which  no  great  capital  had  yet  been  invested,  all  was  abandoned  after 
the  deposits  in  sight  were  worked  out,  and  has  never  been  resumed. 
It  was  only  in  mining  centers  like  Joplin,  Granby,  and  Galena,  where 
large  investments  had  been  made,  that  the  business  was  continued  in 
spite  of  loss,  in  the  hope  of  improvement.  The  effect  upon  the  yield 
will  be  illustrated  by  a reference  to  the  yield  of  the  Granby  mines,  which, 
being  under  one  management,  can  be  reported  more  accurately,  than 
other  mines  with  many  owners,  but  is  not  exceptional  in  its  history. 
Their  yield  for  the  year  1876  was  4,423  tons,  for  1877  3,121  tons,  for  1878 
1,693  tons. 

Such  was  the  situation  when  a general  business  depression  lowered 
prices  temporarily  to  about  the  point  where  a reduction  of  the  duty 
would  place  them  permanently. 

The  prices  noted  above  continued  long  enough,  as  shown  above,  to 
demonstrate  that  a price  as  high  as  4^  (Saint  Louis)  is  necessary  to  the 
bare  continuance  of  the  mining  industry  in  this  region ; and  that  an 
average  price  of  4|  cents  (Saint  Louis)  is  required  to  make  a profit  suffi- 
ciently reasonable  to  induce  capital  to  remain  in  the  business,  and  to 
secure  the  number  of  miners  needed  to  keep  up  an  average  yield,  and  to 
give  the  industry  any  permanence. 

Now,  at  what  price  can  foreign  lead  be  produced,  and  with  what  are 
we  to  compete  ? Foreign  can  be  bought  to-day,  laid  down  iu  New  York, 
duty  paid,  at  5.20,  netting  to  the  foreign  owner  3.20,  less  ocean  freights. 
This  would  forbid  the  continuance  of  our  mines.  The  present  price  is 
met  only  by  the  strictest  economy,  the  improved  methods  which  neces- 
sity has  taught,  and  the  advantages  which  we  have  in  nearness  to 
market,  an  ore  producing  a good  lead,  and  comparatively  inexpensive 
processes  of  smelting. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  duty  might  be  retained  on  pig-lead, 
and  removed  from  the  ores,  but  in  this  region,  at  least,  smelting  may 
be  said  to  be  but  an  incident  of  mining.  A removal  or  reduction  of  the 
duty  on  ores  would  as  effectually  shut  down  the  smelting  furnaces  as  a 
removal  or  reduction  of  the  duty  on  pig-lead. 


O.  H.  PICHER.] 


LEAD  AND  ZINC. 


1247 


As  to  spelter  and  its  products,  more  specific  figures  will  be  submitted 
to  you  by  a representative  of  the  zinc  furnaces,  but  we  desire  to  submit 
the  following  general  considerations : 

In  this  region,  zinc  ores  are  associated  with  the  lead  ores.  Sometimes 
one  deposit  will  be  of  lead  ore  and  its  neighbor  of  zinc  ore,  or  it  may 
change  from  one  to  the  other,  or  they  may  be  associated  in  the  same 
shaft.  The  average  value  of  zinc  ore  is  about  half  that  of  lead  ore.  It  is 
smelted  chiefly  at  the  places  hereinbefore  named,  and  at  Saint  Louis  and 
La  Salle  and  Peru,  111. 

The  capital  invested  in  zinc  furnaces  is  necessarily  great,  the  process 
elaborate,  and  the  remuneration  slow.  Their  location,  which  is  neces- 
sarily far  from  the  seaboard,  would  forbid  their  buying  foreign  ores, 
duty  free,  even  if  they  could  otherwise  compete  with  the  capital  and 
labor  of  Europe.  Whatever  reasons,  therefore,  urge  a tariff  on  spelter 
and  its  products  apply  equally  to  zinc  ores.  Their  occurrence  in  this 
district,  the  manner  in  which  they  are  mined,  and  the  cost  of  mining, 
are  the  same  as  stated  in  regard  to  lead  ores,  and  need  not  be  repeated. 
The  same  considerations  apply  and  the  same  results  would  follow  a re- 
duction of  the  duty.  If  the  zinc  miners  and  smelters  of  the  United 
States  can  compete  with  foreign  at  its  present  price  (5f  New  York)  it  is 
all  they  can  do. 

It  is  also  submitted  that  the  expectation  that  the  price  of  lead  and 
spelter  to  consumers  at  large  would  be  permanently  reduced  by  a re- 
moval of  the  tariff,  is  a delusion.  Doubtless  low  prices  would  rule  long 
‘enough  to  ruin  the  present  mining  and  smelting  industries,  to  drive  thou- 
sands of  miners  and  unskilled  artisans  into  the  ranks  of  unskilled  labor, 
and  to  reduce  the  earnings  of  unskilled  labor;  but  the  foreign  producers 
and  operators  in  these  metals  have  them  well  in  hand,  and,  after  having 
removed  competition  by  closing  our  mines  and  furnaces,  no  reason  ap- 
pears why  prices  could  not  be  pushed  to  and  maintained  by  them  at  a 
higher  price  than  now. 

The  following  is  a table  of  the  prices  of  lead  in  New  York  for  the  years 
1877-1881,  inclusive: 


Price  of  common  domestic  lead  in  New  Yorlc. 


Months. 


January. . . 
February. . 
March 

April 

May 

June  

July 

August 

September. 
October  . . . 
November. 
December . 


1877. 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

Per  lb. 

Per  lb. 

Per  lb. 

Per  lb. 

Per  lb. 

$0  06i 

$0  04J 

$0  041 

$0  06 

$0  05 

6f 

3f 

4f 

6 

4f 

6f 

3! 

4 

51 

4f 

®a 

3| 

3 

5f 

4f 

5| 

31 

3 

4| 

4f 

of 

3f 

3! 

4f 

4| 

5f 

3| 

4 

4§‘ 

5 

5 

3f 

4| 

4| 

5 

4| 

3f 

4 

4£ 

51 

4§ 

3f 

5i 

4f 

5f 

4f 

3£ 

02 

51 

51 

H 

4 

5| 

5| 

51 

I desire  to  say  further,  that  in  the  limited  time  given  to  us  we  have 
only  been  able  to  present  this  subject  to  you  in  a very  general  way,  and 
only  one  particular  phase  of  it.  It  would  be  more  satisfactory  to  pre- 
sent tables  showing  the  actual  cost  of  manufacturing  pig  lead  and 
spelter,  and  showing  the  exact  wages  paid,  the  amount  paid  to  the 
miners  for  the  ore,  the  cost  also  of  producing  the  ore,  so  far  as  we  could 
get  at  it,  and  the  cost  of  producing  a like  amount  of  foreign  product. 


1248 


TARIFF  COMMISSION. 


[O.  H.  PICHES. 


To  confess  the  truth,  we  have,  perhaps,  been  relying  upon  what  we 
know  are  the  individual  merits  of  our  case,  and  have  not  realized  that 
there  was  any  particular  danger  in  the  agitation  of  the  tariff  question. 
The  matter,  therefore,  has  not  been  sufficiently  agitated  up  to  the  present 
time,  and  our  case  has  not  been  made  out  as  strongly  as  I think  it  could 
be.  I will  say  to  you  on  behalf  of  the  association  which  I represent, 
which  is  an  association  organized  for  this  purpose,  that  we  have  secured 
the  services  of  an  expert,  and  we  will,  as  soon  as  possible,  present  to 
you  these  tabulated  figures.  In  regard  to  pig-lead,  we  have  not  had 
time  to  communicate  with  the  representatives  of  other  associations. 
The  lead  ores  of  Southwestern  Missouri  and  Southeastern  Kansas, 
which  I represent,  are  in  an  entirely  different  condition  from  those  of 
Southeastern  Missouri,  where  the  cost  of  mining  and  manufacturing 
can  be  arrived  at  quite  accurately.  We  will  also  try  to  have  these  par- 
ticular interests  represented  to  you  in  a more  detailed  manner  at  a fu- 
ture time. 


